Re: Like to run TOR-Node

[Eugen Leitl <eugen@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Fri, Sep 14, 2007 at 07:38:33PM +0200, BlueStar88 wrote:

> better way (i hope). Think on professional service providers, they get
> the chance to *cooperate*, not just get cut off. What 'cooperation'
> means in detail, who knows...

The 'professional service providers' bend over backwards to
accomodate Big Brother's every whim. All they care is about who's going
to cover their expenses -- the surveilled (via taxes) or the surveilled 
(by upping the bills). Kinda reminds me of the really nice Chinese practice
of billing the executed's relatives for the ammo spent by the execution
squad.

http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/96010

I'm compiling a list of who'll be first put to the wall, come
the revolution. (For the occupationally humor-impaired, 
that was a joke. Really).
 
> Until there is more *legal certainty*, we have to go a stony way to

I would start making plans for the time at which there will be no legal
certainty whatsoever. On the plus side, illegal things are more fun.
We all know this is not really about drug-trafficking pedophile
terrorist mobsters, right? It's there to identify uppity
sheep early, and take them out of circulation before they can utter
their first treacherous bleat. Baaaah.

> promote this. But we can try to generate more goodwill. The plausibility
> of the Tor operator raises and falls with *how* he's doing such things.

Plausibility? You don't think this is war, do you?

> So the point i was up to still remains: Transparency on Tor usage at all
> levels of the infrastructure. The hosters/providers shouldn't get known
> about the Tor usage by bad surprise only, then it gots blacklisted by
> AUP sometime, until no one remains!

Isn't there a conflict of interest between the common flatfoot,
who'd rather see that source of petty annoyance gone, or the SIGINT
guys, for whom this is a honeypot, and a nice sandbox to cut
their teeth? 
 
> There's a need for Tor (and anonymity in general) and a part of the
> society knows it. But we have to find the right and open way to it, we
> loose otherwise..

Perhaps you're naive, and perhaps I'm just bitter, but I don't believe
in Hanlon's razor, when looking at the global, concerted witch hunt against
anonymity. These varmints are up to no good, and they're more than halfway
there already.
 
> So operating Tor servers in administrative secret could benefit the
> latter.

What this Internet really needs, is a benign Tor worm (default exit, forcibly
converting browser proxy to privoxy), but I keep repeating myself. Let
them deal with a 10^7 exit nodes, instead of just 10^3, total (the bad
guys are all ahead, as usual; the good guys are at a massive disadvantage).

Maybe after they'll outlaw anonymity, we'll all really be outlaws.

-- 
Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org";>leitl</a> http://leitl.org
______________________________________________________________
ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE