Re: [tor-talk] New Tool Keeps Censors in the Dark - mentions Tor.
- Original Message - From: Joe Btfsplk Sent: 08/10/11 09:55 PM To: tor-talk@lists.torproject.org Subject: Re: [tor-talk] New Tool Keeps Censors in the Dark - mentions Tor. On 8/10/2011 5:21 AM, Achter Lieber wrote: - Original Message - From: Zaher F. Sent: 08/09/11 03:18 PM To: tor-talk@lists.torproject.org Subject: Re: [tor-talk] New Tool Keeps Censors in the Dark - mentions Tor.after reading all ur conversation...for me i didnt understand a very important thing : how come a software or tools as Telex and is not anonymity?? because the most of blocked sites by the governments are restricted also and censored... so i dont think a software like Telex can work against these governments cause no body is ready to loose his freedom ** couldn't resist - sorry cause no body is ready to loose his freedom... we're already losing our freedoms tor is about running and hiding ** thx Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2011 10:34:34 +0800 From: jmmrchr...@gmail.com mailto:jmmrchr...@gmail.com To: tor-talk@lists.torproject.org mailto:tor-talk@li sts.torproject.org Subject: Re: [tor-talk] New Tool Keeps Censors in the Dark - mentions Tor. Achter, this isn't a reply to the topic, but an FYI on how your posts show up (on my screen in Tbird). Your reply (that I enlarged text enclosed between astrisks **, just shows up as part of the original quoted text. IOW, it's not distinguished from any previous post at all, so doesn't appear to be a NEW post or reply. * Don't know how it appears to others. * I'm assuming if you wanted to insert comments at specific point, in the middle of previous post(s), you hit enter to start new text that isn't part of previous quoted replies? Your post / reply is 1st I've seen this on - not sure why. Since I don't know which email client you have (or using some webmail), can't give specific suggestions. Usually w/ Tbird, if you place cursor in quoted text, where want to insert reply ( have it show up distinctly from earlier posts), hit enter - it breaks the earlier quoted post makes new text entered very distinct from quoted text. This is just FYI - if have any questions, please ask. Maybe I or others can make suggestions. Another FYI - a Tbird addon I use to help reading msgs w/ multiple quotes is QUOTE COLORS. https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/thunderbird/addon/quote-colors/ It makes it much easier to keep up w/ what text went w/ which author. I'm sure other email clients * may * have similar addons. Cheers. ___ tor-talk mailing list tor-talk@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk Sorry. I will have to read your reply several times to gather your jist. It's not you. It's me. I'm not really versed in email, or virtually any thing that has to do with a computer as far as the enormous amounts of things any one software, including email programs, can do. My comment was just a spur-of-the-moment type of thing and I meant to put the person's quote in quotes. I write a lot and the idea of Tor, anonymity, and the various political climates that exist (and the comment), just struck a chord with me. I just did it, ignoring the real fact that I knew it was not really a topic for this group. Please forgive me for this indiscretion. I use Tor and live in a country where using proxies is technically against the law. I have never had much trouble with it but my learning curve is so slow that I fear I will never be able to become a server in the Tor network. I cannot find anyone in this part of the world who uses it, knows about it, and who might be willing and able to teach me or help my learning curve pick up some momentum and speed. I believe it is vitally necessary to the world but that using it solely for, as I call it, running hiding, only serves a temporary answer to a solvable but difficult-to-solve problem. Okay that's it. I try to not top-post as I think that is not okay here. ___ 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.
- Original Message - From: Zaher F. Sent: 08/09/11 03:18 PM To: tor-talk@lists.torproject.org Subject: Re: [tor-talk] New Tool Keeps Censors in the Dark - mentions Tor. after reading all ur conversation... for me i didnt understand a very important thing : how come a software or tools as Telex and is not anonymity?? because the most of blocked sites by the governments are restricted also and censored... so i dont think a software like Telex can work against these governments cause no body is ready to loose his freedom couldn't resist - sorry cause no body is ready to loose his freedom... we're already losing our freedoms tor is about running and hiding thx Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2011 10:34:34 +0800 From: jmmrchr...@gmail.com To: tor-talk@lists.torproject.org Subject: 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 ___ 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 8/10/2011 5:21 AM, Achter Lieber wrote: - Original Message - From: Zaher F. Sent: 08/09/11 03:18 PM To: tor-talk@lists.torproject.org Subject: Re: [tor-talk] New Tool Keeps Censors in the Dark - mentions Tor. after reading all ur conversation... for me i didnt understand a very important thing : how come a software or tools as Telex and is not anonymity?? because the most of blocked sites by the governments are restricted also and censored... so i dont think a software like Telex can work against these governments cause no body is ready to loose his freedom ** couldn't resist - sorry cause no body is ready to loose his freedom... we're already losing our freedoms tor is about running and hiding ** thx Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2011 10:34:34 +0800 From: jmmrchr...@gmail.com mailto:jmmrchr...@gmail.com To: tor-talk@lists.torproject.org mailto:tor-talk@lists.torproject.org Subject: Re: [tor-talk] New Tool Keeps Censors in the Dark - mentions Tor. Achter, this isn't a reply to the topic, but an FYI on how your posts show up (on my screen in Tbird). Your reply (that I enlarged text enclosed between astrisks **, just shows up as part of the original quoted text. IOW, it's not distinguished from any previous post at all, so doesn't appear to be a NEW post or reply. * Don't know how it appears to others. * I'm assuming if you wanted to insert comments at specific point, in the middle of previous post(s), you hit enter to start new text that isn't part of previous quoted replies? Your post / reply is 1st I've seen this on - not sure why. Since I don't know which email client you have (or using some webmail), can't give specific suggestions. Usually w/ Tbird, if you place cursor in quoted text, where want to insert reply ( have it show up distinctly from earlier posts), hit enter - it breaks the earlier quoted post makes new text entered very distinct from quoted text. This is just FYI - if have any questions, please ask. Maybe I or others can make suggestions. Another FYI - a Tbird addon I use to help reading msgs w/ multiple quotes is QUOTE COLORS. https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/thunderbird/addon/quote-colors/ It makes it much easier to keep up w/ what text went w/ which author. I'm sure other email clients * may * have similar addons. Cheers. ___ 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.
