Re: [tor-talk] New Tool Keeps Censors in the Dark - mentions Tor.
On 8/9/2011 5:44 AM, Joe Btfsplk wrote: On 8/8/2011 8:16 AM, Jimmy Richardson wrote: On 8/8/2011 5:03 PM, Eugen Leitl wrote: On Mon, Aug 08, 2011 at 10:41:50AM +0800, Jimmy Richardson wrote: Google AppEngine provides a platform which can be used to run your own proxy servers for free, Gtalk supports XMPP which can also be used to circumvent censorship. Google actively cooperates with US authorities regardless of user's geography, so using Google's infrastructure for anonymity is an oxymoron. I agree, but again, we were talking about anti-censorship, not anonymity. Frankly people in China or Iran has much more to fear from their own government than from US authorities. ___ Jimmy, though you have some valid points, I think you missed my point entirely (possibly some other posters'). Actually I do see your point, as I have said, we have different assumptions regarding how censor would react to anti-censorship activities, let's just agree to disagree here. But even under your assumption, I don't see the reason to bash Google here. True, Google could sell you out to governments, but so could any company (for example your ISP). The difference between Google and your average company is: a. Google actually made a stand against censorship, and suffered the retaliation; b. Google is providing computation resources for free. If you want privacy/anonymity, you just need to code encryption routines for the proxy you run on Google's AppEngine, it's no different from the suggestion to run Tor over Telex. And for the free service they provided against censorship, we should be thanking Google (and Telex if it gets built). As far as I can see, Tor is already losing against the censors, I think Tor should welcome some help in fighting against them. ___ tor-talk mailing list tor-talk@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk
Re: [tor-talk] New Tool Keeps Censors in the Dark - mentions Tor.
On 8/8/2011 5:03 PM, Eugen Leitl wrote: On Mon, Aug 08, 2011 at 10:41:50AM +0800, Jimmy Richardson wrote: Google AppEngine provides a platform which can be used to run your own proxy servers for free, Gtalk supports XMPP which can also be used to circumvent censorship. Google actively cooperates with US authorities regardless of user's geography, so using Google's infrastructure for anonymity is an oxymoron. I agree, but again, we were talking about anti-censorship, not anonymity. Frankly people in China or Iran has much more to fear from their own government than from US authorities. ___ tor-talk mailing list tor-talk@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk
Re: [tor-talk] New Tool Keeps Censors in the Dark - mentions Tor.
On 8/8/2011 12:48 AM, Joe Btfsplk wrote: On 8/6/2011 10:56 AM, Jimmy Richardson wrote: This won't work well seeing Google is already kicked out of China. Exactly. You lost me at "If google were to..." Google & privacy is the definition of an oxymoron. They're way down the list of organizations many users would want having any role in some anonymity endeavor. This is not about privacy, it's about anti-censorship, and Google is a good resource in terms of anti-censorship. How so - other than not wanting their corporation to be censored? Do they have a record of refusing to give data to gov'ts? Google AppEngine provides a platform which can be used to run your own proxy servers for free, Gtalk supports XMPP which can also be used to circumvent censorship. Privacy, anonymity & anti-censorship seem interrelated. Anonymity implies privacy. I don't think there is a direct relationship, the two concerns (privacy/anonymity and anti-censorship) can be separated. They only come together in some use cases, for example if you want to speak up against the censoring government; but in a lot of other use cases they are unrelated, for example if the user just want to view a video totally unrelated to politics on youtube. Google is in business to make money, not promote anti-censorship or free speech. Censoring them cuts into their earnings, so yes, they are against censorship - * involving their corporation. * True, but I don't see anything wrong with this, we can leverage their desire for profit for other purposes. IMO, if I lived in a country where my life or possible imprisonment depended on internet anonymity / security, I wouldn't trust Google to keep me safe. I'm quite sure other entities eventually could provide some service / method to access banned sites, w/o $ being the main objective. I think we may have different assumptions here. You're assuming the user may face imprisonment if they break the censorship and access blocked content, my assumption is the censoring government will not bother to catch people who circumvent censorship as long as they don't actively go against the government. Forget Telex or Tor for the moment. Eventually, individuals or groups have always found an "underground" way around censorship (if they wanted to) during wars, etc., sans the internet. The answer to avoid censorship may not involve the internet at all. Yes, but internet has some huge advantage over other methods, that is why censoring governments are afraid of it. Ultimately, passing or accessing censored or what gov'ts consider subversive info * through any ISP,* that keeps records & is legally bound to cooperate w/ govt's doesn't seem like the best idea. I wouldn't go to the NSA's office to have a secret phone conversation. Just my opinion. No, it's certainly not the best idea, but life doesn't always give you the best tool for the job, sometimes you just have to use whatever is handy. ___ tor-talk mailing list tor-talk@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk ___ tor-talk mailing list tor-talk@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk
Re: [tor-talk] New Tool Keeps Censors in the Dark - mentions Tor.
