@toholdaquill @NSAGov @Tails_live I wouldn't expect any system to be totally secure, much less remain secure forever in the face of adversary advances, but that's not the claim. Security is process of choosing between "less safe" and "more safe;" and continuing to fork toward safety until you reach "safe enough."
@toholdaquill@NSAGov@Tails_live Against a TLA, Tor (when used with particular care for what is being transmitted, and how, so as to limit the impact of bad exits and traffic analysis) was and is, in my opinion, far better protection than typical alternatives like static VPN tunnels.
@toholdaquill@NSAGov@Tails_live "Far better" doesn't imply "secure against TLA," it just means "more safe." "More safe," in isolation, often means "not safe enough," which is why we layer in protection for defense in depth. Even way back in prehistoric 2013, Tor was simply the outermost layer.
@toholdaquill@NSAGov@Tails_live All we know today is that at a certain point in time, old standbys like Tor, OTR, and GPG were "safe enough" for the given threat model, because they successfully protected the communications they needed to in the manner they were required to.
@toholdaquill@NSAGov@Tails_live One day, they may no longer be safe enough. We don't know when that is until someone proves it: maybe it's today, maybe it's never. But none of the most common kinds of conspiracy-minded FUD we see raised against Tor today have been backed by anything more than air.
@toholdaquill@NSAGov@Tails_live The primary threat facing someone trying to stay anonymous on the internet today is their own bad opsec, and that is precisely the same as it was in 2013. Tails—and Tor—reduced the number of ways anyone on my team could make dangerous mistakes, and so were crucial protections.
@toholdaquill@NSAGov@Tails_live If you look at the way post-2013 whistleblowers have been caught, it is clear the absolute most important thing you can do to maintain your anonymity is reduce the number of places in your operational activity where you can make mistakes. Tor and Tails still do precisely that.
@toholdaquill@NSAGov@Tails_live If I were going to reprise my work in 2013 in a 2019 environment, I'd almost certainly still use Tor and Tails via different hacked WiFi APs for each communication. Even if traffic analysis reveals the origin of your communication, it doesn't need to lead back to you. Layers!
Look, I've been in the "controversial interview" seat. What @DonLemon came after @ElonMusk with felt like malice. Elon—in clear discomfort—opens up in good faith about intensely private struggles; Lemon picks precisely that moment to begin emptying an entire drawer of knives. 1/
@donlemon @elonmusk That's a dick move, sure, but it's Lemon's right. It comes with the territory of being a partisan football, and Musk should have expected it. The real loss is that it's a huge waste of an interview, because Lemon exhibits zero curiosity or interest in anything beyond posturing.
@donlemon @elonmusk You've got one of the world's most influential men in front of you, on camera, with his shields uncharacteristically down. There's rapport. You can get genuine, unconsidered answers—explore his unguarded thought and beliefs. Instead, you just slap him until his gloves come up?
"Despite Israel’s war on Gaza being perhaps the deadliest war for children in modern history, only 2 headlines out of over 1,100 in the study (of the biggest US mainstream news outlets' coverage) mention Gaza's children."
"While the war on Gaza has been one of the deadliest in modern history for journalists—overwhelmingly Palestinians—the word “journalists” (and its iterations such as “reporters” and “photojournalists”) only appear in 9 headlines out of over 1,100 articles studied." theintercept.com/2024/01/09/new…
"The lack of coverage for the unprecedented killing of children and journalists, groups that typically elicit sympathy from Western media, is conspicuous."
Today, an "anti-fake news" outlet (@InsiderEng) falsely claimed that I lived in a KGB safehouse. They even know which floor I'm on! What a scoop!
The problem? It's a lie. I don't cooperate with spies or live in a safe house, much less 𝘯𝘦𝘹𝘵 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘜𝘒 𝘌𝘮𝘣𝘢𝘴𝘴𝘺! 🤦
@InsiderEng Bonus points for those who notice the absolutely massive train station and shopping complex full of cameras *directly behind* these knuckleheads' "safe house," which definitely sounds like a plausible place for a hunted whistleblower to live.
Deeply embarrassed for these people.
I used to believe that while the media does make mistakes from time to time, "most" things you read in the news could be relied on.
Nothing robs you of that innocence like becoming yourself the subject of news. When they write on what you 𝐤𝐧𝐨𝐰, errors—and lies—are clear.
The obsession with platforms prostrating themselves before advertisers has always been misplaced, because on any scale longer than one bad news cycle, advertisers go where the audience is.
Optimize platforms for people, not brands, because people have a choice. Brands don't.
The entire point of advertisers is to carry out watering-hole attacks on human attention. If you keep enough attention, they're always going to be there -- right behind the tall grass.
Anybody at Twitter who cares about what advertisers think should not be working at Twitter. Twitter lives or dies based on a single metric: is the most important conversation in the world happening here?
Make it fun and make it matter. That's how you win.
So... if nobody shows up for the invasion Biden scheduled for tomorrow morning at 3AM, I'm not saying your journalistic credibility was instrumentalized as part of one of those disinformation campaigns you like to write about, but you should at least consider the possibility.
I want to see an end to the conflict in Ukraine, and frankly, I think all reasonable people share that position. The question nobody seems to want to contend with is whether amplifying official claims made without evidence are reducing hostilities, or are in fact provoking them.
If there's an invasion tomorrow, dunk on me because I have been spectacularly wrong.
But remember, too that the source of my skepticism is that the US IC has (again) been making truly spectacular claims without presenting any evidence -- because you did not require it of them.