Q, SecureDrop, and the backdoor vector

I remember a mention years ago about David being visited by British Intel or the Navy or something. Anyone have more info on that or a link?

One of today’s Q posts got me worried about backdoors and the safety of the team considering what Q is claiming about the recent “suicide” of James Dolan. These are the stakes of this project, people. Next couple days should be interesting for geopolitics…



Worth noting that the Safe Network allows security and privacy for ordinary citizens, but is equally useful for the state too.

When you attempt to secure communications by building on top of fundamentally insecure networks, you end up with a hodgepodge of vulnerable systems.

Ever tried to teach someone how to use PGP for example? It’s quite a task; tricky to grasp even for relatively tech aware. Multiply this usability nightmare by tens of thousands of government employees and contractors and you have yourself one hell of an attack surface and quite the leaky ship.

A network that has this sussed from the start will be a godsend for large institutions (on cost grounds alone), be them corporate, state, or 3rd sector.


I agree. There are definitely so many more pros than cons that, ultimately, this type of thing will be adopted as governments realize the importance not only of their data but of the people’s data. It is the oil for the next economy. And look, the US govt is now looking at a nationalized 5g network…

But that’s also why people will, and already have, died over it. Snowden convinced the world that Signal was secure too…and therefore, Whatsapp was also secure because that is the back end, but if, as it seems Q is confirming, it’s been co-opted by the CIA, then facebook is also complicit in this whole thing.

I taught myself to use PGP, but it’s still too cumbersome. Restricting my speech online has generally been the chosen path. And that is precisely what Assange warns about.

Is the adage true that as long as it’s open source then its confirmable? Say that to the open-source projects built on these intel chips. May it was on purpose or not, but I wouldn’t be surprised to know that the NSA and others knew about it and were exploiting it. We may never find out the truth about that, but there definitely seems to be changes in the background. Networks, software, hardware…the whole information supply chain ecosystem needs security. Otherwise, this things that I am worried about as an attack vector (co-opting open-source project leadership through blackmail and/or threats) is just too easy.

What were the military interested in talking to David about? Was it legitimate interest or something else? We all know TOR was US Navy tech and that it has many holes and man-in-the-middle attack vectors. Being above reproach isn’t enough. Those with ulterior motives and their puppet masters will and have killed. That’s what worries me.

This is the worry. It’s a bit long, but you’ll understand the threat level. It’s a good conversation overall.

He was offered protection by the Government, via Navy. This is my understanding, could be wrong.
But turned it down, i’m guessing because it would not be very practical, and he’s a strong person and able to handle situations.

Protection from what/whom?
Who the SAFE Network disrupts might bring more than a pub fight…
Development needs to get decentralized ASAP.

Sorry for not answering your question directly, i meant to, but pressed wrong button.
You like to ask the easy questions :wink: :slightly_smiling_face:

I’m just going to focus on spreading the message of privacy, security and more freedom in my circles and it’s going great and a ton of fun.
And as far as the politics, so many inflection points,so much corruption on all sides, …que sera sera.

Sorry. We don’t all know. It was either: a) Not designed to be faulty. b) They did an awful job at it.

It took ages to break Silk Road. They couldn’t break Tor. They succeeded because DPR was technically incompetent: The server leaked the real IP address. He was personally incompetent as well: Rented the server under his real identity.

True: Tor is not perfect. It is not secure against traffic analysis if NSA or similar has many nodes. As an example.

But: That is not a conspiracy that you suggest. Not designed to fail.

You say it in a cover manner and make it easy to deny.
But: These are very serious accusations against David.
Unfounded accusations: Without source or reason. I don’t like it.

Remember when Snowden came out with NSA papers?
Safe Network source code was closed before that.
Source code suddenly became open right after.
Can you connect the dots?
Thank you very much.

Interesting response.

You’ve misread my post. From what I’ve read of David, I find him to be more of what the world needs. I have no reason to doubt his motives. I believe he understands the real stakes behind privacy, security, and freedom. He did help build the network for Aramco…which has recently just negotiated to list on the NYSE after the recent corruption purge in Saudi Arabia. And I would hope that a long-time sailor would have a good relationship with his Navy, but what impetus would they have to offer protection for a simple software developer? What exactly are you saying about publishing the source code right after the Snowden revelations? Look at the date of my original post in this thread and, more importantly, the date of the post in the screenshot. Find it interesting that JPB died just last week after such an ominous post? Who else passed away very recently at a young age who was integrally involved with secure messaging? And his buddy who committed suicide a few years back? These news items can’t be easily brushed aside. Something strange is going on in the world of TOR, secure information, and journalism, but I can’t connect the dots alone.

Speaking of the devil, this was just posted…

The SAFE Network will be ready when it is ready, so I don’t want to be hammering on about how much faster this project needs to move forward. Also, I think those things have an additional component of cover-up involved. That said, returning to the theme of the thread, we need to look at more than just software threat vectors. So, in the meantime, I would encourage thinking about every possible way that this project development could be decentralized. Swarm development has to be a thing…and soon.



Interesting that the NY Times would give so much energy and special treatment to a conspiracy theory…