On 8/6/2011 7:43 PM, Joe Btfsplk wrote: On 8/5/2011 4:42 PM, Martin Fick wrote: --- On Fri, 8/5/11, berta...@ptitcanardnoir.org wrote: http://www.technologyreview.com/communications/38207/?p1=A1 It's worth reading the paper: I think that simply getting high profile sites to run to r nodes would be more likely and less invasive to the internet as a whole. If google were to simply run a bunch of bridges, or even known tor entry nodes, that would likely be more reliable and be less pie in the sky. This won't work well seeing Google is already kicked out of China. The censors would not hesitate to block a few high profile sites, they actually want this to happen so that they can replace the high profile sites with their own copycat sites like the Baidu search engine in China. This is where Telex gets it right: You have to force the censor to choose between full internet or no internet, a few sites just won't cut it. If you compare the advocacy it would take to get enough ISPs to implement this scheme versus the advocacy to get a few high profile (can't live without them) sites to run tor nodes, I suspect the latter would be much easier. -Martin You lost me at "If google were to..." Google & privacy is the definition of an oxymoron. They're way down the list of organizations many users would want having any role in some anonymity endeavor. This is not about privacy, it's about anti-censorship, and Google is a good resource in terms of anti-censorship. ___ tor-talk mailing list tor-talk@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk ___ tor-talk mailing list tor-talk@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk
Re: [tor-talk] US Senators Seek to Crackdown on Bitcoin
All fiat money is a scam by this definition. Value cannot be created by print a paper (or in Fed's case, an open market operation) either, but that's what the governments do everyday. On 6/16/2011 11:40 AM, andr...@fastmail.fm wrote: Bitcoin is a scam. Money or value can't be created on a computer (unless you consider the phoney fiat currency of the USD "money"). At best bitcoin is a ponzi scheme where the initial holders of the digital money get to see the increase in the computer value of the bitcoins they "own" only to, at the right time, dump them onto suckers that got in the this new fangled trickery at the end. Those that hold bitcoins at the end will be at a loss as in reality, they're worth nothing. Bitcoins are a classic example of the Wall Street method of Pump and Dump. Fake or unrealistic information is circulated around the web about a certain stock and how it's to perform which is always UP UP UP in value. This is the Pump phase. The unsuspecting and gulible public rushes in to purchase massive amounts of the (really) junk stock. The price rises dramaticly. Those that promoted the stock then Dump itfast. They make their profit and the dummies that believed the junk about how great the equity was get stuck with a loss as the stock plummets. Whether the jackasses in the Senate want to go after bc or not doesn't matter. Bitcoin will evaporate under its own weight with no help of the government. - On Wed, 15 Jun 2011 00:41 -0400, "grarpamp" wrote: Since it appears they're going to be targeting a Hidden Service, it will be an interesting test of Tor's resilience given the resources available to the US government. Guess they would have to block all the directory servers/mirrors. They probably don't care about drugs, underage and copyright stuff so much. But an untraceable, untaxable, easily used alternative currency that has value and works... now that might draw some global attention. Was not one of the topics at the recent G8 "What to do about the internet?" It would be interesting to see what might happen if directory servers could be run on the same SSL enabled server (and even port) as the various popular websites around the world, by their operators. Other than bootstrapping (via a shipped list or friendly tip), is there a way to make the directory services internal to Tor? Not sure there is due to chickens and eggs. Though with 9 authorities, 1200+ dirservers, and 2300+ relays, maybe no worries. ___ tor-talk mailing list tor-talk@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk ___ tor-talk mailing list tor-talk@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk
