There's a lot of tantalizing material to read, but when you're covering the history of an entire project, even in a longform article, it's still possible for an author to cherry pick enough "moments" to build a case that doesn't match the hype of the headline/summary.<p>I don't know enough about Tor, I don't use it on a regular basis, don't even know enough about the technical details to assume that there's automatically more proof than hype about the implementation of its safeguards...but this anecdote by the OP stood out to me:<p>> <i>Case-in-point: In December 2013, a 20-year-old Harvard panicked overachiever named Edlo Kim learned just how little protection Tor offered for would be terrorists. To avoid taking a final exam he wasn’t prepared for, Kim hit up on the idea of sending in a fake bomb threat. То cover his tracks, he used Tor, supposedly the best anonymity service the web had to offer. But it did little mask his identity from a determined Uncle Sam. A joint investigation, which involved the FBI, the Secret Service and local police, was able to track the fake bomb threat right back to Kim — in less than 24 hours.</i><p>This was a pretty interesting, and amusing incident...but to use it as circumstantial evidence to how Tor might be out-and-out compromised? The suspect used Tor on Harvard's network to cause an incident, in real-time, on Harvard's campus...that's not the situation in which Tor would ever claim to be the "best anonymity service the web had to offer"...and to conflate it as some kind of evidence that Tor is compromised doesn't give me much faith that the OP is accurately portraying the context for all the other facts.<p>To put it another way, it's no secret that the entire Internet basically owes its birth, and perhaps its existence as we know it, due to the U.S. Defense Department. Now imagine you had the task of explaining the Internet to someone who had never used it and knew none of its details...how hard would it be to describe a comprehensive history of the Internet, since the 1980s, that made it sound like the Internet was most definitely intended since conception as a vehicle for state surveillance?<p>(...ok, that it has nearly become so is besides the point, I'm referring to intent from its humble origins)
The US Government, and even just the military, is an extraordinarily large and heterogeneous organization. The State Department and Military services desire network security and anonymity to protect free speech and democracy around the world. Intelligence services (NSA, CIA) want the exact opposite, penetrable and observable networks. Yes, believe it or not the entire US Government is not perfectly coordinated in a giant conspiracy. Different groups within the US Government have different goals.
Can't say I find this very surprising. For those who would like more details on the flow of funds, 990finder.com will let you browse though nonprofit organizations' historical tax filings, with only minor redactions (like the personal contact details of signatories, which could otherwise be used for nefarious purposes). You can learn all kinds of interesting things there.
Some comments on the original article seems to place the blame of the de-anonymizing on user errors.<p>As a crypto newbie, what is the 'correct' way of using Tor to minimize security risks?