Parliamentary Office of Science & Technology tells Cameron Tor is good, unstoppable



That explains it. Cameron doesn’t want any dissidents interfering with his rule in the UK.


You should probably stop telling people that Tor is good. Tor isn’t as strong as people once believed and it isn’t fixable. I certainly wouldn’t suggest anybody rely on it for privacy or anonymity these days.

Somebody who takes your advice and uses it for something for which they truly need anonymity could very well end up in a lot of trouble.

It’s an interesting technology and its flaws make for a great case study in the difficulty of cryptographic design, but that’s about it.

1 Like

Because regulating cryptography has never caused problems before!

1 Like

This ain’t a post about flawed cryptography, this is a post about some political boob trying to ban (even flawed) cryptogrpahy by fearmongering in an effort to assert state monopoly over communications. KEEP UP, FRANCIS. :stuck_out_tongue:

How so? Am I being dim? I can’t see how this is so.

Wow, I somehow missed that initial article, though I have been very caught up in the USG’s attempts to do the very same thing, albeit, at a much more watered down level… and going against the capital they actually have, due to disclosures about their rightness on issues in regards to hacking and cyber espionage, and invading other countries of extraordinary strategic significance in highly volatile regions.

Not sure what capital there the UK has, either. Both seem to be very bankrupt, yet both seem to be sailing on by continuing to run up bills on credit I wonder at how they still have…

I have seen a number of atrocious stories coming from the UK in terms of surveillance & privacy, on censorship, which are totally ludicrous. I have had it explained to me by tech savvy brits that the reason for the immense stupidity is because they have a very large, aging population who have difficulty putting two and two together to make an equitable sum.

Both nations clearly are seeing as the pathway to the future as a sort of time machine to the past: they wish to drive their nations backwards in progress to far more savage times, probably even worse then what their people suffered in the 19th century, and surely reversing all trends of progress made in the last century.

Still, great opportunity for super massive profit making by shorting these moves. Such hideously dumb bets with such leverage are perfect high risk opportunities for investors that feed on the blood of the rich and the stupid.

Should North Korea and Pol Pot’s Cambodia be considered the “way of the future” models for the US and UK? Well, their leaders are apparently very enamored of exactly those systems.

Short term high gain possibilities for themselves, with little to no understanding of the risk, high pay out for shorters, but true misery for those creditors actually putting the necessary stock in these very deeply morally bankrupt fools.


I get that. Cory added the “Tor is Good” part and that kind of disinformation might be putting people in danger.

Tor isn’t good. Don’t rely on it.

That’s probably why the UK police are suddenly so okay with it. Tor gives persons of interest a false sense of security, which in turns keeps those persons from seeking a more effective solution.


Rather than meaning “Tor works”, “Tor is good” means “Tor is not evil.”

Is there any strong crypto that works? Key management seems to be only one of the many problems with keeping secrets.


From a users point of view, Tor is evil because it gives one a false sense of security.

Is there any strong crypto that works?

Yes! Lots of it in fact. That’s the main reason why governments can’t really do much to prevent people from using cryptography. It’s just mathematics and is very well understood by lots of people. Plus, there are many excellent open source libraries to build on.

If you search for it, the EFF has a very good scorecard on the various services out there.

Privacy is easy. Anonymity is hard.


Some people are horrified if one innocent person is punished. Others are horrified if one guilty person is not. Which is worse - the false positive, or false negative?

1 Like

This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.