Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by cyphar 11 days ago
Well-funded criminal networks like the ones in the video you linked would have little issue if all e2ee chat apps disappeared tomorrow, they have enough money and operational incentives to pay someone to make custom encrypted chat apps (not to mention the myriad of open source ones available).

The only people actually hurt by banning e2ee are regular people.

> It's like trying to pretend people are shopping for regular items on .onion webshops rather than for contraband. I'm sure that crowd exists, but like, who are we trying to fool here exactly?

Based on public metrics, 3% of Tor traffic is .onion traffic and it is incredibly likely the vast majority of that is the Facebook .onion service (based on some stats posted by Facebook a few years ago).

So no, I think the burden of proof falls on you to show that the vast majority of .onion usage is illegal.
1 comments
perching_aix 11 days ago
Despite that, for some reason, these well funded criminal networks keep buying into these weird phone deals instead. I genuinely don't understand why, but they do.

> So no, I think the burden of proof falls on you to show that the vast majority of .onion usage is illegal.

How does the burden of proof fall on me for a claim I (intentionally) did not make?

link
cyphar 11 days ago
> Despite that, for some reason, these well funded criminal networks keep buying into these weird phone deals instead. I genuinely don't understand why, but they do.

Given how many of them have been CIA honeypots, they must have amazing marketing.

> How does the burden of proof fall on me for a claim I (intentionally) did not make?

Nice trick -- make a very clear implication and claim that you didn't make a positive claim.

link
perching_aix 11 days ago
The implication (representing a belief, not a claim) was about the nature of item purchases on .onion webshops (that they're primarily contraband), not about the composition of .onion or Tor traffic. If anything, the attempt to pivot to that was a trick.

You may still fault me for mixing in beliefs into an argument, it is of poor form from me. Up to you. But then I don't think sentiments are just pure hard logic and evidence, so it'd have been potentially more dishonest from me to exclude it than to not.

link