One theory (that may be in practice) is that if you are able to control a vast majority of exit nodes and relays, it literally makes TOR pointless. Anyone can run a node or relay. Say for example, the NSA were to run many many nodes and relays -- flooding the TOR network with them, your connection through the TOR network could end up looking like...

NSA NODE > NSA RELAY > NSA RELAY > NSA RELAY > NSA EXIT NODE

Essentially stripping all anonymity. Using traffic analysis, the attacker could easily find where the request originated from if they were in control of every node/relay in the active connection.

Technically Tor has always been breakable, but now it looks like there might be something more to the story. There is a conflict of interest between the anonymity that Tor promises and the goal of its primary benefactor. I'm just going to go ahead and uninstall it.

Its too late now a quick google search will prove that its broken.

I up-voted this post mostly out of curiosity. What, exactly, is the point that the author is trying to make? I might be misreading but the impression I got from the tone of the article was that there is something sinister going on, but the only thing that the article put forward was the fact that the bulk of the TOR project's funding comes from the US government, something that has been known since the project began. Furthermore, the hiring of a PR firm to help explain what is truthfully a complex and technical subject to a predominantly non-technical journalistic community is not inherently sinister or deceitful.

I have no problem with highlighting the pretty wacky relationship between the government and the TOR project but unless I'm missing something here this article seems designed to foment suspicion and distrust toward TOR without any kind of real evidence and is reminiscent of the kind of attacks used by various organizations, including the government, to tarnish the image of encryption.