Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by wfn 4697 days ago
> And then he offers you to lead tor, with funding, and explains that this is a network that is hard to break ,so even if NSA can break it, it wouldn't do it for silly stuff , only for emergencies.

> You don't need to be a bad person to accept. It's seems like a perfectly ethical thing to do.

Yeah, except transparency is at the core of Tor. So someone who was approached like that would make sure to communicate this exchange and what they had learnt in a public manner. If this were not possible (for whatever reasons), it wouldn't be an ethical choice to continue because it would endanger people; including people in repressive regimes, whose governments might also decide to track down 'bad guys' because it would be an emergency. (Those governments do buy sophisticated DPI hardware from Cisco et al. and use it.) etc. etc. Nobody would just take the word for it anyway - actual peer-reviewed research is required. If this is not possible, then it cannot be used as a guiding force. If it is, it must be transparently acknowledged.

> [1]WWI , The iraq war, and the cease of the israeli peace process were all at least partially caused by terrorists. And we still haven't seen WMD based terror.

I believe 'terrorist' has become a very semantically-loaded term with multiple connotative fields, so to speak. But I won't argue there, it's probably not the place anyway.

Edit:

> My guess is that NSA has a top-down strategy regarding cypherpunks.That's the way military forces work. And it would make sense for this tactic to be part of their strategy.

Yeah, but this would make sense
1 comments
ippisl 4697 days ago
Yes, the transparency does make sense. Maybe the NSA guy didn't tell him anything about the exploits of tor.

But the fact that it financed tor implies heavily that there are such exploits accessible to NSA. And the fact that it is known that tor is sensitive to global passive attackers is another. Even plain me can guess this.

Maybe the calculation favors tor, because if we assume you need to be a global passive attacker to exploit it, this favors large coalitions of many (currently democratic) nations collaborating over you're single repressive regime, and that seems like a reasonable compromise in thinking about a very hard ethical choice.

link