On 05 Jul 2014, at 15:08, Roman Mamedov <rm@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Sat, 5 Jul 2014 03:59:28 +0000 > Matthew Finkel <matthew.finkel@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> This problem makes me sad on many levels, and I'm not opposed to >> implementing mitigation techniques (within reason) based on the >> rulesets, however we shouldn't do anything that will hurt our users nor >> should be do anything that makes tor more difficult to use >> (unfortunately this includes sending users bogus bridge addresses). > > Well, what is the format of a E-Mail response with a bridge list? > > If it's just plain text, why not instead send them as a picture in attachment, > with bridge IP addresses encoded in CAPTCHA style to not be machine-readable. Because it makes it harder for humans to use, and doesn't help. Watching the bridge authority gives you a list of bridges, too - no need to read emails. There are no "quick fixes" to global surveillance, and we shouldn't forget our users when deploying questionable countermeasures. Cheers Sebastian
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
-- tor-talk mailing list - tor-talk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe or change other settings go to https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk