On Sat, May 28, 2016 at 4:31 AM, Steve Dougherty
wrote:
>
> > Is there any technical evidence that Google Docs will deanonymize a
> > Tor user, or even an explanation of how this could occur? The Google
> > Docs client code can be easily examined, so if Google were somehow
> > doing this, wouldn'
For some reason I have not actually received this message, so I've
copied it from the mailing list archive and hopefully threaded it properly.
> I'll keep this as short as possible to focus on which seems to be the
> crux of the issue:
>
> On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 8:14 PM, Steve Dougherty
> wrote:
I'll keep this as short as possible to focus on which seems to be the crux
of the issue:
On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 8:14 PM, Steve Dougherty
wrote:
>
> This sounds good, and would work well if it was what happened. The mail
> I responded to had a reasonable first paragraph discussing the idea at
> h
On 05/26/2016 10:02 AM, Ian Clarke wrote:
> On Thu, May 26, 2016 6:55 AM, Steve Dougherty st...@asksteved.com wrote:
> I can understand if you're upset that Arne does not agree with you, but
> I don't understand what you're doing here. Do you expect that if you
>
> berate Arne he will come around?
On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 9:12 AM, Florent Daigniere <
nextg...@freenetproject.org> wrote:
>
> Btw,
>
> I also disagree with using google-docs; the reason being: it requires
> registration to a 3rd party service whereas the alternatives (wiki or
> piratepad) don't.
>
In that case you will be pleased
On Thu, 2016-05-26 at 14:02 +, Ian Clarke wrote:
> On Thu, May 26, 2016 6:55 AM, Steve Dougherty st...@asksteved.com
> wrote:
> I can understand if you're upset that Arne does not agree with you,
> but
> I don't understand what you're doing here. Do you expect that if you
>
> berate Arne he wi
On Thu, May 26, 2016 6:55 AM, Steve Dougherty st...@asksteved.com wrote:
I can understand if you're upset that Arne does not agree with you, but
I don't understand what you're doing here. Do you expect that if you
berate Arne he will come around?
I expect that we can have a discussion based on
On Thu, 2016-05-26 at 07:55 -0400, Steve Dougherty wrote:
> On 05/25/2016 08:49 PM, Ian Clarke wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 6:44 PM, Arne Babenhauserheide > b.de>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Core technical reasons:
> > >
> > > - It excludes those of our users who assume (not unreaso
On 05/25/2016 08:49 PM, Ian Clarke wrote:
> On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 6:44 PM, Arne Babenhauserheide
> wrote:
>>
>> Core technical reasons:
>>
>> - It excludes those of our users who assume (not unreasonably) that
>> Google might de-anonymize them.
>>
>
> Is there any technical evidence that Goog
On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 6:44 PM, Arne Babenhauserheide
wrote:
>
> Core technical reasons:
>
> - It excludes those of our users who assume (not unreasonably) that
> Google might de-anonymize them.
>
Is there any technical evidence that Google Docs will deanonymize a Tor
user, or even an explanat
Ian Clarke writes:
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1z4s0D1M9HL0xCrf1tdaKGm5U3-WJBwRdMSvyj975WaA/edit?usp=sharing
> This document should be accessible via Tor for anonymous users.
I will not contribute to any workflow which requires Google Docs.
Core technical reasons:
- It excludes those
On Wed, May 18, 2016 2:35 PM, Arne Babenhauserheide arne_...@web.de wrote:
Since the discussion seems to have ended, how about going to the next
step?
Good point - sorry, I've been distracted by my day-job.
@Ian: Would you describe the next step?
I've created a document here on which anyo
Hi,
Since the discussion seems to have ended, how about going to the next
step?
We seem to have the following 5 broad resource areas:
* User Experience - Work on FProxy and installers to make them easier
and more enjoyable to use
* Security - Make Freenet more secure against attack
* Techn
13 matches
Mail list logo
