[Author Prev][Author Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Thread Index]
Re: [tor-talk] Neal Krawetz's abcission proposal, and Tor's reputation
On 30/08/17 10:07 AM, Ben Tasker wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 2:55 PM, Jon Tullett <jon.tullett@xxxxxxxxx> wrote
>> For example the "China Dissident Blog" could choose a stable site hosted
> in the United States or Europe and have it point to the current unvalidated
> name. Or they can just use a friend's Internet site (located in a friendly
> country) for the validated onion name.
> Which (IMO) kind of overlooks the additional risk it puts onto them. That
> site may be in a country that respects freedom of speech (and so will stay
> up), but there's now another potential vector for their unfriendly
> government to link their writings back to their real life identity.
There is no country that respects freedom of speech and there is no
country that respects privacy. They all have various legal restrictions
and exceptions for various reasons that change over time, sometimes
drastically. People will argue about such things forever, as we have
seen in these sorts of threads. If we want them we have to fight for
them in the political arena ("policy").
The national spy agencies and corporate entities and
unfriendly/untrained individuals in what you may think of as friendly
countries will trade with your adversaries whatever traffic and metadata
they obtain. You are only as secure as your own and your community's
practices and technology make you ("opsec").
tor-talk mailing list - tor-talk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe or change other settings go to