Re: [tor-talk] Tor in the media

[z9wahqvh <z9wahqvh@xxxxxxxxx>]

thank you, this is exactly the sort of thing I was looking for. I'll see if
I can find it in one of Roger's videos, though if anyone has a specific
pointer that would be very much appreciated.

On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 7:57 PM, stn <stn@xxxxxx> wrote:

>
> i think roger dingledine presented some short timeline evidence awhile
> back in a video i saw but this is from memory.
>
> a US university and the DoJ usa tallied tor traffic on their relay and
> only found something like 3% "unwanted" traffic.
>
> that could have included things like copyrighted music sharing.
> the study wasn't continued for some reason.
>
> maybe someone who can correctly recall the event or study can fill in some
> blanks and verify but ...
>
> only 3% "unwanted" traffic. that's easy to take IMO.
>
>
>
>
>
> On Oct 2, 2014, at 7:43 PM, Mirimir wrote:
>
> > On 10/02/2014 04:35 PM, z9wahqvh wrote:
> >> On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 4:24 PM, Mirimir <mirimir@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On 10/02/2014 01:24 PM, z9wahqvh wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Even if (for argument's sake) 99% of Tor users/uses were unqualifiedly
> >>> evil, that would say nothing about Tor. At most, it would speak to its
> >>> relatively slow uptake overall, and perhaps to the prevalence of evil
> in
> >>> the world. An anonymity system with a backdoor for outing evil (however
> >>> defined) would be unworkable, and would soon die.
> >>>
> >>>
> >> I don't know how to parse "say" in this paragraph. It certainly seems to
> >> "say" something about the role of unsurveillable absolute anonymous
> >> communications systems and who is going to be attracted to them and why.
> >
> > If everyone used "unsurveillable absolute anonymous communications
> > systems", the prevalence of evil on them would be the same as the
> > overall prevalence of evil. Right? Those who play on the supposed
> > association of Tor with evil are not friends of freedom.
> >
> >> It also would seem to raise serious questions about whether such efforts
> >> should be supported
> >
> > If you choose to support Tor, then do. If you don't, then don't. Others
> > can make their own choices, based on their principles and values.
> >
> >> --and, to raise questions raised in other threads here, whether ISPs and
> >> other service providers and websites should let Tor relays through.
> >
> > There are more-effective solutions that don't hurt the innocent.
> >
> >> Note that if you are correct, you are painting an extremely dark picture
> >> of our political future, in which constitutional governance and rule of
> >> law become, strictly speaking, impossible. You may think that this will
> >> decrease the amount of evil in the world. My reading of world history
> >> suggests otherwise.
> >
> > It should be obvious that I'm no statist. But discussions of politics
> > are off-topic on this list. So I'll not address the rest of your post.
> >
> > <SNIP>
> > --
> > tor-talk mailing list - tor-talk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > To unsubscribe or change other settings go to
> > https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk
>
> --
> tor-talk mailing list - tor-talk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> To unsubscribe or change other settings go to
> https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk
>
-- 
tor-talk mailing list - tor-talk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe or change other settings go to
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk