In Which The Telegraph Smears Tor

Been a long time since I talked about the Telegraph here.  But yesterday, I came across this particular piece of bullshit reporting from that 'journalistic' organisation, and felt compelled to say something.

That headline above, is frankly...a lie.  First off, Tor is a network, or a technology, not a browser, even if the browser download is the way in which most users will experience Tor these days.  The browser download, being a simplified bundle of the core Tor & proxying software with a modified version of Firefox.  Secondly, the study in question doesn't in any way speak to to the 'overwhelming use' of the Tor browser, but specifically to the use of the so-called Dark Web.  Back to the Telegraph...

There is an "overwhelming" amount of illicit and illegal content on the dark web, a new study shows.

That statement might seem self-evident. But the Tor browser - also known as the dark web or deep web - was created to protect the anonymity of vulnerable people online. It is a web browser just like Google Chrome or Internet Explorer, but it masks the identity of who is browsing and what they're looking at.

The Tor browser is perhaps known as 'the dark web or deep web' -- by fucking idiots !  The so-called 'dark web' is a fear-mongering slur utilised by the government for any services over the internet that in any way bypass conventional IP/HTTP routing, and thus implicitly threaten governmental control and surveillance thereof.  Tor is one of many services that can be used for such means, in this case, via the use of .onion addresses, that are only routeable via the Tor network.  It is not the only technology providing such hidden services, the hidden services are not the primary purpose of the Tor network, and in fact, the hidden services component was a much later addition to Tor.

Don't believe me, that the hidden services, the 'dark web' are not the primary purpose of the Tor network ?  Well, let's look at the study in question, shall we ?

The Tor architecture provides two services – anonymous browsing (property 3), and hosting of anonymous information exchanges (property 5) – through one piece of software, the so-called ‘Tor Browser’. Although distinct, both services employ roughly the same protocols and rely on the same distributed infrastructure. But that is where their mutual dependency ends. There is no technical requirement for anonymous browsing and anonymous hosting to be bundled. Indeed, browsing is overwhelmingly more popular than hosting. Most Tor users have never visited any hidden website at a *.onion address; hidden services account for around 3–6% of overall Tor traffic.²⁷ Most users instead use the software merely to browse the internet's conventional address space more securely or anonymously. An analogy illustrates the significance of anonymous browsing. Alice, who lives in a small town, wants to buy a pregnancy test, but doesn't want to be seen doing so by the shop owner, Bob, a friend of Alice's father. Rather than simply going to the store, Alice wears a mask, walks a detour, and pays in cash. Bob will not be able to identify her or trace her. Alice's privacy and anonymity are assured. Anonymous browsing is not part of the ‘dark web’; it is a legitimate and laudable service that Tor provides.

This is from the very study upon which the Telegraph's scary misleading headline is based.  It says right there that most users have never visited any .onion 'dark web' sites at all, and that hidden services account for around 3–6% of overall Tor traffic.  Three to fucking six percent !  Hell, I've been familiar with Tor since long before there was such a thing as a 'Tor Browser', and I don't think I've ever visited or had reason to visit any hidden 'dark web' sites via Tor myself.  Because...why the fuck would I ?  Tor's primary purpose is, and always has been, simply to provide a modicum of anonymity in browsing the Internet, and the vast majority of users are most likely using Tor in entirely legitimate ways, in entirely legitimate pursuits.

In fact, the US government has repeatedly promoted the use of Tor for such purposes as enabling dissidents and human rights-activists living in authoritarian regimes, to communicate freely, bypassing restrictive governmental policies and controls, to promote liberal Western-style values.  The US government continues to this very day to provide a vast amount of the funding for the Tor project, and to utilise the network itself, and the Tor software was originally in fact invented by the United States Naval Research Laboratory & DARPA.

That's right, this evil evil 'dark web' software, the users of which the Telegraph apparently wishes to smear, was created by, and continues to be funded by the government of the United States of America.

So, in case you're not familiar with how Tor works, and is used by, as noted above, the vast vast majority of its users, here are some illustrations from the EFF.

Tor doesn't provide uncrackable security, certainly not for the likes of the NSA or other US govt. security agencies, and that much more certainly not when they have been involved in its creation and funding of its development from day one.  It simply obfuscates the path of traffic through a random series of nodes, making it difficult for a would-be adversary to monitor the traffic, without control of, and therefore the ability to monitor traffic through, all the nodes in question.  It isn't that inherently secure, even if you trust that the US government hasn't inserted its own backdoors into the system, and any one relying solely on Tor to run, say an international drug-smuggling operation, without detection, would be very stupid indeed.  Of course, the vast majority of users aren't doing anything of the sort.

Back to the Telegraph...

In the first study of its kind, researchers at King's College London found that 57 per cent of sites on Tor facilitate criminal activity, including drugs, illicit finance, and extreme pornography.

The findings are not unexpected - if anything that figure is lower than expected. Tor has been associated with child pornography, gun trading and murder long before now. 

"We expected something along these lines," said Thomas Rid, professor of Security Studies at King's College London and co-author of the study. "Previous studies have established that it's a pretty nasty place."  

Scary, scary fucking stuff indeed !  Child pornography, murder, drugs, extreme pornography !  Sounds pretty nasty huh ?

Did we mention that the 'dark web' sites in question were a product of a secondary (and not inherently illegitimate*) function of Tor, not even utilised by the vast majority of Tor users ?

Tor offers anonymous browsing to people across the world. Users in countries with strict censorship laws, like China or Iran, can use it to access mainstream sites - like Facebook - securely. Rid and Moore found that the vast majority of material on Tor was not just illegal in places like China or Iran, but in more liberal jurisdictions too.

Here, in the same fucking paragraph, the Telegraph conflates the anonymous browsing (such as use of fucking Facebook), which is the sole usage of the vast majority of users with the hosting of illegal materials on so-called 'dark web' sites.

The sites included marketplaces for drugs, fire arms and weapons, and explicit, illegal pornography. The study found a "near-absence" of Islamic extremist sites on Tor.

"Militants and extremists don't seem to find the Tor hidden services infrastructure very useful. So there are few jihadis and militants in the darknet," said Rid. "It's used for criminal services, fraud, extreme, illegal pornography, cyber attacks and computer crime."

Know why that is ?  Because, they're not fucking stupid !  Because they know full well, that if the US government wants to find them on an US-govt-designed and funded network of mild anonymity, it can, and will.  The US government could crush the Tor network any time it wanted to, but insofar as a) Tor isn't any meaningful threat to security-services, b) Dissidents in foreign competitor states utilise Tor, and c) Agents of the US govt. itself utilise Tor, it has no compelling reason to do so.

What the US government, and its proxy poodle in Westminster, would like to do, is utilise fearmongering rhetoric about 'terror' attacks, to convince the public, and technology-companies, that it is in the public interest that the privacy of Western citizens be intentionally compromised, via the dilution of encryption technology, and the building of government-accessible backdoors into common security software.  The sort of breathless hyperbole in which right-wing publications such as the Telegraph specialise is perfect for such a purpose.

Rid and Moore commend Tor for offering vulnerable people access to anonymous browsing. But they said Tor needs to work harder to encourage its community to build a safe and legitimate browsing experience.

Did they say that ?  I must have missed it...

"The developers made Tor for a different purpose - they wanted security, not crime. It's up to them to change the direction," said Rid. "It's up to them to have a sensible discussion about ways to reduce crime, to get more legitimate users in." 

Now here, I can only assume the quotation is the result of an interview (what, the Telegraph doing actual reporting...like actual journalists ?), as I don't see such language in the report.  Regardless, this is shit.  We've already established that the vast majority of usage is merely anonymous browsing (which is, in the authors' words, 'a legitimate and laudable service that Tor provides'), and how the hell can Tor's developers be held responsible for the content provided by the 'hidden services' on their network, without fundamentally compromising the relative anonymity that is the whole raison d'etre of the Tor network to begin with ?

