Re: [tor-talk] Non-free country law preventing Tor from getting donations
On Sun, Jun 15, 2014 at 04:17:44PM -0500, Joe Btfsplk wrote: > >As long as funding doesn't come with strings, there's no problem with > >accepting it. > Very true - more so w/ people already using Tor or those that would never > look at how Tor is funded. > But if some sayings were ever true, it's, "Perception is reality," and > "You're judged by the company you keep." > > People on the outside looking in, see an organization, whose primary purpose > is to provide means to protect privacy, *especially* from gov't agencies, > but the major portion of their funding comes FROM a gov't agency. > > I'm sorry - but no matter how much I or anyone else loves Tor, to many > "thinking" outsiders, it would appear quite fishy (if they know that funding > fact). "It just don't look right." > I think it's fishy - _& I like Tor_. If I'd actually known that fact before > I used it, I'd have thought something wasn't right. > > It may be, if they really want to grow the Tor user base (continually), it > may have to appeal to a broader audience, for many of whom the funding > source issue may well be a stumbling block. Very true. In Russia, question "do you know who funded torproject?" (assuming US gov.) arises constantly in disputes about the safety of tor. It is a very stupid argument. But with anti-American sentiment in mind, it sounds convincing for people not versed in the matter. -- tor-talk mailing list - tor-talk@lists.torproject.org To unsubscribe or change other settings go to https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk
Re: [tor-talk] Non-free country law preventing Tor from getting donations
On 06/15/2014 12:50 AM, krishna e bera wrote: > What about forming an international consortium to shepherd Tor, so that > developments can come from and be funded in multiple jurisdictions? > This would also remove some of the odour that any US-based project emits > on international and virtual streets. The Wau Holland Foundation in Germany accepts money for Tor. It is also mentioned here: https://www.torproject.org/donate/donate.html.en#cash -- Moritz Bartl https://www.torservers.net/ -- tor-talk mailing list - tor-talk@lists.torproject.org To unsubscribe or change other settings go to https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk
Re: [tor-talk] Non-free country law preventing Tor from getting donations
Sebastian G. wrote: > Andrew wrote: >> - Looked into legality of receiving a large financial donation from a >> country on the US Treasury embargoed list. Unsurprisingly, we cannot >> accept such a donation due to the source. > Money is speech, isn't it? It's just a promise.* If that is true, then > preventing you from taking money is a violation of your first amendment. Well, sort of. In campaign finance law, "money is speech," but America hasn't quite figured out how these laws complement or conflict. And there's a standing list of embargoed countries.[1] It's an incredibly tricky legal area. (I've ~really~ got to start reading tor-reports more often) [3] > Money is money; independent from the source. Money (especially donations to non-profits) are perceived to have politics attached to it. After Hurricane Katrina, there was a bit of an uproar after Kuwait offered to donate $400m in oil and $100m in actual money. My (limited) understanding is that Country X can use good deeds like those to try to rehabilitate their image, or use it to insinuate a political tie between themselves and the US. With some countries, these sanctions go away after a while, but with others it's a difficult situation long-term. Imagine if, to choose a totally random example, North Korea decided to give a billion dollars to anti-poverty charities while its people go hungry. Or if Lukashenko gave a few million to lobby for journalistic protections in the US while having an awful record domestically.[2] ~Griffin [1] http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/sanctions/Programs/Pages/Programs.aspx [2] https://www.cpj.org/europe/belarus/ [3] that awkward moment when you're reading someone's funder report and it has your name in it. surprise! -- tor-talk mailing list - tor-talk@lists.torproject.org To unsubscribe or change other settings go to https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk
Re: [tor-talk] Non-free country law preventing Tor from getting donations
On 06/15/2014 03:17 PM, Joe Btfsplk wrote: > On 6/15/2014 2:08 PM, Mirimir wrote: >> The law is the law, and (acting openly) the choices are compliance, or >> noncompliance on principle. But see above. > No, the law is often temporary, until someone has the guts to stand up > (100's, maybe 1000's of times, in the last 150 yrs, in U.S. alone). > This & many countries were founded entirely on standing up against > repression; by "revolutionists." Yes, laws may change after people stand up against them. But sometimes they don't. We still have huge taxes on whiskey, for example ;) But that's what I said above. People can comply, or stand up and refuse to comply. > Hell, in the U.S., we celebrate & honor revolutionists - of the most > extreme kind - every 4th of July. Politicians give speeches all over > the U.S., about how great the revolutionary militants were. Well, first they refused to comply. Some of them did so flagrantly, in order to precipitate a crisis. Then they waited for King George's decision. It was only after he decided against the colonists, and sent more troops, that serious fighting started. > But then somehow, if in current day, people talk about changing the > status quo - for really important issues, like civil rights, they're > branded militants that need to be silenced by any means necessary. The fight for desegregation in the US was explicitly modeled on Gandhi's non-violent resistance strategy that led to independence for India. I don't think that "militants" is accurate for them. It was segregationists who were violent. But I do entirely agree that they were revolutionaries :) > "It was OK for the founding fathers to be extreme militants, but no one > can do it after that, or they'll go to jail." Actually, punishment by oppressors (being beaten or even martyred, going to jail, etc) is typically part of the process. > I'm not saying Tor Project (by themselves) should start a revolution > over embargo laws. But that scenario is similar to historical cases (in > some respects). Women couldn't vote; black people had to use different > restrooms, water fountains. I personally saw that growing up in the > South. On all those things & hundreds more, someone / some group had to > stand up - & do more than send an email, that can be deleted by a > flunkie, for anything to change. Well, I do appreciate that this is not part of the Tor Project's mission. However, they do provide the means (Tor) for handling such donations discretely ;) >> As long as funding doesn't come with strings, there's no problem with >> accepting it. > Very true - more so w/ people already using Tor or those that would > never look at how Tor is funded. > But if some sayings were ever true, it's, "Perception is reality," and > "You're judged by the company you keep." Let me rephrase that. If it's OK for the Tor Project to be heavily funded by the US government, it should be OK to accept donations from some liberal in Iran. > People on the outside looking in, see an organization, whose primary > purpose is to provide means to protect privacy, *especially* from gov't > agencies, but the major portion of their funding comes FROM a gov't agency. > > I'm sorry - but no matter how much I or anyone else loves Tor, to many > "thinking" outsiders, it would appear quite fishy (if they know that > funding fact). "It just don't look right." > I think it's fishy - _& I like Tor_. If I'd actually known that fact > before I used it, I'd have thought something wasn't right. > > It may be, if they really want to grow the Tor user base (continually), > it may have to appeal to a broader audience, for many of whom the > funding source issue may well be a stumbling block. They really ought to become an explicitly global organization. Having their foot nailed to the floor in the US is ridiculous. -- tor-talk mailing list - tor-talk@lists.torproject.org To unsubscribe or change other settings go to https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk
[tor-talk] Onion web hosting.
Has anyone purchased hosting for an .onion domain? Any suggestions of reputable companies? Any think to avoid? Thanks! -- tor-talk mailing list - tor-talk@lists.torproject.org To unsubscribe or change other settings go to https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk
Re: [tor-talk] Non-free country law preventing Tor from getting donations
On 6/15/2014 2:52 PM, grarpamp wrote: The code is open for inspection so it's not an overt issue, and the cash funds a lot of good research. I'm not accusing Tor Project of anything underhanded. And you are correct (it funds a lot of research). I'm saying, to the public & many potential users, perception is reality, and you're judged by the company you keep. In general, those human behaviors / concepts are inescapable. In regards to the code being open for inspection, apparently that doesn't mean a whole lot. Though most of the "hidden" backdoors, etc., associated w/ gov't action have been proprietary, there have been a few cases where "strange" things in open source code were hidden well enough, that no one discovered them for a long time. If I'm wrong, I stand corrected. Seriously, how many people that don't work on Tor / TBB code every day, could just "look" at the code & understand every single thing it does, down to the tiniest detail? Or how many people actually have the time to examine every single line of code, that also have the expertise to understand everything, to the smallest detail? Not many. If that's not significant, the NSA has spent billions (w/ a 'B') - to encourage companies & countries to do what they want. They also developed skills & a network, that most people thought unimaginable. Like science fiction. That's now a fact. When I mentioned that potential capability a few yrs ago, that idea was shot down by Mr. Perry. In his defense, he was in good company - most people couldn't imagine they could ever do the things that actually became true. That said, if NSA & who knows who else, will pay tens or hundreds of millions to companies & countries to get what they want, they *certainly* would spend whatever it took to set up enough of their own relays to capture a significant % of Tor traffic. Still think that's impossible? Read ALL of the released Snowden document. I heard Snowden say in recent interview, there are more documents coming - probably this Summer - that are just as mind blowing, or more, than any so far. OK - but what about Tor's encryption? Well, it may be uncrackable today, but what about in a month? The NSA & many other gov'ts have literally the best computer minds in the world, working around the clock on breaking encryption. No, a lot of others (much more informed than me) don't think the gov't is going to sit around & do nothing, while terrorists or other heinous criminals use encrypted communication. And some (naive) people may not know this, but gov'ts *don't announce* when they develop technology that revolutionizes spying or catching terrorists, etc. It would be shooting themselves in the foot. The Snowden papers were almost a once in several lifetimes event. And if we think the NSA (or any gov't agency in the world) will stop illegal activities, just because some papers were released, we probably also believe in Santa Clause. Heads of the NSA were caught straight up, telling bald-faced lies under oath to Congress, but all are still employed. Happy as pigs in the mud. If I had done that, I'd be *under* the jail right now. Yes, I believe the NSA & other agencies have a job to do. The question, how far do they actually have to go? -- tor-talk mailing list - tor-talk@lists.torproject.org To unsubscribe or change other settings go to https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk
Re: [tor-talk] Non-free country law preventing Tor from getting donations
On Sun, Jun 15, 2014, at 10:17 PM, Joe Btfsplk wrote: > But if some sayings were ever true, it's, "Perception is reality," err, no it isn't. Maybe on the quantum level. GD -- http://www.fastmail.fm - A fast, anti-spam email service. -- tor-talk mailing list - tor-talk@lists.torproject.org To unsubscribe or change other settings go to https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk
Re: [tor-talk] Non-free country law preventing Tor from getting donations
On 6/15/2014 2:08 PM, Mirimir wrote: The law is the law, and (acting openly) the choices are compliance, or noncompliance on principle. But see above. No, the law is often temporary, until someone has the guts to stand up (100's, maybe 1000's of times, in the last 150 yrs, in U.S. alone). This & many countries were founded entirely on standing up against repression; by "revolutionists." Hell, in the U.S., we celebrate & honor revolutionists - of the most extreme kind - every 4th of July. Politicians give speeches all over the U.S., about how great the revolutionary militants were. But then somehow, if in current day, people talk about changing the status quo - for really important issues, like civil rights, they're branded militants that need to be silenced by any means necessary. "It was OK for the founding fathers to be extreme militants, but no one can do it after that, or they'll go to jail." I'm not saying Tor Project (by themselves) should start a revolution over embargo laws. But that scenario is similar to historical cases (in some respects). Women couldn't vote; black people had to use different restrooms, water fountains. I personally saw that growing up in the South. On all those things & hundreds more, someone / some group had to stand up - & do more than send an email, that can be deleted by a flunkie, for anything to change. As long as funding doesn't come with strings, there's no problem with accepting it. Very true - more so w/ people already using Tor or those that would never look at how Tor is funded. But if some sayings were ever true, it's, "Perception is reality," and "You're judged by the company you keep." People on the outside looking in, see an organization, whose primary purpose is to provide means to protect privacy, *especially* from gov't agencies, but the major portion of their funding comes FROM a gov't agency. I'm sorry - but no matter how much I or anyone else loves Tor, to many "thinking" outsiders, it would appear quite fishy (if they know that funding fact). "It just don't look right." I think it's fishy - _& I like Tor_. If I'd actually known that fact before I used it, I'd have thought something wasn't right. It may be, if they really want to grow the Tor user base (continually), it may have to appeal to a broader audience, for many of whom the funding source issue may well be a stumbling block. -- tor-talk mailing list - tor-talk@lists.torproject.org To unsubscribe or change other settings go to https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk
[tor-talk] On recent and upcoming developments in the PT universe
Hello friends, this is a brief post on recent and upcoming developments in the PT universe. What has happened: TBB 3.6: As many of you know, the TBB team recently started releasing TBB-3.6 with built-in PT support. This is great and has taken PT usage to new levels [0]. Maaad props to the TBB team for all their work. Please try the TBB-3.6 bundles here: https://www.torproject.org/download/download-easy.html.en TBB-3.6 includes obfs3 and FTE by default. All of them seem to work fine. If the built-in bridges are blocked for you (this is the case at least in China), try getting some more bridges from https://bridges.torproject.org (which also got renovated recently). obfs2 deprecation: We are in the process of deprecating the obfs2 pluggable transport [1]. This is because China blocks it using active probing, and because obfs3 is stictly better than obfs2. obfs3 can also be blocked using active probing, but China hasn't implemented this yet. The new upcoming line of PTs (like scramblesuit and obfs4) should be able to defend better more effectively against active probing. Proxy support in PTs: Yawning Angel et al. recently implemented proxy support within PTs. This means that TBB-3.6 obfsproxy can now connect to an outgoing proxy using the Socks5Proxy torrc option [2]. This will soon also be the case for FTE etc. What will happen: obfs4 and scramblesuit: Remember ScrambleSuit [3]? We are thinking of *not* deploying it after all... ScrambleSuit is great, but during the past two months Yawning has been developing a new transport called 'obfs4' [4]. obfs4 is like ScrambleSuit (wrt features/threat model), but it's faster and autofixes some of the open issues with scramblesuit (#10887, #11271, ...). Since scramblesuit has not been entirely deployed yet, we thought that it would be a good idea to deploy obfs4 instead, and keep scramblesuit around as an emergency PT. Meek: Meek is an exciting new transport by David Fifield. You can read all about it here: https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/wiki/doc/meek It's basically a transport that (ab)uses Firefox to do SSL in a way that makes it look like Firefox but underneath it's actually Tor data. Very sneaky, and because it uses third-party services (like Google Appspot, Akamai, etc.) as proxies, the user does not need to input a bridge. Meek just works bridgeless and automgically. Help us by testing the latest bundles that David made here: https://lists.torproject.org/pipermail/tor-qa/2014-June/000422.html PTs and IPv6: PTs are not very good at IPv6 yet. We identified some of the open issues and created tickets for them. Hopefully we will fix them too: #12138 : No IPv6 support when suggesting a bindaddr to a PT #11211: Multiple ServerTransportListenAddr entries should be allowed per transport. #7961: Publish transports that bind on IPv6 addresses [0]: https://metrics.torproject.org/users.html?graph=userstats-bridge-transport&start=2014-03-17&end=2014-06-15&transport=obfs3#userstats-bridge-transport [1]: https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/ticket/10314 [2]: https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/ticket/11658 [3]: https://lists.torproject.org/pipermail/tor-relays/2014-February/003886.html [4]: https://github.com/Yawning/obfs4 -- tor-talk mailing list - tor-talk@lists.torproject.org To unsubscribe or change other settings go to https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk
Re: [tor-talk] Non-free country law preventing Tor from getting donations
On Sun, Jun 15, 2014 at 12:03 PM, Joe Btfsplk wrote: > Where such a transaction would not benefit the country, or even the private > donor, in any > financial, military, political manner, etc.; only promoting access to free > speech & information, > which in all likely hood, could lead to citizens *forcing change* on the very > policies / actions, that > lead to the country being embargoed in the first place. Yes, and tor going through its contacts at the state department might be useful in attempting to secure permission on those grounds. Even draining Sponsors non-directed funds could be seen as generically helping tor, which could help Sponsor say, hack the US. Same if Sponsor directs funds for better obfs, etc. And countries hacking each other is top political speak these days. So if you knowingly go accept Sponsors funds without a letter of permission, you better be ready to defend yourself against closure of your entity. (Which currently pays the wages for a handful of people [with strong beliefs in the entity, etc] so taking a pill that could kill you would not be easy.) That said, tor is BSD licensed so it would still be around. But who would be able to carry it the same or better. > I wouldn't expect any one or small group to just jump in & defy the current > interpretation of embargo laws - without serious research & consideration. Depends a lot on if the donation amount is "significant", and/or if you're in it just to fight it. > If Torproject ending it's close ties w/ U.S. military funding (by some > means) isn't important for it's reputation & appearance to the broader > internet community, I'm not sure what is. The code is open for inspection so it's not an overt issue, and the cash funds a lot of good research. Outright bribery or force "here's a million or an NSL/order, don't implement this", has a reasonably good chance of resulting in a sitdown protest closure of the project. So the only issue I see is covert, "here's a million, go research this (which might keep you too busy to discover or implement this other thing we don't like)". Yes, the US is a curious home for tor in these regards. Yet moving it someplace else will have a different set of pressures (though probably lesser), a different set of donors, coders, etc. -- tor-talk mailing list - tor-talk@lists.torproject.org To unsubscribe or change other settings go to https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk
Re: [tor-talk] Non-free country law preventing Tor from getting donations
On 06/15/2014 10:03 AM, Joe Btfsplk wrote: > > On 6/14/2014 10:40 PM, Andrew Lewman wrote: >> On 06/14/2014 03:21 AM, Sebastian G. wrote: >>> That has to be a violation of your rights. >> It's the law in the USA. Regardless of how one feels about it, it's >> currently against the law. >> >> The citizen resided in a country as listed as a State Sponsor of >> Terrorism, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Sponsors_of_Terrorism >> >> According to the advice we received, "financial transaction" is defined >> broadly to encompass many things, possibly including >> bitcoins/dogecoins/and other coins. >> >> There are many battles Tor can fight, this is not one of them. >> > I wouldn't expect any one or small group to just jump in & defy the > current interpretation of embargo laws - without serious research & > consideration. I totally agree, there's no reason to defy anything, unless creating a test case for litigation is the goal. > Where such a transaction would not benefit the country, or even the > private donor, in any financial, military, political manner, etc.; only > promoting access to free speech & information, which in all likely hood, > could lead to citizens *forcing change* on the very policies / actions, > that lead to the country being embargoed in the first place. > > Forbiding this specific transaction, given the specific circumstances, > would seem to be the definition of cutting off one's nose to spite their > face. The law is the law, and (acting openly) the choices are compliance, or noncompliance on principle. But see above. > In the world & US history, there are 1000's of cases where something was > once entrenched as being illegal, but became legal, often because > someone stood up & fought to change it. Indeed! Exemptions for victims and freedom fighters from designations as "State Sponsor of Terrorism" would make sense. After all, the US has itself supported freedom fighters in Iran, during the 2009-2010 election. > If Torproject ending it's close ties w/ U.S. military funding (by some > means) isn't important for it's reputation & appearance to the broader > internet community, I'm not sure what is. As long as funding doesn't come with strings, there's no problem with accepting it. As I see this case, the prospective donor was foolish to contact the Tor Project directly, apparently with no effective anonymity. And whoever publicized this screwup was also foolish. After explaining the situation to said prospective donor, the Tor Project should have discretely mentioned the donor's intent and contact information through suitable channels. And then they should have forgotten about it all. As I said, the less said, the better. But maybe I was too enigmatic ;) -- tor-talk mailing list - tor-talk@lists.torproject.org To unsubscribe or change other settings go to https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk
[tor-talk] Strange problmes when building Tor private network
To someone might concerns, Hi~ Recently I was building a tor private network in local lan for experiment, one of my dirs is configured as follows: Address 192.168.1.115 ORPort 5003 ORListenAddress 192.168.1.115:5003 SocksPort 7003 NickName dir3 DataDirectory /home/xxx/experiment/routers/3 TestingTorNetwork 1 ExitPolicyRejectPrivate 0 Log notice file /home/xxx/experiment/routers/3/log Log debug file /home/xxx/experiment/routers/3/logdebug SafeLogging 0 UseMicrodescriptors 1 ExitPolicy reject *:25 ExitPolicy reject *:119 ExitPolicy reject *:135-139 ExitPolicy reject *:445 ExitPolicy reject *:563 ExitPolicy reject *:1214 ExitPolicy reject *:4661-4666 ExitPolicy reject *:6346-6429 ExitPolicy reject *:6699 ExitPolicy reject *:6881-6999 ExitPolicy accept *:* RelayBandwidthRate 75 MB RelayBandwidthBurst 75 MB ContactInfo d...@dir3.com DirPort 10003 DirListenAddress 192.168.1.115:10003 V3AuthoritativeDirectory 1 V2AuthoritativeDirectory 1 AuthoritativeDirectory 1 RecommendedVersions 0.2.4.19,0.2.4.20,0.4.2.21 DirServer dir1 v3ident=A16D7E41A4CDE487E1B430825FD89581268F33E3 orport=5001 192.168.1.167:10001 E782 525F 08D9 D7A8 2A99 4CA5 D44F BFB9 2671 77EE DirServer dir2 v3ident=6323D6E95D1D6670E6C2D87A2BEB86D35702A4B8 orport=5002 192.168.1.178:10002 970D E51E 5307 8F3F 0017 786B C612 FD23 DC6A 9F93 DirServer dir3 v3ident=3F35F22D49E8DDF6B61912009549CC8AF24BD1CB orport=5003 192.168.1.115:10003 7856 81F0 4DBC B1C2 4511 2122 1420 3E04 5A9D 48B6 DirServer dir4 v3ident=2C0C3D5B3EC9FB119D2481E3FE2000773E721DF6 orport=5004 192.168.1.141:10004 85A5 B8C3 FB36 7250 82F5 10D9 59EF AB57 7C55 59F6 DirServer dir5 v3ident=425B092EC22C06C6CA4B8F051A5DD5DA5A0D orport=5005 192.168.1.167:10005 740B 6BC3 EAC4 D93E 2CED 4147 9041 AB90 B2B2 075F However, when my tor client connected to those dirs, it got the cached-consensus correctly. The only thing which makes me confused is that the client-version and the server-version content in Cached-Consensus as well as the directory-footer is MISSING!!! After checking the log, I found the warning "Consensus with empty bandwidth: G=0 M=0 E=176 D=489 T=665". So my questions are 1)how tor decides the bandwidth in LAN in the consensus file? RelayBandwidthRate or else? It turns out that no matter how I changed the RelayBandwidthRate, the bandwidth in consensus file still the same as before. 2) compared with the real tor network, why some contents are missing in the Cached-Consensus file? 3) is it possible to control the flags in the LAN private tor network? could someone help me out? Thanks in advance~ -- tor-talk mailing list - tor-talk@lists.torproject.org To unsubscribe or change other settings go to https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk
Re: [tor-talk] Non-free country law preventing Tor from getting donations
On 6/14/2014 10:40 PM, Andrew Lewman wrote: On 06/14/2014 03:21 AM, Sebastian G. wrote: That has to be a violation of your rights. It's the law in the USA. Regardless of how one feels about it, it's currently against the law. The citizen resided in a country as listed as a State Sponsor of Terrorism, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Sponsors_of_Terrorism According to the advice we received, "financial transaction" is defined broadly to encompass many things, possibly including bitcoins/dogecoins/and other coins. There are many battles Tor can fight, this is not one of them. I wouldn't expect any one or small group to just jump in & defy the current interpretation of embargo laws - without serious research & consideration. I haven't read the statutes covering any sort of transaction between a US non-profit & a private citizen in an embargoed country & I may not - depending. Where such a transaction would not benefit the country, or even the private donor, in any financial, military, political manner, etc.; only promoting access to free speech & information, which in all likely hood, could lead to citizens *forcing change* on the very policies / actions, that lead to the country being embargoed in the first place. Forbiding this specific transaction, given the specific circumstances, would seem to be the definition of cutting off one's nose to spite their face. In the world & US history, there are 1000's of cases where something was once entrenched as being illegal, but became legal, often because someone stood up & fought to change it. If Torproject ending it's close ties w/ U.S. military funding (by some means) isn't important for it's reputation & appearance to the broader internet community, I'm not sure what is. -- tor-talk mailing list - tor-talk@lists.torproject.org To unsubscribe or change other settings go to https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk
Re: [tor-talk] Including Tor into millions of products.
On 6/15/14, Andrew Lewman wrote: > On 06/14/2014 03:09 AM, Sebastian G. wrote: >> The questions that pop in my head are: >> >> 1) What kind of products are that? (Businesses or End-Consumer market?) > > Yes and yes. OK. Wide applicability is good. >> 2) What is the intended use-case? (Usage of the Tor network? >> Contribution to the Tor network? Both?) > > Privacy through Tor. That sounds like that's what you/your client is selling, but you ought be clear on what the guarantees of tor are (what it's threat model is, and what it provides **1), But more importantly, the question was what is the *use* *case* - as in, how are these devices or software 'nodes' going to interact with the Tor network? To be precise, the question was broken down: Will these 'nodes' use the Tor network (like TBB)? Will these 'nodes' contribute to the Tor network? If they contribute, do they contribute in configurable way, or fixed way? In either case, it what ways - as relays, exits, what? >> 3) In any case, doesn't that make you face some challenges? >> (Scalability, resources for downloads, size of consensuses, possibly >> bridges cause trouble, e.g. the bridgeDB has to maintain a pool of >> millions of bridges, maybe.) > > Yes, many challenges. Are you aware of who else will most likely face those challenges? >> 4) In the case of those things being relays, can one predict what the >> effect on network diversity will be? > > With the current public tor network, implosion. We almost survived 5 > million bots barely using the tor network. Sounds like yes, you have some idea - this is good :) So do you have plans to handle that implosion? If it's too super secret, ok. > Andrew > pgp 0x6B4D6475 **1 I am no Tor expert, but source-location anonymity is about as much as you will get from Tor, as far as I understand it; that is, privacy is dependent on end-user education, as well as the end user using tools which do not leak personal information, almost a tall ask, but TBB basically provides that, iff you disable javascript. It is good to promote freedom of speech through forms of anonymity, but please don't sell Tor as being something it is not. ** I hope you succeed in expanding public awareness and effective (non melt down) use of free speech networks in particular Tor. Regards and good luck, Zenaan -- tor-talk mailing list - tor-talk@lists.torproject.org To unsubscribe or change other settings go to https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk
