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

Re: VoIP telephony building like Tor

Sigh.  Tor is political by its very existence and design.  It is NOT a neutral 
entity.  Its very existence is for political reasons.

On Monday 03 August 2009 06:19:23 pm Alexander Cherepanov wrote:
> Hi Scott!
> On Wed, 29 Jul 2009 02:16:29 -0500 (CDT), Scott Bennett <bennett@xxxxxxxxxx> 
> >      On Sat, 25 Jul 2009 22:04:11 +0400 "Alexander Cherepanov"
> >
> > <cherepan@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>You wrote to or-talk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, "Vlad \"SATtva\" Miller" 
<sattva@xxxxxxxxx> on Sat, 25 Jul 2009 06:59:43 -0500 (CDT):
> >>>      On Sat, 25 Jul 2009 18:12:52 +0700 "Vlad \"SATtva\" Miller" 
<sattva@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>>>James Brown (25.07.2009 00:16):
> >>
> >>[skip]
> >>
> >>>>> Very many Russian people were killed, unlawful arrest or simply
> >>>>> disappear last 4 - 5 years from activity our new Government...
> >>>>
> >>>>Please, please, keep political FUD off the list.
> >>>
> >>>      Given that what he wrote is about a) events reported in the press
> >>> internationally and b) one of the highest priority justifications for
> >>> having a tor development project in the first place, *your* comment
> >>> would appear to be a non sequitur.  Perhaps you should have changed
> >>> your Subject: line to reflect whatever OT issue you wished to discuss
> >>> instead of what was already being discussed.
> >>>      The OP has requested information, and several of us now have tried
> >>> to find information that he might be able to use to his advantage in
> >>> the situation he believes he faces.  If you have additional information
> >>> along these lines, please post it.
> >>
> >>I'm sure that Vlad is happy to see the ongoing discussion of technical
> >>questions raised by the OP. He just asked to keep political FUD off
> >
> >      He gave no such indication in the single line of text that
> > constituted his followup and to which I was following up.
> Ok, I cannot guarantee that he is happy about technical questions:-)
> But he clearly toalks about non-technical points.
> >>the list. And I'm completely agree with him, IMHO unfounded (and
> >>founded probably also:-) talks about bloody regime are not for this
> >>mailing list. YMMV.
> >
> >      Please reread what I wrote that you have quoted above.  It doesn't
> > matter whether you support or oppose the OP's political views.
> Sure. But only while he keeps his political views for himself and
> doesn't bring them to this list.
> > The point
> > is that the OP made apparent reference to events reported both in the
> > press in Russia and in the international press as a reason *he* was
> > afraid and wanted to use tor.  That should be more than sufficient
> > information for anyone on this list to understand the OP's motivation for
> > asking his questions.
> Just to be sure: you talk about banning Skype? No problem here, it's a
> valid concern, it's in the news, in the press, on TV etc.
> The problem is the rhetoric such as quoted at beginning of this mail.
> OP started the thread talking about bloody regime. IMHO it already is
> beyond the acceptable line. But then he continues about killed people
> etc. in the following mails. That very much brings the politics to the
> list and adds nothing to the technical side of discussions.
> >>As for banning Skype in Russia, AFAICT it's FUD also. Everything seems
> >>to be based on some discussions in The Russian Union of Industrialists
> >>and Entrepreneurs (just hysterics by mobile operators loosing market
> >>share?). It's somewhat troubling but I'm not sure it's worth much
> >>discussion until there are some concrete details.
> >
> >      Fair enough.  However, if Phil Zimmermann had waited until the FBI
> > had its Carnivore system up and running, along with further development
> > already in progress, we probably would never have gotten PGP or its
> > successors.  He dropped all of his paying work for many months in order
> > to design, code, test, and release PGP 1.0, all justified *in his own
> > mind* on the basis of what he had heard or read that the FBI was talking
> > about doing.
> One doesn't need to wait for additional reasons to switch away from
> Skype. It's proprietary and closed technology with all accompanying
> problems. BTW last news are about eBay possibly closing Skype entirely
> which is quite in line with its proprietary nature. So no question
> here.
> If someone is concerned about possibility of banning Skype or VoIP in
> general s/he can start with research how VoIP is banned in those
> countries in which it's already banned. There are some examples in
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VoIP#Legal_issues .
> >>What the OP proposes is also somewhat strange. Build the possibility
> >>to "call to ordina[r]y telephones" into Tor? Sure, just add some PSTN
> >>exit nodes...
> >
> >      Yeah, well, that is certainly unnecessary.  Specific applications
> > should be developed outside of tor by interested parties.  I already
> > worry that tor itself will become too large and complex to be kept safe
> > to use. There are already various telephone applications that might be
> > modified to work with proxy support that would enable the use of tor with
> > them.
> BTW it seems Google Voice can be used to hide origin of phone calls in
> some cases.
> Alexander Cherepanov

“We can have a democratic society or we can have the concentration of great 
wealth in the hands of the few. We cannot have both.” 
— Louis Brandeis, Supreme Court Justice, 1916-1939