On 8/8/2011 8:16 AM, Jimmy Richardson wrote:
Jimmy, though you have some valid points, I think you missed my point entirely (possibly some other posters').On 8/8/2011 5:03 PM, Eugen Leitl wrote:On Mon, Aug 08, 2011 at 10:41:50AM +0800, Jimmy Richardson wrote:Google AppEngine provides a platform which can be used to run your own proxy servers for free, Gtalk supports XMPP which can also be used to circumvent censorship.Google actively cooperates with US authorities regardless of user'sgeography, so using Google's infrastructure for anonymity is an oxymoron.I agree, but again, we were talking about anti-censorship, not anonymity. Frankly people in China or Iran has much more to fear from their own government than from US authorities._______________________________________________
1. I wasn't speaking about the US, or any particular country. I was really thinking of more repressed countries. And yes, in some of those, people would / might go to jail (or worse) if they were caught accessing or disseminating "subversive" info.
2. If in a repressed country, one wants to access information / sites that is forbidden by the gov't, one better have ANONYMITY when accessing these. There may be ways to get around sites (for instance) being blocked. If so, one better have anonymity when doing so, or they may find themselves at the local police station. IOW, if one is circumventing a gov'ts' censorship, they better have anonymity. In those instances, censorship & anonymity are linked. Often in the really repressed, dictatorship countries, people suspected of subversive behavior just "disappear." It happens all the time.
Pure anti-censorship (or lifting censorship) assumes that bans on information will be lifted. That still doesn't mean a gov't isn't watching / logging who's accessing what info, to be used later.
_______________________________________________ tor-talk mailing list tor-talk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk