This should be settled in court, not with witch hunting.
I personally don't care about the people who work on a project that should be strictly technical. I don't understand why did they have to mix politics in.
That's true insofar as it applies to the question of whether or not he should be imprisoned; unfortunately our society is terrible at such things when it comes to rape.
Whether or not Tor wishes to continue employing him should be left to the opinions of Tor management, which they are fully permitted to form after simply listening to the women he raped.
I believe them. You should, too.
Believing multiple rape victims isn't a witch hunt.
If the Tor management wants to fire him, that's up to them. For any reason, or no reason at all. It's their decision. On the other hand, "rape" is a delicate matter, and all of this shouldn't have been discussed in public.
>I believe them. You should, too.
I don't believe them for two reasons:
1) There is no actual proof. I don't believe things for which there's no proof.
2) It's possible multiple people didn't like him and therefore between themselves they decided to accuse him of rape to get rid of him.
Direct eyewitness/victim testimony is proof, actually.
You can doubt the credibility of that, if you like, but that's up to you; to say there is no proof is a falsehood.
It is interesting that you pay more heed to the notion of a character assassination conspiracy involving multiple credible parties than the simpler explanation that perhaps this well-known liar is also a well-known rapist.
The Tor project, as many other popular open source projects, has been infiltrated by tons of people who like to use the popularity of it to spread their liberal propaganda. That's why it's in their interests to make as much noise as possible.
The project itself is full with all sorts of people with mental illnesses, including sexual deviations, and a strong political bias--it's a massive echo chamber right now.
And it's a shame because of the nature of this project: it should be kept neutral. Similar to the EFF for example.
It's not that they want to send it to Google, it's that they want to send it to homebrew, and google is an intermediary. Sending it to homebrew allows them to know what features are being used, so they know what features they could remove or improve.
If homebrew is transmitting the packages you install across the internet, through Google's servers, and through homebrew's system, it is very possible that information could be swept up in a dragnet or stored on a server that could later be subpoenaed or searched with a warrant.
The analytics issue aside, how can a package manager not transmit what packages you install across the internet? At some point it has to request the package(s) you're installing from somewhere on the internet.
The main self-interested reason: we use analytics to judge what packages and options to remove. If no-one using analytics uses software: next time it requires non-trivial maintenance work it will likely be removed rather than fixed.
I personally don't care about the people who work on a project that should be strictly technical. I don't understand why did they have to mix politics in.