On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 11:46:12AM -0500, Erilenz wrote:
> This is one of those ideal/practical arguments. Idealistically, Tor
> would only have 3 hop circuits and those who want "simple circumvention"
> wouldn't use it. That doesn't make it the practical truth of what is
> happening though.
Even
>
> My question is: do you really think it would help? If people are using
> Tor inappropriately (meaning they could get what they want with a
> simple anonymous proxy), what are the chances they're going to have it
> configured appropriately to reduce the bandwidth they use?
>
I don't want to wei
On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 11:46 AM, Erilenz wrote:
> * on the Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 07:43:01AM -0500, Andrew Lewman wrote:
>
>>> That's fine, as long as you're assuming that people only use Tor when they
>>> need
>>> strong anonymity. As soon as you realise that people who don't need strong
>>> anon
* on the Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 07:43:01AM -0500, Andrew Lewman wrote:
>> That's fine, as long as you're assuming that people only use Tor when they
>> need
>> strong anonymity. As soon as you realise that people who don't need strong
>> anonymity are using it as well, your point fails. Whether or
On 11/19/2009 04:47 AM, Erilenz wrote:
> That's fine, as long as you're assuming that people only use Tor when they
> need
> strong anonymity. As soon as you realise that people who don't need strong
> anonymity are using it as well, your point fails. Whether or not they *should*
> be doing so is
Tim Wilde wrote:
On 11/18/2009 4:17 AM, Jim wrote:
Google was actually the motivating factor in causing me to get serious
about overcoming whatever problem I had when I first tried to use Tor.
Although my concern at the time was more the ubiquity of
google-analytics. But still concerned about
* on the Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 12:08:10PM -0500, Marcus Griep wrote:
>> Yes, they should. However, just because people shouldn't be doing something
>> doesn't mean you should ignore the fact that they are.
>
> Responding to a deficiency in an area which Tor does not attempt to solve is
> a poor us
On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 11:48 AM, Erilenz wrote:
> * on the Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 09:03:42AM -0500, Andrew Lewman wrote:
> > On 11/17/2009 08:57 AM, Erilenz wrote:
> > > The following occured to me. Tor is designed to protect users from
> > > traffic analysis by very technical adversaries. There a
* on the Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 09:03:42AM -0500, Andrew Lewman wrote:
> On 11/17/2009 08:57 AM, Erilenz wrote:
> > The following occured to me. Tor is designed to protect users from
> > traffic analysis by very technical adversaries. There are many use
> > cases where that level of protection isn't
On 11/18/2009 4:17 AM, Jim wrote:
>
> Google was actually the motivating factor in causing me to get serious
> about overcoming whatever problem I had when I first tried to use Tor.
> Although my concern at the time was more the ubiquity of
> google-analytics. But still concerned about using thei
* on the Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 03:26:10PM +0100, Georg Sluyterman wrote:
>> The following occured to me. Tor is designed to protect users from
>> traffic analysis by very technical adversaries. There are many use
>> cases where that level of protection isn't required. In those cases,
>> if there wa
Gregory Maxwell wrote:
There are a great many people who have merely encountered one too many
examples of the ubiquitious tracking on the Internet. For example,
Google's abuse of JS fake out the link target display and intercept
outbound links on search has been driving me nuts lately as it mak
On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 8:57 AM, Erilenz wrote:
> The following occured to me. Tor is designed to protect users from
> traffic analysis by very technical adversaries. There are many use
> cases where that level of protection isn't required. In those cases,
> if there was a config option to reduce
On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 9:03 AM, Andrew Lewman wrote:
> People who don't want strong anonymity should use VPNS, single-hop proxy
> providers, or setup an ssh tunnel somewhere.
I thought there were plans to offer officially offer a length-two mode?
In particular the current routing is annoying fo
Erilenz wrote, On 2009-11-17 14:57:
> The following occured to me. Tor is designed to protect users from
> traffic analysis by very technical adversaries. There are many use
> cases where that level of protection isn't required. In those cases,
> if there was a config option to reduce the number of
On 11/17/2009 08:57 AM, Erilenz wrote:
> The following occured to me. Tor is designed to protect users from
> traffic analysis by very technical adversaries. There are many use
> cases where that level of protection isn't required. In those cases,
> if there was a config option to reduce the number
The following occured to me. Tor is designed to protect users from
traffic analysis by very technical adversaries. There are many use
cases where that level of protection isn't required. In those cases,
if there was a config option to reduce the number of hops in a circuit
to 2 (or possibly even 1)
17 matches
Mail list logo