after reading all ur conversation... for me i didnt understand a very important thing : how come a software or tools as Telex and is not anonymity?? because the most of blocked sites by the governments are restricted also and censored... so i dont think a software like Telex can work against these governments cause no body is ready to loose his freedom thx Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2011 10:34:34 +0800 From: jmmrchr...@gmail.com To: tor-talk@lists.torproject.org Subject: 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 ___ 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 9:34 PM, Jimmy Richardson wrote: On 8/9/2011 5:44 AM, Joe Btfsplk wrote: 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. I think we're beating a dead horse maybe talking about 2 diff things. I'm not bashing Google - just stating instances of their record. Yes, they provide lots of free services - including email. But before one sends unencrypted email to Gmail quite a few other free providers ( also persons replying to email sent thru the scanning providers), it'd better be info they don't mind * possibly * the entire world knowing. I just don't think Google is a good choice to count on to protect your identity ( stake your freedom on, * if living in a highly repressed nation *), even if they do offer valuable services for free. I hope other entities will step up to offer the kinds of services you mention, for users in repressed nations - if none exist. Google's some other providers' privacy policies are quite dismal from a privacy standpoint. In the US some other nations, for now, loosing your freedom isn't an issue - unless breaking some laws. I was speaking about very repressed nations, where people can be jailed simply on suspicion. In THAT kind of society, I wouldn't trust Google (OR a lot of others), if offering services you refer to. In the US other free democracies, invasion of privacy failure to protect identity are probably the only drawbacks to using Google - other provider w/ similar privacy policies - for services you mention - unless violating laws. ___ 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 8/9/2011 3:18 AM, Zaher F. wrote: after reading all ur conversation... for me i didnt understand a very important thing : how come a software or tools as Telex and is not anonymity?? because the most of blocked sites by the governments are restricted also and censored... so i dont think a software like Telex can work against these governments cause no body is ready to loose his freedom thx Zaher, the purpose of Tor ( Telex's model) IS primarily anonymity. And in opinion of many, anonymity implies privacy. One issue is Tor or any other anonymity software isn't 100% foolproof. Yes, many sites are censored by nations. The purpose of software like Tor presumably Telex are to keep ISPs (thus gov'ts) from knowing which sites your visiting. The draw back to that, is some nations have banned accessing Tor nodes. Whether Telex get off the ground or not, as I mentioned earlier, their concept is (* as I understand *), a censoring nation / ISP would think users were accessing acceptable sites (vs accessing a Tor node), Telex would divert users traffic from the destination (that the ISP sees / logs), after it leaves the ISP to users' real destinations. The ISP has no idea the traffic was diverted by Telex, or that Telex was involved at all - as I understand. Thus, making ISPs ( gov'ts) THINK users' are going to acceptable sites. This is diff than ISPs logging that users are connecting to Tor nodes (if they can), which some nations see as trying to circumvent their censorship. Whether ISPs would eventually be able to detect traffic is using Telex software is another matter. I'm not any sort of expert on Telex or Tor. ___ 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 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. -- Eugen* Leitl a href=http://leitl.org;leitl/a http://leitl.org __ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE ___ 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 8/9/2011 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 8/6/2011 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? Privacy, anonymity anti-censorship seem interrelated. Anonymity implies privacy. 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. * 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. 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. 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. ___ 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 8/5/2011 4:42 PM, Martin Fick wrote: --- On Fri, 8/5/11, berta...@ptitcanardnoir.orgberta...@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. 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. ___ 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 Fri, 8/5/11, berta...@ptitcanardnoir.org 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. 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 ___ tor-talk mailing list tor-talk@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk
