On 17 March 2015 at 02:55, Gergo Tisza wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 5:08 PM, Daniel Friesen
> wrote:
>> Bitcoin is not untraceable.
>> An adversary capable enough to eavesdrop on dissidents' communication
>> making them need Tor should be capable of tracing the publicly available
>> bitcoin
On 2015-03-16 7:55 PM, Gergo Tisza wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 5:08 PM, Daniel Friesen
> wrote:
>
>> Bitcoin is not untraceable.
>>
>> An adversary capable enough to eavesdrop on dissidents' communication
>> making them need Tor should be capable of tracing the publicly available
>> bitcoin t
On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 5:08 PM, Daniel Friesen
wrote:
> Bitcoin is not untraceable.
>
> An adversary capable enough to eavesdrop on dissidents' communication
> making them need Tor should be capable of tracing the publicly available
> bitcoin transaction logs back from the payment to the proxy o
At the end of the day, the key is communicating with communities to work
things out with them - and that may well have to happen on a
project-by-project basis. Finding a mid-size project with a very active
admin corps that would be willing to try out whatever you folks come up
with is probably a p
On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 2:30 PM, Gergo Tisza wrote:
> Well, the obvious collateral is always money; and with bitcoin going
> mainstream, untraceable money transfers are now accessible even to
> nontechnical users (although I don't know Not sure if the mere act of
> buying bitcoins could endanger
On 2015-03-16 2:30 PM, Gergo Tisza wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 9:10 AM, Chris Steipp wrote:
>
>> Setting up a proxy like this is definitely an option I've considered. As I
>> did, I couldn't think of a good way to limit the types of accounts that
>> used it, or come up with an acceptable coll
On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 9:10 AM, Chris Steipp wrote:
> Setting up a proxy like this is definitely an option I've considered. As I
> did, I couldn't think of a good way to limit the types of accounts that
> used it, or come up with an acceptable collateral I could keep from the
> user, that would
I think pretty much anything is better than the current situation. I'd
support this proposal.
The timing is right too with the WMF vs NSA lawsuit just happening.
On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 1:29 AM, Arlo Breault
wrote:
> I share Risker’s concerns here and limiting the anonymity
> set to the inters
I share Risker’s concerns here and limiting the anonymity
set to the intersection of Tor users and established wiki
contributors seems problematic. Also, the bootstrapping
issue needs working out and relegating Tor users to second
class citizens that need to edit through a proxy seems less
than ide
On Mar 11, 2015 2:23 AM, "Gergo Tisza" wrote:
>
> On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 5:40 PM, Chris Steipp
wrote:
>
> > I'm actually envisioning that the user would edit through the third
party's
> > proxy (via OAuth, linked to the new, "Special Account"), so no special
> > permissions are needed by the "Sp
On 11 March 2015 at 05:23, Gergo Tisza wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 5:40 PM, Chris Steipp
> wrote:
>
> > I'm actually envisioning that the user would edit through the third
> party's
> > proxy (via OAuth, linked to the new, "Special Account"), so no special
> > permissions are needed by the
On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 5:40 PM, Chris Steipp wrote:
> I'm actually envisioning that the user would edit through the third party's
> proxy (via OAuth, linked to the new, "Special Account"), so no special
> permissions are needed by the "Special Account", and a standard block on
> that username ca
On Mar 10, 2015 10:21 PM, "Risker" wrote:
>
> Thanks, Chris. But if the account is obviously not a normal account, I'd
> suspect that this special kind of user account would quickly become very
> obvious to those who snoop and would actually increase the level of
> scrutiny on the account, both
Thanks, Chris. But if the account is obviously not a normal account, I'd
suspect that this special kind of user account would quickly become very
obvious to those who snoop and would actually increase the level of
scrutiny on the account, both internally and externally. I'm not really all
that su
On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 5:06 PM, Kevin Wayne Williams <
kwwilli...@kwwilliams.com> wrote:
> Wikipedia isn't worth endangering oneself over, and we shouldn't encourage
> the delusion that any technical measure will change that.
How do you know today what topics are going to endanger you next week
On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 2:58 PM, Risker wrote:
> >
> >
> > >
> > > AlsoI'm a little unclear about something. If a "Tor-enabled"
> account
> > > creates new accounts, will those accounts be able to edit through Tor,
> > > too?
> >
> > The account creation would come from the proxy, so the wik
Chris Steipp schreef op 2015/03/10 om 9:00:
On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 7:45 AM, Kevin Wayne Williams <
kwwilli...@kwwilliams.com> wrote:
Chris Steipp schreef op 2015/03/10 om 7:23:
Jacob Applebaum made another remark about editing Wikipedia via tor this
morning. Since it's been a couple months s
>
>
> >
> > AlsoI'm a little unclear about something. If a "Tor-enabled" account
> > creates new accounts, will those accounts be able to edit through Tor,
> > too?
>
> The account creation would come from the proxy, so the wiki would have to
> trust that the proxy is only handing out accounts
On Mar 10, 2015 12:05 PM, "Risker" wrote:
>
> Thanks for your responses, Chris. Regardless of what processes are
> proposed, I suspect that the strongest objections will be socially based
> rather than technically based. Bawolff has a valid point, that success on
> a smaller wiki may have an effe
Thanks for your responses, Chris. Regardless of what processes are
proposed, I suspect that the strongest objections will be socially based
rather than technically based. Bawolff has a valid point, that success on
a smaller wiki may have an effect on the social perception of the use of
Tor on enwi
On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 11:23 AM, Chris Steipp wrote:
> Jacob Applebaum made another remark about editing Wikipedia via tor this
> morning. Since it's been a couple months since the last tor bashing thread,
> I wanted to throw out a slightly more modest proposal to see what people
> think.
[..]
I
On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 10:39 AM, Risker wrote:
> A few questions on this:
>
>
>- So, this would result in the creation of a new account, correct? If
>so, most of the security is lost by the enwiki policy of requiring
> linking
>to one's other accounts, and if the user edited in the
On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 10:16 AM, Giuseppe Lavagetto <
glavage...@wikimedia.org> wrote:
> Hi Chris,
>
> I like the idea in general, in particular the fact that only
> "established" editors can ask for the tokens. What I don't get is why
> this proxy should be run by someone that is not the WMF, gi
A few questions on this:
- So, this would result in the creation of a new account, correct? If
so, most of the security is lost by the enwiki policy of requiring linking
to one's other accounts, and if the user edited in the same topic area as
their other account, they're likely to b
Unless the status quo has changed recently, or there was some cryptographic
achievement that provides a solution not already provided, I doubt this thread
is going to make any progress beyond reiteration of the same back-and-forth
that happens every time this thread pops up.
(Also, I don’t thin
Hi Chris,
I like the idea in general, in particular the fact that only
"established" editors can ask for the tokens. What I don't get is why
this proxy should be run by someone that is not the WMF, given - I
guess - it would be exposed as a TOR hidden service, which will mask
effectively the user
On 10/03/15 16:00, Chris Steipp wrote:
On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 7:45 AM, Kevin Wayne Williams <
kwwilli...@kwwilliams.com> wrote:
Chris Steipp schreef op 2015/03/10 om 7:23:
Jacob Applebaum made another remark about editing Wikipedia via tor this
morning. Since it's been a couple months since
On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 7:45 AM, Kevin Wayne Williams <
kwwilli...@kwwilliams.com> wrote:
> Chris Steipp schreef op 2015/03/10 om 7:23:
>
>> Jacob Applebaum made another remark about editing Wikipedia via tor this
>> morning. Since it's been a couple months since the last tor bashing
>> thread,
>>
Chris Steipp schreef op 2015/03/10 om 7:23:
Jacob Applebaum made another remark about editing Wikipedia via tor this
morning. Since it's been a couple months since the last tor bashing thread,
I wanted to throw out a slightly more modest proposal to see what people
think.
The easiest way to pre
Jacob Applebaum made another remark about editing Wikipedia via tor this
morning. Since it's been a couple months since the last tor bashing thread,
I wanted to throw out a slightly more modest proposal to see what people
think.
This is getting some interest from a few people:
https://zyan.scripts
30 matches
Mail list logo
