Sigh. Tor is political by its very existence and design. It is NOT a neutral entity. Its very existence is for political reasons.
On Monday 03 August 2009 06:19:23 pm Alexander Cherepanov wrote: > Hi Scott! > > On Wed, 29 Jul 2009 02:16:29 -0500 (CDT), Scott Bennett <benn...@cs.niu.edu> wrote: > > On Sat, 25 Jul 2009 22:04:11 +0400 "Alexander Cherepanov" > > > > <chere...@mccme.ru> wrote: > >>You wrote to or-talk@freehaven.net, "Vlad \"SATtva\" Miller" <sat...@pgpru.com> on Sat, 25 Jul 2009 06:59:43 -0500 (CDT): > >>> On Sat, 25 Jul 2009 18:12:52 +0700 "Vlad \"SATtva\" Miller" <sat...@pgpru.com> wrote: > >>>>James Brown (25.07.2009 00:16): > >> > >>[skip] > >> > >>>>> Very many Russian people were killed, unlawful arrest or simply > >>>>> disappear last 4 - 5 years from activity our new Government... > >>>> > >>>>Please, please, keep political FUD off the list. > >>> > >>> Given that what he wrote is about a) events reported in the press > >>> internationally and b) one of the highest priority justifications for > >>> having a tor development project in the first place, *your* comment > >>> would appear to be a non sequitur. Perhaps you should have changed > >>> your Subject: line to reflect whatever OT issue you wished to discuss > >>> instead of what was already being discussed. > >>> The OP has requested information, and several of us now have tried > >>> to find information that he might be able to use to his advantage in > >>> the situation he believes he faces. If you have additional information > >>> along these lines, please post it. > >> > >>I'm sure that Vlad is happy to see the ongoing discussion of technical > >>questions raised by the OP. He just asked to keep political FUD off > > > > He gave no such indication in the single line of text that > > constituted his followup and to which I was following up. > > Ok, I cannot guarantee that he is happy about technical questions:-) > But he clearly toalks about non-technical points. > > >>the list. And I'm completely agree with him, IMHO unfounded (and > >>founded probably also:-) talks about bloody regime are not for this > >>mailing list. YMMV. > > > > Please reread what I wrote that you have quoted above. It doesn't > > matter whether you support or oppose the OP's political views. > > Sure. But only while he keeps his political views for himself and > doesn't bring them to this list. > > > The point > > is that the OP made apparent reference to events reported both in the > > press in Russia and in the international press as a reason *he* was > > afraid and wanted to use tor. That should be more than sufficient > > information for anyone on this list to understand the OP's motivation for > > asking his questions. > > Just to be sure: you talk about banning Skype? No problem here, it's a > valid concern, it's in the news, in the press, on TV etc. > > The problem is the rhetoric such as quoted at beginning of this mail. > OP started the thread talking about bloody regime. IMHO it already is > beyond the acceptable line. But then he continues about killed people > etc. in the following mails. That very much brings the politics to the > list and adds nothing to the technical side of discussions. > > >>As for banning Skype in Russia, AFAICT it's FUD also. Everything seems > >>to be based on some discussions in The Russian Union of Industrialists > >>and Entrepreneurs (just hysterics by mobile operators loosing market > >>share?). It's somewhat troubling but I'm not sure it's worth much > >>discussion until there are some concrete details. > > > > Fair enough. However, if Phil Zimmermann had waited until the FBI > > had its Carnivore system up and running, along with further development > > already in progress, we probably would never have gotten PGP or its > > successors. He dropped all of his paying work for many months in order > > to design, code, test, and release PGP 1.0, all justified *in his own > > mind* on the basis of what he had heard or read that the FBI was talking > > about doing. > > One doesn't need to wait for additional reasons to switch away from > Skype. It's proprietary and closed technology with all accompanying > problems. BTW last news are about eBay possibly closing Skype entirely > which is quite in line with its proprietary nature. So no question > here. > > If someone is concerned about possibility of banning Skype or VoIP in > general s/he can start with research how VoIP is banned in those > countries in which it's already banned. There are some examples in > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VoIP#Legal_issues . > > >>What the OP proposes is also somewhat strange. Build the possibility > >>to "call to ordina[r]y telephones" into Tor? Sure, just add some PSTN > >>exit nodes... > > > > Yeah, well, that is certainly unnecessary. Specific applications > > should be developed outside of tor by interested parties. I already > > worry that tor itself will become too large and complex to be kept safe > > to use. There are already various telephone applications that might be > > modified to work with proxy support that would enable the use of tor with > > them. > > BTW it seems Google Voice can be used to hide origin of phone calls in > some cases. > > Alexander Cherepanov -- “We can have a democratic society or we can have the concentration of great wealth in the hands of the few. We cannot have both.” — Louis Brandeis, Supreme Court Justice, 1916-1939