On Thu, 2012-08-09 at 09:54 +0300, Maxim Kammerer wrote: > On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 3:29 AM, Ted Smith <tedks@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > What did that commenter do? They don't say. > > > > Further, "get an idea" isn't "statistics". > > Where did I talk about exit node statistics? I mentioned the > possibility of gathering .onion access statistics. How would you do that without facing the same problem as someone wiretapping their own exit node? Do you have a CP classifier? Are you going to load each .onion and manually verify if it contains CP? How are you going to aggregate that into statistics? > > No, but I'd rather say nothing than say something that could be a lie. > > So far you didn't say anything useful or non-obvious, so why did you > post? You didn't like someone's written experience, so he is > automatically a troll or a false flag â fine, bring your own > references. I don't have to "bring my own references" to point out that the only *actually existing* "statistical" evaluation of illegal content on Tor, that provides the cornerstone of your argument that "The Tor Project is misleading the public about the use cases of Tor," is totally baseless. You have no explanation for how that person reached that conclusion. I am posting because I think your attitude that Tor is entirely used for CP and other illegal content is baseless. It's based on a flawed methodology (and in most cases, no methodology). I would like you to strengthen your evidence, and if you manage to produce something convincing, I'd agree with it. -- Sent from Ubuntu
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ tor-talk mailing list tor-talk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk