On 22/11/12 19:02, anonym wrote: > 22/11/12 18:26, anonym wrote: >> 13/11/12 20:25, Ague Mill wrote: >>> anonym: >>>> 12/11/12 15:11, anonym wrote: >>>>> 03/11/12 09:08, intrigeri wrote: >>>>>> Hi, >>>>>> >>>>>> anonym wrote (02 Nov 2012 20:26:34 GMT) : >>>>>>> Basic (perhaps even experimental as it currently lacks documentation) >>>>>>> support for obfsproxy has been added in the branch feature/obfsproxy. >>>>>>> Please review and merge it into devel. >>>>>> >>>>>> We agreed at the Tails summit to not merge new features before their >>>>>> documentation is ready. For the record, this is what allows us to >>>>>> squeeze the delay before feature freeze + RC1 and RC2, because it's >>>>>> now dedicated to translation work, rather than (like we used to do) to >>>>>> doc writing + translations. >>>>> >>>>> Now done: >>>> >>>> I should perhaps have pointed out that I'd really to see this branch >>>> merged for Tails 0.15. >>> >>> Confirmed working. Merged. >> >> I've pushed some further improvements to the docs after a discussion on >> #tails. Please review and merge. > > There was some concerns raised against commit bb1c08e on #tails: > > (18:35:29) velope: finally, i do not think it is an improvement > to change 'you think you need to use bridges' into the > recommendation 'you should use bridges' > (18:36:16) velope: using bridges is not necessarily better, and > users should not use them merely because they want an extra layer > to hide more. > (18:37:22) velope: bridges are less reliable and tend to have > lower performance than regular guards, so a user has to actively > keep getting and configuring them, as opposed to letting tor > choose guards. > [...] > (18:50:33) velope: i really believe that circumvention and hiding > are so different that they should not be combined in a single > recommendation. > (18:51:21) velope: and my concern with 'you should use bridges' > in anything except cut-and-dry circumvention is that you're > making a security decision for users where the facts are not > fully understood. > (18:52:11) velope: that is why i prefer something like 'you wish > to use bridges', which leaves the power and responsibility > completely with the user. > (18:54:15) velope: of course users tend to not want full power > and responsibility, they want a simple answer. mais c'est la vie. > > What do you think? My reading of the section in question is "if Tor is > censored or dangerous, use bridges cause they make it harder for others > to see that you use Tor which helps in those situations", which seems > like a sound recommendation to me.
I agree with you. Still, I changed the "should" into a "might" and increased the visibility of the warning explaining that bridges are not a perfect protection to hide you as a Tor user. I also mentioned the limitations in reliability and speed. > I just thought that this could be some food for though for whoever > reviews these doc changes. > > Cheers! I pushed some work on that page. See 68069a3..22aedce. I'm pretty such this is a bad timing for submitting documentation changes after rc1 but I just found out about that while clean a bit my inbox.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ tails-dev mailing list tails-dev@boum.org https://mailman.boum.org/listinfo/tails-dev