Comment by nickpsecurity | Hacker News Reader

Comment by nickpsecurity | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

"TOR's funding never was a secret."

Sort of. The Pando article they reference, which showed me more about them than the author, points out that they try to promote the funding as "independent" source rather than U.S. government-backed groups made by or tight with CIA. All the press around the situation would make you think it's a group for the people, by the people, and so on with some historical military connection. Whereas, the people aren't funding most of Tor: "The Man" Tor appears to oppose is. Even in this conversation, they're worried about that image situation and how to minimize exposure that one CIA person might work in Tor despite the fact that such types are funding it it. If it's so transparent, you wouldn't have so much work on that.

Who knows why it's coming up & it's not secret as you said. Yet, Tor pages I've read certainly weren't describing themselves as a tool of U.S. intelligence agencies funded by their fronts. They seem to work at avoiding that in favor of some image independent that U.S. intelligence just happens to also like and use. Which is inaccurate.

I'm curious. If we take away all U.S. govt connected funding, then how much is left for the developers and how many will that be? That should be a hint at level of independence.

"Sort of"? Tor was a project of the Naval Research Labs. Even 51% of Wikipedia editors know about its USG funding.

Your point doesn't contradict mine even if made-up 51% number was true. Selective as usual focusing on its start and fact there's USG funding. Yet, a person looking on site at "About Tor," "Core team," and "Sponsors" doesn't get a clear indicator that the vast majority of funds so far as come from groups CIA created to wage propaganda wars and act for U.S. foreign policy. That fronts allegedly separated from despite them doing basically the same jobs today funded by U.S. government doesn't reduce that concern. Readers might think instead it's a mostly for-the-people organization whose funding is spread out among many groups instead of the kind its libertarian proponents would seem to fight rather than work for. Then, we have chat logs from a group funded by CIA & affiliates worried about their image if one CIA person is in the project.

Hence, "sort of." I'll change my statement to their source of support being clear when they state such things clearly on their web site and stop the kind of smears I saw in response to the Pando article. I mean, here's people taking money from CIA and/or affiliates openly speculating that someone saying so or implying it means something must be... working for CIA, a fascist, or something in a smear job. Repeat, people paid by vicious, authoritarian regimes they claim to fight accusing someone of evil or connections to such regimes for reporting their source of funding. Unreal...

I'll be interested to see how long popular support for Tor lasts if it's marketed as a former Navy tool currently supported by CIA and State department groups. The reality probably will change the perception of it and when/where to use it a lot. I still support the project as realists like me know it's a double-edge sword they need to work but might try to compromise in limited ways. Hence, me pushing strong security engineering to be applied to it.

The 51% was a joke, and a good one at that.

I got it. Stepped on it in my counter. The response to Pando piece and these logs don't fit that joke or its implication at all. Plus a strawman given Tor is meant for laypeople mostly. Let's restate the Tor sponsor page differently to show what they're doing:

"A US project about helping people enable anonymity plus fight oppression of authoritive regimes, from China to US, that's mostly paid for by CIA and other US propaganda organizations along with small contributions from these other organizations."

Juxtapose that against the IRC logs for the real joke. They fear what will happen if seen as affiliated with even one CIA person. Only imagine what their image would be like if lay users, not just security experts, saw their funding spread and sourcing. Probably why they present the sponsor page and other parts they way they do. Obscuring source to maximize uptake.

Truth is that they're a tool that can be wielded for good or bad. That it's mostly US govt villians funding it is acceptable to me for greater good so long as legit software. It is so Im fine. That's realistic. This hide the CIA guy crap doesnt fit with reality if they push a genuine one.

>Yet, Tor pages I've read certainly weren't describing themselves as a tool of U.S. intelligence agencies funded by their fronts.

I'm not sure DARPA or Naval Research Laboratory are really intelligence agency fronts.

https://www.torproject.org/about/sponsors.html.en

Tor is supported by intelligence agencies because of the value it brings to them. For someone undercover, Tor is a great way to keep in touch, and if you're confronted you have a plausible explanation of wanting to buy LSD or watch kiddie porn or whatever most people use Tor for.

Didnt say DARPA was an intelligence front although it funds things for use by DOD mainly. NRL funded Tor for use by US military. State and CIA have numerous front organizations whose goal is to push propaganda into foreign countries to destabilize regimes. I see a notorious one on the page you listed: Radio Free Asia. Look up its backstory. They could've just wrote CIA-funded but tgen it was put under another propaganda organization claiming no CIA ties.

Given those propaganda groups and CIA affiliates are majority of its funding, it's strange to worry about a CIA person involved for project's "image." It's CIA & State funded for their use!

Far as supporting them, I totally agree and mentioned it in my main comment. Nothing wrong with taking money to do things of mutual benefit/interest.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com