RE: "cracks" via tor

["Zinco" <zinco@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


On Friday, March 04, 2005 1:42 AM Simon Østengaard wrote:

>This should hold true (no, you can't quote me on that) in any
>country  that pratice justice on a "not guilty until otherwise
>proved" basis.  This also includes the United States. However I
>would not operate a tor  server in the United States myself due to
>the fact that people in the  United States have a tradition of
>sueing each other for all kinds of  strange stuff (like drying dogs
>in the microwave or burning youself on  hot coffee). And believe it
>or not these people have also won the case  in court.

I think the problem in the U.S. in this regard is the fact that the
legislation can't keep up with the technology.  The
Telecommunications Act was last visited in 1996, which doesn't seem
that long ago.  It hardly even mentions the internet.  It seems to me
what happens is that the squeaky wheel gets the oil.  The motion
picture industry, and the record industry started lobbying congress
about five years ago and now they are getting results.  Now that they
did all the foot work the software and gaming industry will jump on
the band wagon.  The pendulum will start to swing back the other way
though because privacy and security are such big issues for so many
reasons.

On that note I was wondering if any of you packet heads have inside
scoop on the security issue.

Since all the various internet protocols were not designed with
security in mind for the most part and security has to be layered on
top of it, which creates all kinds of trouble, what are the chances
we will be using a totally different protocol that someone is
inventing?  What are the chances the whole thing will be rebuilt from
the ground up?

Zinco



-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>

iQA/AwUBQijbK13BaPQwrYzwEQJr9gCgoVgW/NxcFZLYdQjaWj+dFG6OPBQAniyx
HdFOKT9hSwRL1Dgtz+UICvU3
=d6db
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----