Is the argument that as the functionality of hidden services could theoretically be used for ill purposes, that it should be removed ?  The same is true of the anonymous browsing functionality, innocent as the vast majority of usage may be/probably is.  The same is true of all technology.  Hell, in the US, special constitutional protections are given to the ownership of tools (i.e. guns, firearms), whose primary if not sole purpose is to murder living beings.  But the fact that a subset of the functionality of a mildly anonymising technology might be used for illicit purposes, that...that is a reason for ripping apart what little guarantee of privacy is currently available to us on the internet ?

Tor's example will no doubt be used in the encryption debate that is circulating around the snoopers' charter, according to Rid and Moore. 

"Tor's ugly example should loom large in technology debates," Rid and Moore conclude. "The line between utopia and dystopia can be disturbingly thin."

This is just...WTF ?  Wait, why am I still quoting the fucking Telegraph ?

The other quandary is how to deal with darknets. Hidden services have already damaged Tor, and trust in the internet as a whole. To save Tor – and certainly to save Tor's reputation – it may be necessary to kill hidden services, at least in their present form. Were the Tor Project to discontinue hidden services voluntarily, perhaps to improve the reputation of Tor browsing, other darknets would become more popular. But these Tor alternatives would lack something precious: a large user base. In today's anonymisation networks, the security of a single user is a direct function of the number of overall users. Small darknets are easier to attack, and easier to de-anonymise. The Tor founders, though exceedingly idealistic in other ways, clearly appreciate this reality: a better reputation leads to better security.⁸⁵ They therefore understand that the popularity of Tor browsing is making the bundled-in, and predominantly illicit, hidden services more secure than they could be on their own. Darknets are not illegal in free countries and they probably should not be. Yet these widely abused platforms – in sharp contrast to the wider public-key infrastructure – are and should be fair game for the most aggressive intelligence and law-enforcement techniques, as well as for invasive academic research. Indeed, having such clearly cordoned-off, free-fire zones is perhaps even useful for the state, because, conversely, a bad reputation leads to bad security. Either way, Tor's ugly example should loom large in technology debates. Refusing to confront tough, inevitable political choices is simply irresponsible. The line between utopia and dystopia can be disturbingly thin.

Less oblique, less misleading, less blatantly crass government-propaganda.  Still crap.

But, now I'm getting into the realm of disputing the report's findings & conclusions, which wasn't where I started, with the Telegraph's blatantly misleading headline.  So, let's step back a bit...

See those results above, from Google News ?  The bottom three accurately characterise the report's findings, and the subject thereof.  Only the one at the top from the Telegraph manages, unintentionally or not, to completely conflate the lesser functionality of 'hidden services' with the wholly legitimate purpose of 'anonymous browsing', and to smear the vast majority of Tor users as a result.  Fuck, I hate the Telegraph...


* Imagine say Iranian or Chinese dissidents, wanting to not merely communicate freely over Tor, without detection of government authorities, but also wanting to provide a stable hosting source of shared documentation within their groups.

Bernie, Bernie, Bernie

First off, to be quite clear, I don't like Hillary Clinton.  I don't trust Hillary Clinton, and never have.  I see Hillary Clinton, and Bill Clinton as well for that matter, as the very representation of the right-wing corporate takeover of the Democratic Party*.  I fear the very idea of Hillary Clinton as president, though not nearly so much so as the multitude of maniacs running for the Republican nomination.  I am not pro-Hillary or in any way inherently anti-Bernie.  And other, than that with his particular support amongst younger progressives, I may skew slightly older, I am generally exactly in line demographically with the majority of his supporters, and ideologically, if anything, perhaps a little to his left.  I like Bernie Sanders.  I support most of his economic proposals.  But....


So...Bernie Sanders.  I mentioned him a few times last year, including my praise of a speech he gave at Liberty University, in which I mentioned again his continuing failure to break out of his largely white support-base, a subject I had discussed in one of my earlier mentions of his candidacy also.  When I wrote the latter, I certainly never expected Sanders to still be running so strongly in the race by now, days away from the Iowa Caucus, let alone seemingly with a shot at winning the early primaries, if not the nomination for the Democratic Party for the presidency.

A lot of time has passed since then, there's been a lot of discussion amongst the pundit-classes about Sanders, there have been a few** debates and townhalls between the five, then three*** candidates on the Democratic side, and Bernie even found time to give a major speech on so-called 'Democratic Socialism' (in which he continued his apparent complete confusion between mainstream Social Democratic policy, and the attainment of a purely Socialist society, with public ownership of the means of production by democratic methods).  So much time, and perhaps the reason I haven't felt compelled to add anything here is that...my opinion of Sanders hasn't changed a jot.

I'm a little bit more optimistic with the polls coming out that some element of Sanders' Occupy Wall Street-style rhetoric and progressive economic policies could have a long-term impact on policy and direction for the Democratic party, but I still think Clinton will win the nomination, and I still can't see Sanders becoming president, even if he were to clinch the nomination, despite Clinton's monetary advantage, establishment-connections, and early lead in super-delegates.  And that's despite what is happening with the Republican nomination, currently being contested primarily between a far-right bomb-throwing theocratic ideologue, and an apparent out-and-out fascist.

I've watched Sanders give the same speech, the same talking points over and over and over again.  Wall Street, corruption, the one percent, only developed nation without universal healthcare, free college, the middle class, hard working Americans, economic inequality, fairness, too much money in politics, political revolution...  I've heard the breathless praise from his supporters, be they on Twitter or in independent media.  I've watched the fucking debates, I've seen the man's style, I've seen the large (mostly white) crowds he attracts, and I've heard over and over again how I should 'feel the Bern.'

Except I don't.  Never liked the slogan, never felt it six months to a year back, when his candidacy seemed a harmless irrelevancy, and still not feeling it now.  I still see an angry old white guy shouting platitudes at the audience, an aged social warrior whose lifelong-rhetoric happens to now, in his mid-seventies, match the popular zeitgeist of the post-Great Recession era.  I don't see a great leader, I don't see a future president, I don't see any evidence of this political revolution he wants, no matter how much enthusiasm he may inspire amongst college-students.  I don't see, perhaps more importantly, any evolution, even having gone through the protests and conflicts with Black Lives Matter protesters, of Bernie Sanders from a walking OWS-parody into a serious general-election candidate for the presidency.

It's almost as if he still doesn't quite take it seriously, close as he's getting, as if like Carly Fiorina on the Republican side, he were really running for a VP slot, or like Ben Carson or Mike Huckabee, just wanting to sell a book.  Almost, but not quite.  I think he must genuinely believe there's going to a mass uprising of Americans any time now in support of this great progressive revolution he keeps going on about.  Any time now.  As if almost half the country's electorate weren't in thrall to the right-wing radicalism of Tea Party Republicans.  As if in denial about his continuing inability to make inroads in support amongst blacks, and other peoples of colour.  As if forgetting the fact that older voters tend to have famously high turnout, and younger college-age voters notoriously low turnout.

We had a presidential candidate running on a quite progressive series of promises (some of which he has managed to keep, some not) back in 2008, with the slogan of 'Hope and Change'.  An extraordinarily well-spoken and charismatic candidate, who united white progressives, members of the Democratic establishment, blacks and Hispanics, rich and poor, the LGBT community, the young & the older.  If Barack Obama hadn't been able to assemble the broad coalition of support he did, hadn't especially been able to achieve the historically high turnout amongst black voters, what are the chances he would have got near the presidency ?  Sanders isn't remotely the charismatic unifying figure Obama managed to be back in 2008, and a coalition of young college-age progressives and white progressives simply isn't going to cut it, whatever the pollsters may say.

The right in American politics is far more motivated, far angrier, historically more likely to turn out, and likely to represent a very solid potent political bloc, unless Donald Trump manages to somehow split the party.  The growing numbers who increasingly call themselves Independents (which would include myself as it happens) are harder to gauge, but I suspect that the majority of that growth is actually amongst Tea Partiers who eschew the label 'Republican', but would never ever ever vote for a Democrat.  As for the polling again, Donald Trump especially polls badly amongst self-identified Independents, but...people lie.  People lie about their politics all the times, especially to pollsters, and especially when it comes to matters such as race, which has become the most contentious element in the current Republican fearmongering rhetoric regarding various 'Others', such as Muslims, blacks, immigrants...

I want to believe that a President Donald Trump or Ted Cruz is a fantasy, but the longer I spend in the company of American politics, and the more I know of the American people, the less surprised, the less shocked I am when there is such amazing support for extreme right-wing demagogues.****  I really wouldn't rule out a maniac like Trump or Cruz getting elected, and, especially with a Republican Congress, and the likelihood to cement right-wing control of the Supreme Court for decades to come, the result of such a presidency would be utterly disastrous for the United States, and ultimately, the whole planet.  This upcoming election frankly scares the crap out of me, even as I want to believe that Sanders' policies, if not his actual candidacy have some chance in the future of the Democratic party.  Which I desperately do.

We're still for now in primary season, but Sanders needs to be defining himself more clearly on the likes of foreign policy.  As of this moment, after all this time, I haven't a clue what kind of president Sanders would be outside of economic justice, because it's...all...he...ever...fucking...talks about.  No matter what the question, what the context, always, always, always he pivots back to his comfort zone of talking about the 99% percent versus the 1%, as if incapable of talking about anything else.*****  I get it Bernie.  I agree.  You're talking to the converted here.  But Iran, Russia, Israel/Palestine, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Saudia Arabia, Turkey, China ?  The migrants ?  ISIS ?  And I'm not going to get started on Black Lives Matter and racial justice.  'Not my wheelhouse' as they say.******  The latter, not even a matter for pivoting in the near future, as GE nears, but a pivot he needed to have made months ago, given Hillary's lead amongst black and minority ethnic voters.

If Sanders is serious, truly truly serious about running for President, I'd love to see him show it.  You need black voters, Bernie, you need older voters, you need to be addressing people's concerns about foreign policy, including terrorism, need to counter Hillary's claims of superior experience with something more than 'judgement' of voting against the War in Iraq.  And you need to understand, in the United States at least, with generations of right-wing corporatist brainwashing, that saying you are going to raise peoples' taxes, but blah...blah...blah...better off in the long term isn't enough, that accusations of being a 'socialist' isn't something you can shrug off, especially as you don't seem to understand (or perhaps care) what the term even fucking means...You need to explain again and again and again, even as you try to build a case for yourself as something more than a one-trick pony, something more than a one-issue candidate.  You signed up for this shit, you brought this on yourself, and your work is cut out for you now.  This if fucking serious, and the consequences, if as the Democratic candidate, you fuck up, utterly dire for the whole world.  I was familiar with 'Occupy' Bernie's rhetoric a year ago, but you need to evolve to face the full scope of the challenges ahead of you and truly 'bring it' if you're serious about this.  I want to be convinced.  By all means, make me feel the Bern...*******



* I'm inclined to think that as for Hillary herself, she never ceased to be a Goldwater Republican (which would admittedly put her still to the left of the GOP today, so far rightwards has it slid, as Goldwater himself predicted), and merely pretended a political conversion for the sake of her marriage and her husband's political career.

** Thanks Debbie Wasserman-Schultz.  Not trying to rig the electoral process in favour of your bud. and presumptive front-runner...at...all...

*** Who are we kidding, this is a two-person race, and long has been.  Not fair, and largely a result of media-bias, but what can one do ?  Now, if only we could combine Clinton's tenacity and political acumen, with Bernie's principles, and O'Malley's personality and good looks...Damn, that would be a fearsome candidate indeed...

**** Yes, I could and would say much the same of many European countries.

***** Oh, and climate change.  We should deffo. do something about that.  Millions & millions of green jobs sprouting magically out of the ground.  A Yuuuge economic opportunity...

****** Fucking hate the expression, but seems to be the phrase du jour, at least in US culture.

******* All this said, who would I be supporting, if I were in the Iowa caucuses or New Hampshire primaries ?  Absolutely, it would be Bernie.  But I'm not the one that really needs convincing.  My support or lack thereof doesn't matter a whit.  As I said earlier, a coalition of young college-age progressives and white progressives simply isn't going to cut it.  A focus on economic inequality isn't going to do it either.  The brief half-hearted reaction to Black Lives Matter is the only time I've seen any willingness on behalf of Sanders' campaign to even try to expand beyond his core economic message.  It he wants to go all the way, it just isn't enough.




Update: Hoped to post this earlier, and almost seems inappropriate now (morning of 2-2-2016) when the result in Iowa is neck-and-neck with Hillary, but the video in question wasn't available when I checked previously.  There's much to praise about Sanders' perfomance in this interview for MSNBC, but Sanders' response to Hayes' question at 4'32 on foreign policy is a perfect example of what I was talking about.  Hayes provides Sanders an opportunity to answer the sceptics on his foreign policy credentials, and even hands him on a platter a specific topical subject: the current Saudi assault on Yemen.

Here, Sanders could have gone into detail on his opinion regarding, and proposals for dealing with that particular conflict, or any other that took his fancy.  Hell, all he really had to do was show an awareness of the situation, and he could have given us just about any generic politician-speak (oh, it's a terrible tragedy what's currently happening in Yemen...blah blah blah...complicated situation...blah blah blah diplomacy...blah blah talk with our enemies...blah blah maintaining relations with allies...blah blah).  Instead, he segues from telling us how serious an understanding of foreign policy is for any would-be president ('life and death stuff') to retreating yet again behind the defence of his 'judgement' compared to Hillary Clinton's on the vote to go to war in Iraq.

Chris Hayes is about as friendly an interviewer as could be imagined for Bernie here, and he handed Bernie a perfect opportunity to prove himself on foreign policy.  I'm sick of hearing about the Iraq War vote already.  What about Yemen ?  What about the South China Sea ?  What about Boko Haram, say ?  Pick one, not 'the many many crises that exist all over the world', dammit.

I want to believe in ya Bernie, but I've been burned before, and I'm no political naïf.  Your answer here wasn't Donald Trump-level bad, but it was similarly insubstantive.  At this stage of the campaign, your supporters, and your country deserve better.

Celebrity Photobomb with Jimmy Fallon & Sesame Street

So much to be depressed about lately, could do with anything puts a smile on people's faces.  And this bit, which could come across as somewhat exploitative initially, really sells it with the kids' reactions towards the end.  Smile ev'rybody !

David Bowie from 'Cracked Actor' Documentary, LA, 1974

David Bowie

Meant different things to different people, and redefined himself for each new generation.*  So what pic. to use ?  May as well go with the less obvious, the less familiar.  RIP.


* For me, it will always be the Ziggy Stardust album, Life on Mars, and the early 80's work.  But, as I said...  For some out there, it could be The Laughing Gnome.

Last Week Tonight: Revised Resolutions

Well, timely...

Ted Rall: Nuke 'Em All!

It is so very depressing watching Americans especially, but Westerners generally collectively freak-out over ISIS & the infinitesimal chance that they might be killed in a terrorist-attack.  Many of whom were around on the 11th September 2001, did see how we rushed then to surrender our hard-fought freedoms and abandon our liberal values, should have learned from that awful experience.

Last time I held out any smidgen of hope that we had learned, and that the post-9/11 madness had finally subsided, was with the election to the US presidency of one Barack Hussein Obama.  I was quickly disabused of that quaint notion.  And almost eight years later, we've still learned...nothing.

Well I say, we.  Donald J Trump learned.   Our political leaders learned.  Learned how easy it is to cow the masses with the simple suggestion of fear.  Be afraid.  Be VERY AFRAID !!!

The IT Crowd Manual

Great to see these guys again, all of whom have gone on to do wonderful things since.  Should maybe crack open the four series DVD's again, then track down that last special, which I'm pretty sure I never watched before...

British Pathé: Christmas is for All

Very much a product of its era, and a cool time-capsule, as these things often tend to be.  Best part has to be (from 3'16) Mike and his Merseymen (the Trends) doing Good King Wenceslas.  Some pretty girls dancing there also, must say.

Audio of same can be found on YouTube here, and, for some more of the Merseymen, here we have photos, some video, including what looks to be behind-the-scenes from the Pathé filming, and names of the band-members at the end, accompanied by a selection of the band's other songs.  Enjoy.