His actual statement:<p>&gt; Tor is having a fit of institutional pique that researchers are compromising the network&#x27;s privacy guarantees by, well, looking at it.<p>&gt; If you write security software, and you&#x27;re not praying that loyal opposition hits you with everything they&#x27;ve got, you&#x27;re not doing security<p>&gt; Tor is intended to be, and is marketed as, robust against nation state adversaries. It cannot possibly be so if it worries about academics.<p>Two interpretations:<p>1. It&#x27;s OK to go after Tor. This is dead wrong - attacking a network without permission is very bad form. Maybe it&#x27;s OK to do the equivalent of checking to see if someone&#x27;s front door is locked (this is a grey area), but only if you intend to warn them that their door&#x27;s unlocked. Going through their stuff is obviously unethical (and probably illegal).<p>2. Tor should be more permissive, encouraging more attacks from researchers.<p>Obviously, the researchers crossed the line when they started gathering user data. But Tor should only be upset that the attack went too far, not that the attack succeeded.<p>I&#x27;m not sure of the context - was the Tor community pissed off that researchers found a weakness, or pissed off that the weakness was exploited?<p>Twitter is a pretty poor platform if you want nuance, so it&#x27;s probably best to be charitable in your interpretations of what people say there.