[Author Prev][Author Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Thread Index]

Fw: Re[2]: Can governments block tor?

Of course anyone using any anonymity network must immediately be hiding something.

The only way around this is to create a huge virtual network, like TOR say, on the physical internet, which uses anonymity but whose objective is not solely anonymity.

You would neet some sort of distributed DNS system (eg hidden service ID to name translation) to give user friendly names.

You might incorporate some sort of distributed web site provision (eg similar to ENTROPY) to give completely bullet proof service from essentrailly p2p users.

You might incorporate some sort of low bandwith advertising to help pay for major (DNS?) service providers, who'd share in a cut of the revenues, pro rata.

You might incorporate some sort necessary censorship, banned material eg no cp. You need some sort of user reporting system to police this.

But most of all it must be BIG, quite fast and it must have loads of stuff on it.

Just imagine something like myspace being on it. All distributed, uncensored (relatively) and without those huge ads.

I'd give it 20gigs tomorrow! (especially if I got a cut of any advertising revenue from websites on it)

Url: h[idden]w[eb].[servicetype.]xxxxxxsitenamexxxx[.xxxxx[.xxxx[.etc]].[country/region[.subregion[.]].][org/com/co/gmb/ltd/plc/etc[.sub]]





This URL registration system would need to be automated, free and possibly ad supported. Registration lasting a year - with continuance feature, no usage for a year then automatically available to all.

Any revenue from the re-sale of URLs to be donated to the URL registration server system. eg no URL re-sale for personal profit.

To reduce traffic to a minimum the hiddenweb sites need to use standardised formats (building blocks - distributed with a modified browser/browser plugin) which could be leveraged from current html/javascript etc. Which would make conversion from www to hw sites easy.

With such a network it would be difficult to accuse the user of "trying to be anonymous".

But of course they would be anonymous and could even use this network connection to browse the internet anonymously as well.

Now your browsing motives would be TRUELY hidden.

(But you must still remember.. TOR is not safe from a global isp or traffic logging attack. But it is a step in the right direction).  


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Seth David Schoen" <schoen@xxxxxxx>
To: <or-talk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Sunday, August 13, 2006 5:46 AM
Subject: Re: Re[2]: Can governments block tor?

> David Benfell writes:
> > I'm seeing this as a nightmare.  If it isn't possible to disguise the
> > fact you're using or serving tor--and last time I did a tcpdump on my
> > outside interface, it stuck out like a sore thumb--doesn't that
> > undermine its usefulness?  (And I assume you mean SSL could be used to
> > encrypt content, not the destination of a tor server.)
> Different people have different threat models.  Tor fits well into the
> threat model of people in places where privacy-enhancing technologies
> are legal to use.  It currently isn't as much help to people who could
> get in trouble just for using these technologies.
> It doesn't seem that anyone has solved the problem of how to make a
> publicly-deployable privacy technology whose users can't be identified
> as privacy-enhancing technology users by an eavesdropping adversary*.
> So we might say that there are potentially a lot of people whose threat
> models haven't been addressed well by the state of the art.
> * Whether this is true depends on what counts.  If people are allowed to
>   use SSL or VPNs, are allowed to send what could be cover traffic over
>   them, are allowed to use them for a long time starting fairly abruptly,
>   and have access to means of publicity about proxy locations and access
>   methods that the adversary might not hear about, they might have a
>   chance.  I think that's a lot of conditions.
> -- 
> Seth Schoen
> Staff Technologist                                schoen@xxxxxxx
> Electronic Frontier Foundation                    http://www.eff.org/
> 454 Shotwell Street, San Francisco, CA  94110     1 415 436 9333 x107

Message sent with Supanet E-mail

Signup to supanet at https://signup.supanet.com/cgi-bin/signup?_origin=sigwebmail