On 8/6/2011 7:43 PM, Joe Btfsplk wrote:
On 8/5/2011 4:42 PM, Martin Fick wrote:--- On Fri, 8/5/11, bertagaz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<bertagaz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:http://www.technologyreview.com/communications/38207/?p1=A1It's worth reading the paper:I think that simply getting high profile sites to run to r nodes would be more likely and less invasive to the internet as a whole. If google were to simply run a bunch of bridges, or even known tor entry nodes, that would likely be more reliable and be less pie in the sky.
This won't work well seeing Google is already kicked out of China. The censors would not hesitate to block a few high profile sites, they actually want this to happen so that they can replace the high profile sites with their own copycat sites like the Baidu search engine in China. This is where Telex gets it right: You have to force the censor to choose between full internet or no internet, a few sites just won't cut it.
You lost me at "If google were to..." Google & privacy is the definition of an oxymoron. They're way down the list of organizations many users would want having any role in some anonymity endeavor.If you compare the advocacy it would take to get enough ISPs to implement this scheme versus the advocacy to get a few high profile (can't live without them) sites to run tor nodes, I suspect the latter would be much easier. -Martin
This is not about privacy, it's about anti-censorship, and Google is a good resource in terms of anti-censorship.
_______________________________________________ tor-talk mailing list tor-talk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk
_______________________________________________ tor-talk mailing list tor-talk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk