emptywheel

For a variety of reasons that's actually not the dig you think it was. 1) This post-dates Snowden, obviously 2) I was going to report this out at The Intercept but for completely unrelated reasons you simply couldn't address did not

The fact that they were aware of this loophole and kept touting Tor anyway raises a host of questions for me. I didn't think that segment of your piece was a "dig." The "dig" was all mine. Still, kudos for being the only reporter to nail that story, and for your post today.

What evidence do you have about when "they" became aware of the loophole? I'm not sure you understand the nature of the loophole, bc it's not BRANDED to Tor, in any way.

I think I do - I read your stuff - I know they read it too. They would have been aware the same time your story came out. It explained the loophole quite clearly. Why would anybody actively promoting Tor not report its users might be vulnerable?

So you suggest that users use NO traffic obscuring tools?

Look, I'm not going to give advice. If people want to use a system that's largely funded by the Pentagon & USG through cutouts that include NSA sigint contractors, and has been identified as vulnerable to NSA probing, that's their choice. Mark me down as highly skeptical.

So in other words you're backing the products that FBI can get with a relevance standard, just to make a political point. Gotcha.

Marcy you are incredibly arrogant and petty when you get annoyed. What you just said is garbage. I'm not backing any "products." That's what The Intercept does. And you, apparently. I'm a journalist, not some techno-hawker. Bye.