Group Wants To Shut Down Tor For a Day On September 1 (softpedia.com) 229
An anonymous reader writes: An internal group at the Tor Project is calling for a full 24-hour shutdown of the Tor network to protest the way the Tor Project dealt with the Jake Applebaum sexual misconduct accusations, and because of recent rumors it might be letting former government agents in its ranks. Two Tor members, also node operators, have shut down their servers as well, because of the same reason. They explained their motivations here and here.
"The protesters have made 16 demands," according to the article, six related to related to supposed infiltration of Tor by government agents, and 10 regarding the Appelbaum ruling and investigation -- including "asking all Tor employees that participated in this investigation to leave" and "the persons behind the JacobAppelbaum.net and the @JakeMustDie and @VictimsOfJake Twitter accounts to come forward and their identities made public."
"The protesters have made 16 demands," according to the article, six related to related to supposed infiltration of Tor by government agents, and 10 regarding the Appelbaum ruling and investigation -- including "asking all Tor employees that participated in this investigation to leave" and "the persons behind the JacobAppelbaum.net and the @JakeMustDie and @VictimsOfJake Twitter accounts to come forward and their identities made public."
Shut it down, or control it going up (Score:2, Insightful)
If a substantial part of the Tor network is shutdown, you can bet that any one of a number of parties are going to keep a careful eye on how things come back up.
If there is a flaw in Tor, they might be able to de-anonymize users and nodes by watching them connect again for the first time.
On Hobbes and the Hamiltonians (Score:1)
We live under a government created under principles that Hobbes came up with and while others views of man were too optimistic, Hobbes view of Man in nature reflected his poor home life growing up and he had no sense of how families actually work. I have said that I will be family for anyone who will be family for me, and that simply does not fit into Hobbes' philosophy. The Hamiltonians played dirty when
Re: (Score:3)
Medicine interferes with the natural experience of dying from dysentry or infected papercuts. Clothes interfere with the natural experience of freezing, and food production with the natural experience of starving. Houses interfere with the natural experience
I can't decide (Score:5, Insightful)
"the persons behind the JacobAppelbaum.net and the @JakeMustDie and @VictimsOfJake Twitter accounts to come forward and their identities made public."
Since we're talking about Tor, I can't decide whether these demands are ironic or are hypocritical.
Re: (Score:2)
PsyOp? (Score:3)
Re:PsyOp? (Score:5, Insightful)
Seems to me like the govt has managed to destroy trust within the Tor community.
If so, they did a service. Trust is a bad thing for anonymity. A perfect system would be one where you don't have to trust anyone else.
Re: (Score:2)
Most people have no choice but to trust the system. They are not programmers or crytographers, they have to rely on others verifying the system is secure. Most people have jobs and lives so inevitably the majority of people looking closely at the system will be working for Tor.
It's not ideal, but it's the way things are.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You're comment is asinine. People have to have trust in the people they are working with. There is no community without trust. There is a difference between trusting technology and trusting people you work with.
There sure is a difference. You can inspect technology and find it to be safe. You can do no such thing with people, who inherently are untrustworthy.
One of the main problems with humans and trust is that the people you trust will trust other people, who in turn trust other people, ad infinitum. In effect, you are only six steps away from Kevin Bacon, I mean John O. Brennan, and the trust you show humans extends all the way into CIA/NSA/SVR.
Read the Tor stinks document from 2007 (Score:3, Interesting)
First off, read the Tor stinks document. This outlines how the NSA and GCHQ intended to attack Tor:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/interactive/2013/oct/04/tor-stinks-nsa-presentation-document
Keep in mind this document was 2007, so all of that was already done a long time ago. In particular note they intended to add many more of their own nodes and shape the traffic to ensure they could force a routing.
All the attacks, ONIONBREATH attack on hidden servers, increasing the Tor nodes they control (NEWTONCRADLE
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, show how reliable Tor is (Score:1)
By shutting it down? Is it that easy? Good way to build confidence!
Has to be some kind of joke.
The first rebuttal (Score:4, Insightful)
Why are there only six? (Score:2)
And yet there's ten demands about the Appelbaum investigation.
It seems like government agents infiltrating Tor would be a bigger concern....
Re: (Score:2)
They're supposedly concerned that government agents have actually infiltrated Tor -- and yet they only have six demands that are related to that.
And yet there's ten demands about the Appelbaum investigation.
Perhaps the number of concerns about each issue dont reflect the severity of their concern for each issue.
We would have to read the actual words to work it out i guess ... i like numbers too.
Mission accomplished (Score:2)
Fear, uncertainty and doubt sown.
Principals divided.
While focus and energy is diverted to the search for "truth", the real truth is that fewer people will trust their secrets to Tor as a result.
Mission accomplished.
Wheels within wheels (Score:3)
It sounds like these protesters need to figure out what it is they're protesting. And their demanding that an online accounts should have their "identities made public" sounds a little bit incongruous with Tor's own mission.
Shutting down Tor to protest an attack on Tor sounds like they really haven't thought this thing through, regardless of their agenda. It's not like a one-day boycott of Tor is going to cost Tor money or anything, so it's not really putting any pressure on the elements within the project that they want to force out. Plus, as other people have pointed out, it hurts Tor users more than it hurts the people they want to hurt.
Finally, the dumbness of their manifesto calls into question the validity of their claims. We don't have to worry about the government trying to destroy Tor as long as they're doing such a bang-up job all on their own.
Why do activiest want to destroy what helps them? (Score:2)
I meant it. they're cutting off their hand because someone else bound the other.
I've been following this closely and ... (Score:1)
The accusations against Jacob are filled with half truths and lies.
He may be a womaniser but calling him a rapist is insane.
I don't know if they're government agents, but people like Isis are definitely trying to take over the Tor project and push out everybody who won't submit to them
TOR Connection (Score:1)
Shut down TOR? Wait, what does any of this have to do with illegal drugs, murder for hire, trolling forums and IRC, or child pornography?
Stop the Bullshit (Score:4, Interesting)
Stop the Bullshit.
We need tor. Tor needs developers. Tor needs developers, which work together.
The best case for any agency is when the developers distrust each other and work against each other.
Whatever Appelbaum did or did not do, it's not in our interest, that this stops the work for tor.
Read this: https://cryptome.org/2012/07/g... [cryptome.org]
Really read this. This list contains some of the things you're seeing here. How to disturb groups and prevent them from working efficicently, how to get them to fight each other instead of fighting their enemy.
Keep your personal conflicts personal and continue to work against the threats we're facing.
Re: (Score:3)
Best resolution of the Appelbaum case?
Let a court decide.
If the victims don't go to court, they decide themself not to do so and should not accuse him publicly for something they do not want to have in court.
If they go to court, we will get a fair trial with some result. Possibly that appelbaum is a rapist. The court will find out. But afterwards we have a decision we can trust on and shut up with rumors from the one or the other side.
Re: (Score:2)
The point is: Neither you nor the employer can really decide what's the truth. They do not know all facts and they should not know all the facts.
We need to trust courts, because if we don't, we cannot resolve anything in any non-anarchic way.
So, let's trust a court and let the court decide. And then we accept the decision, if he's guilty or innocent.
And we say he's innocent until proven to be guilty.
When somebody obviously avoids to go to court, you could suspect, that they have nothing which would stand in
Shut it down, shut it ALL down! (Score:1)
Also, all power plants that can be suspected to supply power to computers running TOR, should be shut down.
Just until we can find out what the hell is going on, and not a day longer.
Also, all public transportation that can suspected to be used by people using computers running TOR, should be shut down.
Just until we can find out what the hell is going on, and not a day longer.
Also, all breathing air that can suspected to be used by people using computers running TOR, should be pumped out.
Just until we can
That is exactly what was expected of Jake Applebau (Score:5, Informative)
I followed the story and read the accounts of the accusers back when the news broke. The modus operandi (sending acolytes to pressure someone) is exactly what Applebaum did.
The major point of the accusers wasn't that Applebaum raped someone. The major thing was that he was being such a giant asshole to some (many) individuals, bullying and pressuring them, that it crossed into abuse. And he mostly did that in front of witnesses. So people knew. All the website did was assemble a list and also show that those that were abused suffered a lot as a result.
It mainly served to wake up the people that witnessed a lot of the abuse (those working with him in Berlin) and force them into action.
If you knew anything about abuse, then you know very well that there is a huge grey area inside relationships (both as friends, partners and families) that do not fit neatly into the criminal law, but that could still greatly hurt the victims of such abuse.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Being a social asshole, no matter how severe, does NOT give you the right to retaliate with FALSE RAPE CHARGES.
Re: (Score:3)
Applebaum was not let go over false rape charges, but over a long history of abuse of multiple people. Rape may or may have been part of his conduct.
Re: (Score:1)
He was sacked after Emerson Tan made a rape attempt allegation claiming Jacob had attempted to rape Jill. Jill denies the claim, it was mutual she says. Says Emerson was mistaken.
"Rape may or may have been part of his conduct."
And you change Emersons false claim of *attempted* rape into a false claim of *actual* rape.
You're very obvious about it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
There are countless stories of bullying in high school and its devastating effects here on Slashdot every week. Yet here we have a bully in a social setting being defended, because he may have not clearly broken any laws or it may be impossible to prove his most devastating actions in a criminal trial.
So all is fine and his "victims" should just suck it up? He should be heralded, because he is a football hero, er, "leader"?
Re: (Score:1)
He didn't rape or attempt to rape Jill. *she* is not a victim, she made it clear Han and Meredith's claim was wrong. Jacob is the victim here of an orchestrated smear of which you are a part.
"Yet here we have a bully in a social setting being defended,"
You are attempting to switch the now discredited rape claim to a generic bullying claim. I am not defending a school bully, I am defending a person who is the victim of your smear attack.
I raughed (Score:2)
A boar yes, a rapist, no. (Score:1)
It can be agreed that Jacob Appelbaum has poor etiquette but it is highly doubtful he is a rapist. I have read the statements from the women. This does not seem to be sexual assault, rather confused women who entered dubious situations at worst. They got very close to him, entered a bed with him, got into a bathroom with him, got drunk at an orgy with him. Pretty dubious stuff. Of course the women can also express a firm "no" at any time and leave. Was he coercive, guilty of poor comments, and taking initia
SHUT THEM DOWN! (Score:3)
Yes, if you run a tor node and you don't want to keep it up, take it down. You should be removed from the tor network.
The same goes for root DNS server or TLD server operators. If you don't want to keep it up, take it down. It will be removed from the network.
Being a part of something doesn't mean you provide a service and if you're unable or unwilling to do so reliably then you'll be removed. If you thought this was your method of expressing your political thoughts you were wrong.
Jacob Applebaum may have done bad things, but he certainly didn't take down the tor network for a day. These self-absorbed aholes are much much worse than anything he did because they want to impact millions of people in thousands of countries so they can have their sick moment of SJW fantasy.
Sorry. If you can't run a server without wanting to keep it up, you should be removed from the network.
The Internet views censorship as damage and routes around it -- famous saying which applies ever more to this.
E
The biggest news (Score:3)
is that the TOR network is so badly designed it apparently can be switched off entirely by a central authority.
Re: (Score:2)
It can't, this is just a call for people to voluntarily refrain from using it, turn off their nodes etc. There is no off switch.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I wouldn't put it quite that way, but I cant help but note the usual crowd banging on about "cucks" and "SJWs" or whatever the meaningless /pol/ slur of the week is yet again complaining about sexual assault being investigated.
Thankfully these people are in a minority, but good god do they like to make a noise.
Re:Rape sympathizers (Score:5, Insightful)
Your projection is incredible. The only people inventing meaningless slurs are the ones that throw out shit like "neckbeard" or "pissbaby" or "fuckboy", and lynch mobs are not investigations.
Face it, rape accusations have become THE form of character assassination. It's the new "witch". There's no evidence, proving your innocence is impossible, and the mere accusation is a death sentence.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
What is your solution? Don't allow people to make rape allegations? I don't think that is either fair or possible.
In situations like this the only way forward is to investigate. Applelbaum hasn't even bothered to deny any specific allegations, or make any kind of defence really. I'm sorry, but all we can do is evaluate the claims on the evidence we have. Multiple, corroborating stories that can be linked to specific times and places where he made public appearances with the victims.
We can't simply ignore th
Re: (Score:2)
What is your solution? Don't allow people to make rape allegations? I don't think that is either fair or possible.
Treat it like any other allegation. Innocent until proven guilty and all that.
Re: (Score:2)
That's what they have done. Note that being treated as innocent until proven guilty does not mean no investigation or suspension during the investigation.
Re: (Score:2)
> innocent until proven guilty
Well, except for the part where your name and face are published over all forms of media with giant captions like 'RAPIST?'... sorta ruins vast portions of your life if you are innocent. So yeah... innocent, but a pariah to everyone except the greatest of friends and family.
Re: (Score:2)
I accuse you of murder, people ask where's the body? I accuse you of rape and the lynch mob is ready to go in 5 seconds flat.
Of course if you are accused of something it should be investigated properly by the relevant peopl
Re: (Score:1)
Treat it like any other allegation. Innocent until proven guilty and all that.
Go fuck yourself with a toothpick.
Innocent until proven guilty is a legal principle, under which we expect courts to operate. It is not a guiding principle for anyone else. Nor does anyone else need keep themselves to the same standards evidence.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's literally what lynch mobs and the KKK said [spiked-online.com].
Re:Rape sympathizers (Score:5, Insightful)
What is your solution? Don't allow people to make rape allegations? I don't think that is either fair or possible.
