Thus spake Maxim Kammerer (m...@dee.su): > On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 3:17 AM, Griffin Boyce <griffinbo...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Has anyone asked Tim Berners-Lee about child pornography lately? Cell > > phones are used by drug dealers, and my dicing knife doubles as a deadly > > weapon. There's a world of difference between the inventor's intended > > use and those secondary uses. > > How are these ramifications in any way relevant to the conflict of > interest analogy I have made? Pointing out the obvious fact that Tor > hidden services are most popular in drug dealing and pedophilia > circles gets someone's panties in a twist, and the supposedly factual > “Tor users” page containing mostly upgraded old promotional writeup > [1] conflicts with the official party line? Fine, let's look at > something recent and authoritative,
In various venues, you keep claiming that the Tor Project is somehow blinded by its own propaganda, as if by some form of conspiracy or cultural phenomena. My claim, in contrast, is that you want us to fight political battles you know we're going to lose (which was/is a common tactic of our own American intelligence agencies to get what they want). Perhaps we can just agree to disagree here, and each reserve our documentation/presentation preferences for our own respective projects, rather than endlessly chasing each other around, each accusing the other of some kind of dangerous bias (and one that pales in comparison to the source+documentation issues brought up in this thread)? After all, the Tor Project could also employ some sock puppets to follow you around various forums asking why you don't feature any testimonials from child pornographers on your own Liberate Linux's page[1].. To bring this back to the original thread topic, the Tor Project's documentation presentation choices are in stark contrast to closed-source (and worse: closed-spec!) security software. In the context of complaining about propaganda, we do explain our reasoning for the adblocker design choice and the differences between our target vs actual userbase in numerous, readily available sources of documentation, including but not limited to our design documentation, and our FAQ. > Thus spake Mike Perry [2]: > > I am deeply opposed to shipping an always-on universal adblocker with > > the default TBB. I think it would be political suicide in terms of > > accomplishing our goals with acceptance of Tor users by sites, lobbying > > for private browsing origin changes, and convincing the world that > > privacy by design is possible without resorting to filtering schemes > > and/or DNT-style begging. > > So here you have it: an employee of the non-profit Tor project admits > to producing an inferior product due to political reasons. Ooh, another pet-peeve. That's two troll-strikes in one mail, Mr. Maximum Camera... What the hell, though. It's a slow Sunday. Everybody keeps telling me that unless we ship Tor Browser with a set of magical regular expressions/filters, it can't possibly be private or secure. Yet when I ask directly[2] (in that same thread you cited and elsewhere), nobody seems to be able to tell me why regular expression filters would actually defend against dedicated tracker adversaries at all, let alone do so in a way that is more effective than simply removing the vectors for third party tracking in the first place. In fact, it would appear that even so-called "privacy-oriented" filters such as EasyPrivacy and Ghostery can only manage to block ~80% of sites that visibly set third party cookies[3]. To me, this is a pretty obvious indicator that adblock filters are totally unfit for addressing even the most obvious and visible culprits engaged in third party tracking. 1. http://dee.su/liberte 2. https://lists.torproject.org/pipermail/tor-talk/2012-November/026357.html 3. https://www.stanford.edu/~jmayer/papers/trackingsurvey12.pdf. See Fig 3, pg12 -- Mike Perry
-- Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password at: https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech
