Re: Whitedust article

[Matt Thorne <mlthorne@xxxxxxxxx>]

http://radio.weblogs.com/0101123/2005/11/19.html#a5791
or
http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2005/11/vint-cerf-speaks-out-on-net-neutrality.html

I don't think that the above letter and subcommittee hearing are
horribly inappropriate things to think about in this discussion. I
only shift the conversation a little bit sideways to point out that
Tor might just be the ultimate form of net neutrality.
Hummm... I am probably not very coherent right now, or making alot of
sense. I will think on this and re post when I have had some sleep.
apologies
-=Matt=-

On 12/12/05, Void Beast <daemonik.dragon@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA256
>
> Ok, so we should place rules of some kind...
> So who should police these rules and how should they be impemented?
>
> Many people have different configurations so the rules may be different for
> each person.
> So we should perhaps rely on ourselves to impose our own rules? But then,
> will that cause outsiders to look upon tor as unregulated and therefore
> unsafe?
>
> This is interesting so far...  Who else has an idea?
>
> Beast
>
> Euman wrote:
>
>  >On Mon, 2005-12-12 at 08:05 -0500, Void Beast wrote:
>  >
>  >>So are we doomed to the blacklist of the internet? Or are we on the
>  >>bleeding edge of a new era of digital freedom? I can see this going both
>  >>ways...
>  >>
>  >>Beast
>  >
>  >
>  >if 'tor' is made to be respectable it shouldn't be blacklisted.
>  >Anyone with ethereal can re-assemble packets so there goes the digital
>  >freedom.
>  >
>  >There should be in place certain rules (what rules Im unsure of)
>  >for instance on my box I allow 9001 for the Tor Server and 9030 for
>  >the Directory service and Ive noted that any ip using ports
>  >that aren't routed through the 'tor' application are auto-blacklisted
>  >by me. I might be an open-proxy but I keep an eye on things so,
>  >there should be a mechanism put in place for everyone that does
>  >exactly what Ive described.
>  >
>  >e,g: inbound tor or-port - destination 70.71.72.73 app tor [allowed]
>  >     inbound tor or-port - destination 70.71.72.73 app null [denied]
>  >
>  >doesn't matter what port the destination goes to as long as it's routed
>  >through the 'tor' application.
>  >
>  >How to implement this is beyond me atm with the exception of keeping a
>  >steady eye on your firewall.
>  >
>  >Please inform me that I don't know what the hek I'm talking about and
>  >that I should just shutup...
>  >
>  >my $0.04 (inflation)
>  >
>  >
>
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: PGP Desktop 9.0.2 (Build 2424)
>
> iQEVAwUBQ55P8W/n6vvd6AreAQiDFwgAqB2pim6Zg67dUf4jnaGvJqNIDW+LPPUv
> OeG+agAnMRsHSy0wK5QJjNzTM2QBZwAqujhZqjeUuKYkW8R/TKbQw+VvPj9eSFdb
> hXPUaryussf2HTwjERTESAImcgKL04/6lMoFrzjrcGy2XdfUQQTcICEmAgqzXjn1
> SEbxCOPGxCLJBf1vZZFuDJrGQ02hipgBmP98WFIQDBaXCrw9R6qMzAPGHPT16l9G
> R7ZZiX5gjqRTn+fiwNqoEehRofMgVUBx3tbnwxzZKXZT/Xv2Nu/RoAcPZoQn6R5M
> eGmpJYic0k/3oZUDXLytfistv4UH3+9Kxkrw6LjznLZBXIjkRpiDfA==
> =R9lV
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>