It's telling that you truly can't tell the difference between not completely unpersoning someone because of anonymous smears that even the alleged victim has publicly (and non-anonymously) rebuked as being complete horseshit, with the people portrayed as heroes and saviors actually being pretty shitty to her, and not allowing anyone to make rape allegations.
In situations like this the only way forward is to investigate. Applelbaum hasn't even bothered to deny any specific allegations, or make any kind of defence really. I'm sorry, but all we can do is evaluate the claims on the evidence we have. Multiple, corroborating stories that can be linked to specific times and places where he made public appearances with the victims.
If I made an anonymous webpage accusing you of everything from jaywalking to pedophilia and raised up a lynch mob to ostracize and unperson you would you exhaustively deny and refute everything or simply turn away in utter disgust?
This isn't evidence. NOTHING about this is evidence. These aren't "multiple corroborating stories", they're anonymous smears with absolutely no evidence that have already been completely rejected by the woman they're about. It's trivially easy to simply make up multiple stories with a handful of real details. If I knew you in real life I could do it in a single afternoon. Would that make it true? No, it wouldn't, EVIDENCE would make it true. Anonymous accusations are not evidence.
Say it with me again: Accusations are not evidence. Accusations NEED evidence.
That's the fundamental problem with your ideology, you treat accusations AS evidence and thus always reach a guilty verdict even when the woman those accusations are made on behalf of personally and publicly rebukes the entire thing as being total horseshit.
Which is, by the way, the only evidence we have so far: The woman who was supposedly the victim in all of this has completely denied the entire thing, told the real story of what happened to her, and even pointed out that the people supposedly "protecting" her were behaving shitty towards her and trying to force her into a role of agency-less victimhood.
As for slurs, why don't you start by not ever calling anyone an "SJW" again? Take the high ground.
First people demanded that nobody refer to that ideology and its adherents as feminists. So the term SJW was invented. Now you demand nobody use the term "SJW" and act as if it were a slur like neckbeard, fuckboy, pissbaby, and all the other identity-based slurs invented by SJWs. If another new term were invented you would demand nobody use that either.
What you're doing is nothing more than attempting to stifle dissent by making it impossible to even name or discuss your ideology and in-group. It's the exact same as if the GOP were to claim everyone using the words "neoliberal economics" or "trickle down economics" were terrorists.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you sure you have the right case? You keep referring to "the victim" and "the woman", as if there is only one. Are you actually familiar with the facts of this case?
Allegations are used as evidence in court all the time. The people involved give their accounts of what happened, and those accounts are tested and evaluated, checked against other available evidence and each other for consistency and probability. While it would be nice if every case as decided on hard evidence, it is actually quite unusual
Re: (Score:2)
allegations are used as evidence in court all the time.
That's literally the exact opposite of how trials work. A trial is held to determine if an allegation is true beyond a reasonable doubt. Allegations are not evidence, allegations must be proven true beyond a reasonable doubt BY evidence, and the accused has a right to confront those making the allegations, compell testimony, and be provided with all exculpatory evidence.
By your logic all I need to do is make a website called Amimojoisarapist.com and fill it with anonymous smears against you. Here, I'll star
Re: (Score:2)
Do you understand what testimony is? It is someone alleging that something happened and giving an account of it. Maybe you have seen courts on TV where people give testimony and it is weighed as evidence.
I accuse Amimojo of rape and sexual harassment.
Okay, where is your evidence? If you don't provide any, even just a description of what you claimed happened, all you have done is discredit yourself.
shoving old men off ledges after screaming a false accusation of sexual assault (caught on live video)
This I have to see. You really must provide a link to this video, you can't just let wild accusations like that slide with a flippant "google it".
See Shadow,
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Do you understand what testimony is? It is someone alleging that something happened and giving an account of it. Maybe you have seen courts on TV where people give testimony and it is weighed as evidence.
Testimony is a material witness saying what they saw with the chance for cross examination and mandatory production of exculpatory evidence, with lots of limitations such as hearsay, as well as the opportunity to counter the testimony or impeach the credibility of the witness or testimony. It's not anonymous allegations which the alleged victim has already completely rejected.
Okay, where is your evidence? If you don't provide any, even just a description of what you claimed happened, all you have done is discredit yourself.
You're supporting rape culture. Believe victims. False rape accusations never happen. etc.
This I have to see. You really must provide a link to this video, you can't just let wild accusations like that slide with a flippant "google it".
Already linked below by ArylAkamov.
See Shadow, this is your modus operandi. Post some bullshit, redefine words in your own head, provide zero evidence because apparently you don't even know what evidence is, and then accuse others of doing all those things.
A feminist tells you clearly that they don't believe what you think they believe, and you simply call them a liar and claim they must be the evil horrible people you think they are. What the hell is wrong with you?
I posted
Re: (Score:2)
You still seem to be under the misconception that there is one victim here. You should try to familiarise yourself with the case before commenting on it.
Re: (Score:2)
You seem to be ignoring that they got caught flat out lying.
Re: (Score:2)
By your logic all I need to do is make a website called Amimojoisarapist.com and fill it with anonymous smears against you. Here, I'll start right now: I accuse Amimojo of rape and sexual harassment.
I too have been raped by AmiMoJo. (in case it isn't obvious /sarcasm).
Re: (Score:2)
There. We've got two accusations corroborating each other already. We can each make a couple more accounts or post as ACs and there's six to ten.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
My ears are still open for a more accurate term.
That's missing the point. Instead of labelling, respond to the questions put and rebut the arguments made.
What about rape cultures? You have no problem with presuming every time an assigned male starts conversation with a womyn-born-womyn that he's trying to rape her?
That's not what rape culture is. I can explain it if you like, but it's probably easier if you just read the Wikipedia article [wikipedia.org] about. Pay careful attention to the "Effects on Men" section. Rape culture theory holds that all men are NOT rapists, the exact opposite in fact, and that the stereotypes which pressure men to behave like that are part of what is called "toxic masculinity".
It's literally the exa
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that there is "Rape Culture" which is the academic and thoroughly intellectualized concept. And then there is just a handy term that gets used as a bludgeon. The same is true of "Cultural Appropriation". It's a narrow and specific concept but then a bunch of people who took a class once read it and like all things that someone once took a class on without actually thoroughly learning, they start applying it willy nilly until the concept is thoroughly generalized to just mean "bad people do
Re: (Score:2)
That's missing the point. Instead of labelling, respond to the questions put and rebut the arguments made.
Again: All you're doing is trying to stifle all dissent by controlling the very language used to speak. Imagine the same were done with republicans and trickle down economics. Try having an argument about economic policy when you're not even allowed to say "trickle down economics" or name the theory in any way.
That's not what rape culture is. I can explain it if you like, but it's probably easier if you just read the Wikipedia article [wikipedia.org] about. Pay careful attention to the "Effects on Men" section. Rape culture theory holds that all men are NOT rapists, the exact opposite in fact, and that the stereotypes which pressure men to behave like that are part of what is called "toxic masculinity".
It's literally the exact opposite of what you think.
That's literally exactly what rape culture is. It's the theory that all men everywhere support and condone rape as a means to terrorize and oppress women just for being women. Feminism holds that all
Re: (Score:2)
Ironically you accuse me of trying to redefine language to stifle debate, and then go on to re-define well established terms in feminist theory because you have no counter argument to make against a well referenced and cited Wikipedia article.
All I'm asking is that you provide some sort of evidence that your definition is the accurate one, rather than the one put forward by a vast body of academic writing on the subject. That's not stifling debate, that's asking you to give us something beyond your personal
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not redefining anything, I'm describing things based on what they are in the real world. Redefining things to stifle rebate is feminism redefining sexism to exclude its own conduct and declaring "feminism = equality". Observing that in the real world feminism is violent and anti-equality isn't redefining anything.
Re: (Score:3)
Your projection is incredible. The only people inventing meaningless slurs are the ones that throw out shit like "neckbeard" or "pissbaby" or "fuckboy", and lynch mobs are not investigations.
Lucky we aren't talking about a lynch mob then. We are talking about people wanting to distance themselves from a disturbed individual. Nothing more, nothing less. That's how the world works.
And how are your slurs relevant here? Never heard pissbaby nor fuckboy before, did you just make them up? Those that spout SJW (which is anybody that thinks women have any right to anything judging the idiots using the word here and elsewhere) and try to portrait men who doesn't like sexual misconduct or even (gasp!) ra
Re: (Score:2)
Lucky we aren't talking about a lynch mob then. We are talking about people wanting to distance themselves from a disturbed individual. Nothing more, nothing less. That's how the world works.
And out comes the dissembly and revisionist history. This wasn't about people wanting to distance themselves from someone, this was about an anonymous mob engaging in mass public character assassination using stories that even the supposed victim publicly called bullshit on. But even with the woman herself saying these stories were almost wholly fabrications and the self-claimed good guys were shitty people who treated her poorly the attempt at character assassination and total social/political/business ost
Re: Rape sympathizers (Score:1)
Nice word twisting.
I'm sure that's exactly what they meant with their analogy /s.
Re: (Score:2)
Nice word twisting.
If he didn't mean to trivialise rape accusations it is not my failing that OP is either functionally illiterate or unable to grasp the logical implications of his statements. I don't believe he is necessarily either ... he meant to write exactly what he wrote.
So basically you're in the crowd that seems to thing a rape allegation is bulletproof and no one should dare question such a horrible thing even though it's been proven and known that a rape allegation is an easy way to get rid of someone and has been used against all kind of people. OP's point was pretty clear and you're basically confirming it.
Re: (Score:2)
Bullshit. But you WJS (Warriors against Justice of the Social kind) always try to portrait rape victims as liars. That's the "she dressed wrong", "she shouldn't have walked in that neighborhood", "she secretly wanted it" arguments again.
In the real world a rape accusation is not only thoroughly examined but relatively (compared to other crimes) likely to be thrown out of court. Many never report rapes due to the examination. That's the truth. You and your ilk running around pretending false rape accusations
Re: (Score:2)
Potential pedophile? (Score:1)
You make a compelling accusation, but then I imagined that you might be a pedophile, therefore I cannot believe anything you say, because I don't listen to pedophiles. So we'll just start telling all your coworkers that while we have no idea whether it's true or not, we heard you might be a pedophile, so you know, we all need to treat you like an outcast without actually accusing you of anything or giving you any chance to clear your name, ever.
We're also just ignoring the fact that the accusers have avoid
It's Tor That Didn't Want it Investigated (Score:5, Insightful)
I wouldn't put it quite that way, but I cant help but note the usual crowd banging on about "cucks" and "SJWs" or whatever the meaningless /pol/ slur of the week is yet again complaining about sexual assault being investigated.
If anything, they're complaining that the police didn't investigate--because they were never called--yet headlines were written as if there'd been a trial with a guilty verdict.
Are you really surprised that the "crowd" complains when they see potentially life-ruining sexual assault allegations handed over to a private company hired by Tor to do a secret investigation, instead of the justice system?
Re: (Score:2)
That secret investigation they did in public, releasing as much information as possible without doxing the people involved? That one?
I don't think involving the police would help here. Aside from anything else, if the US gets hold of Appelbaum he could be hit with decades of jail time for his involvement in the Snowden leaks. If that happened, can you imagine the accusations and conspiracy theories?
Re: (Score:2)
Aside from anything else, if the US gets hold of Appelbaum he could be hit with decades of jail time for his involvement in the Snowden leaks
You mean like all the other people who weren't arrested or charged with a crime for the Snowden leaks? I don't see Greenwald hiding from the US court system, in fact he travels in and out of the US without an issue. What exactly would they be charged with? Only Snowden broke the law, and only Snowden violated his NDA.
Re: (Score:3)
It is the individuals in question that have to contact the police. There are nothing strange how this was handled _except_ that the project management delayed the investigation for so long.
WAKE UP! THIS IS HOW THINGS HAPPEN HERE IN THE REAL WORLD!
Re: (Score:2)
It might help your understanding of the situation to understand that the CIA and NSA now use fake rape and sexual assault/harassment claims as their preferred method of character assassination (much easier, less messy, and just as effective as actual assassination). It happened to the poor bastard IMF head who made the VERY stupid mistake of challenging the supremacy of the U.S. Dollar [theguardian.com]. It also happened to Julian Assange and others.
No tin-foil hats here. It's just their modern way of doing business. So any
Re: Rape sympathizers (Score:2, Interesting)
It's not clear that the allegations against Assange are false. (It's not clear that they are true either.) What is clear is that Assange being pursued by Swedish authorities is purely political and that hey does have a legitimate fear of his extradition to the US should he face these allegations in Sweden - because Swedish authorities have an abysmal track record when it comes to handling sexual assault cases. That does not mean, however, that he didn't do it. You can be guilty of sexual assault _and_ be pe
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
So please stop claiming that the allegations against Assange are false - you simply don't know that (and probably never will).
Assange had claimed that. The "victim" claimed that as well. The first prosecutor declined to prosecute. Seems everyone involved agreed that the allegations were false.
But after the US spoke to Sweden, a new prosecutor was selected, who did decide to go ahead with the prosecution. And the new prosecutor has not followed standard procedure for interviewing someone in a foreign country, or much of any standard process.
Re: Rape sympathizers (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Assange committed a "crime" that isn't a crime in the US. He lied to a woman to convince her to have sex with him. Apparently that's "rape" in Sweden, and not in the US.
Nope, that's a lie. He had sex with an unconscious woman, knowing that before she fell asleep, she told him 'no'. And not only is that a crime in Sweden, it's also a crime in the US. And it's also a crime in the UK, where Assange tried exactly the defense you're offering: he said that because she didn't fight him off later, it shouldn't be a crime. The UK High Court, in its opinion upholding extradition, stated:
Our view is, as we have set out, that a jury would be entitled to find that consent to sexual intercourse with a condom is not consent to sexual intercourse without a condom which affords protection. As the conduct set out in the EAW alleges that Mr Assange knew SW would only have sex if a condom was used, the allegation that he had sexual intercourse with her without a condom would amount to an allegation of rape in England and Wales.
As the EAW sets out the circumstance that SW was asleep, s.75 which applies to rape is also material: [quote of statute removed].
As it is alleged SW was asleep, then she is not to be taken not to have consented to sexual intercourse.
Re: (Score:3)
What is clear is that Assange being pursued by Swedish authorities is purely political and that hey does have a legitimate fear of his extradition to the US should he face these allegations in Sweden
The giant gaping hole in this conspiracy theory is Assange was in the UK before he fled to the Ecuadoran embassy. The UK being one of the US's closest allies, and who have cooperated many, many, many, many times on clandestine matters and criminal matters.
If the US wanted Assange so badly, the UK would have happily arrested him and sent him to the US with a bow stuck to his head.
Re: (Score:1)
If he is guilty then he can burn as far as I'm concerned. A website with stories do not prove guilt.
But the fact that other named people in the organisation have independently confirmed the stories on said website must put us on notice at least.
It should be uncontroversial that a final determination of guilt as regards criminal liability must be left to a court working to a criminal level of proof. However, having read these fairly disturbing stories, then gone out and spoken to the people involved who c
Cart before horse. (Score:1)
Why do the people corroborating the accusations deserve our trust either?
Wrong presumption. One starts by presuming the truth of a witness statement and then goes on to challenge the statement either on factual grounds or by impugning the character and reliability of the witness. Just as the accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty, the evidence led to prove that guilt is presumed true until proven false.
The original witness statements were challenged on the grounds that they could be the work o
Re: (Score:1)
When dealing with a case where very powerful intelligence agencies have a strong interest in discrediting the accused, you may want to rethink automatically taking that position.
On the contrary! The temptation to betray ones own mind into conspiratorial thinking, which risk is perhaps nowhere more alive than when dealing "powerful intelligence agencies" should make us all the more desperate for solid evidence. And all the more grateful to those like Edward Snowden who provide it.
Because... reasons (Score:5, Insightful)
Why should everyone who uses Tor to protect their anonymity be punished because of Jacob Applebaum and the people who apparently didn't respond to his misconduct appropriately?
Because by setting this controversy in front of the world, they may generate more interest and scrutiny into the matter.
The linked text points out many potential injustices and red flags, such as the hiring of two possible CIA operatives to the TOR project. It's important that all of this gets scrutinized and possibly sorted out, so that we don't end up with an insecure TOR that the CIA can eavesdrop on.
And by inconveniencing people, it might start a paradigm that people can use in future situations. Punishing someone based on accusations; ie - getting away from "innocent until proven guilty", gives enormous power to your enemies. If your opponents want to wreck you, all they have to do is gin up some accusations.
Future situations may be able to look back on this moment and think "let's wait until we have something concrete", rather than knee-jerk react in the cause of Social Justice.
Doing this is a good thing. They should turn off TOR one day a week until it's sorted out.
Re: (Score:1)
TOR != Tor
It is Tor, not TOR.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Punishing someone based on accusations; ie - getting away from "innocent until proven guilty", gives enormous power to your enemies.
I love how the initiator and cheerleaders for something almost always end up the ones against it. Innocent until proven guilty (though never practiced fully with Blacks), was abolished by the Republican Conservatives. McCarthy started "guilt by association" and blacklists with no evidence or process. He's not the first ever, but he was the first to mainstream abandonment in the US.
Re:Because... reasons (Score:5, Insightful)
Note that the TOR Project did not punish anyone based on mere accusations. They investigated, verified the times and locations, and asked him about them. When he didn't provide a satisfactory response, or in fact any response, they decided that on the balance of available evidence he could not continue to be part of their organization.
Sorry, but there is no other way it can work. Ignoring it would simply invite criticism for failing to investigate or act, by and organization that inherently does not trust law enforcement and is in fact the target of attacks by it constantly.
It really is the failure to offer any kind of rebuttal to the allegations that got us here. If they were untrue all he would need to do is point out one specific date or event that he wasn't at, or provide one contrary version of events. Much of this behaviour was in public, others could verify. Instead he get nothing but silence from him. How else can this be handled?
Re: (Score:3)
Seems a bit odd to me. to say:
I think this provides a counterexample:
http://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1soorlp [twitlonger.com]
Flat out denying the accusations is.. a response, right?
I'm inclined to sa
Bullshit (Score:5, Insightful)
Did you even read the article? These guys are trying to punish people who helped crack down on rapists. They're rapist sympathizers, which is quite the opposite of "SJWs".
I read all three articles, and it says nothing of the sort.
You're doing this site a disservice by being so intellectually dishonest.
This is Slashdot. Take your sock-puppetry [thedailybeast.com] elsewhere.
Re:SJW Bullshit (Score:5, Informative)
I posted this in another post below, but I just wanted to reiterate it here, for those who might not fully understand the situation.
It might help your understanding of the situation to understand that the CIA and NSA now use fake rape and sexual assault/harassment claims as their preferred method of character assassination (much easier, less messy, and just as effective as actual assassination). It happened to the poor bastard IMF head who made the VERY stupid mistake of challenging the supremacy of the U.S. Dollar [theguardian.com]. It also happened to Julian Assange and others.
No tin-foil hats here. It's just their modern way of doing business. So any time you hear of sex crimes charges against any member of the hacker/security community (or anyone else the NSA or CIA might have a vested interest in silencing or ostracizing), you should be VERY, VERY skeptical of the charges (and take a long hard look at the accusers).
JTRIG document detailed it (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/edward-snowden-revelations-gchq-using-online-viruses-and-honey-traps-to-discredit-targets-9117683.html
"Britain’s GCHQ has a covert unit which uses dirty tricks from “honey trap” sexual liaisons to texting anonymous messages to friends and neighbours to discredit targets from hackers to governments, according to the latest leaks from whistleblower Edward Snowden."
"The covert GCHQ unit - the Joint Intelligence Threat Research Group (JTRIG) - runs what it terms an “Effects” programme against Britain’s enemies under what it calls the four Ds: “Deny/ Disrupt/ Degrade/ Deceive.” The mission of the unit is: “Using online techniques to make something happen in the real or cyber world.”
"Slides from a 2012 presentation, marked Top Secret, outline JTRIG’s role in discrediting targets using both online techniques, such as using blogs to leak confidential information to companies or journalists, and “real life” methods like the honey trap - a time-honoured intelligence trick of luring an individual into a sexual encounter to gain information and leverage, potentially for blackmail."
Jacob has been a target frequently, he's an effective speaker:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vILAlhwUgIU
It's not really a surprise he's a target. It's more, business as usual.
Re:JTRIG document detailed it (Score:5, Insightful)
As always, a useful tip for anyone who may have run afoul of the government (be it the U.S., UK, any any other):
If a new girl seems to come out of nowhere in your life (at a club, at work, at your hotel room door) and tells you she's DTF, think with your head and not your dick.
Re:JTRIG document detailed it (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
And here we have a fine example of a modern conspiracy theory - the NSA is behind any allegations of sexual impropriety against people you favour, your chosen idols couldnt possibly be guilty of anything as uncouth....
Re: (Score:3)
Isn't it supposed to be innocent until proven guilty? What if you were a juror? Would you suddenly find him guilty due to mere allegations without the evidence? Sexual assault is a serious crime that comes with a heavy stigma just for being accused of doing it. Do you really feel comfortable demonizing someone based on "he said, she said" statements? Everyone involved needs to be looked at with a microscope, not just the person being accused.
It's not tinfoil hattery to think the government will use any mean
Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)
How about you fuck off and die? I'm getting tired of clueless shitheads that don't know how the world works and sees conspiracies everywhere. You folk shut up quick in the Hans Reiser case when it became obvious that he did murder his wife (except for a few mentally retarded enough to still see a conspiracy against Linux supported by the Russian government and other shadowy groups).
You could read about this case and realize that there are no conspiracy to shut down the TOR project, just a "conspiracy" to re
Re: (Score:2)
Alright, so you do believe in hearsay that hasn't been vetted outside a court of law. You do think poorly of people who have mere accusations lobbied against them. You could have said that instead of spewing all of the other bullshit that came flowing from your finger tips.
I suppose if someone made a false claim against you, you may feel differently, and you probably deserve it so you can be forced to open your eyes and think critically instead of thinking emotionally.
Re: (Score:2)
Except that Julian Assange actually raped two women, and they had nothing to do with the CIA.
Re: (Score:1)
So where are all the men accusing him? How about even just one?
They are on that site accusing him of sexual assault.
Why is it just these women?
It isn't he is being accused both by women and men.
Admit it, you haven't actually read the accusations, have you?
Re: (Score:2)
You do realize that, just like the internet, TOR was invented by the US government?