Re: [tor-dev] Tor Launcher UI feedback follow up

[adrelanos <adrelanos@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Roger Dingledine:
> On Thu, May 09, 2013 at 09:47:19AM -0400, Tom Ritter wrote:
>> My network operator does not threaten my person safety
> 
> 1) This is also the first point I thought of here -- in the past we've
> said that some people should be using a bridge for an extra layer of
> "it's not so obvious that I'm using Tor", rather than just because they
> need one to get around filtering.
> 
> That said, these days most places that filter can also figure out
> that you're using a Tor bridge, or obfs2 or obfs3, even if only
> retroactively. We don't have the "I look just like web browsing, no
> matter how closely you look" holy grail in place, and it will be a long
> time until we do. So I don't think we should spend too much energy here
> distinguishing between the people who need bridges for reachability,
> and the people who need bridges for safety.

So what's the ethical thing to do?

Totally deprecate the "hide the fact, you're using Tor" use case?

Have a button "My network operator threatens my person safety", which is
honest and explains, Tor can't help, that the use case "hide the fact,
you're using Tor" is unsupported, but private obfs3 bridges are still
their best bet?

Risk users in that situation, moving on to less secure, less honest
anonymity services?
_______________________________________________
tor-dev mailing list
tor-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-dev