Re: [tor-talk] [Cryptography] Dark Web should really be called the Twilight Web

[grarpamp <grarpamp@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Sun, May 31, 2015 at 8:20 PM, Katya Titov <kattitov@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> There are still many places, including some western first-world
> democracies, where Internet access is billed by the byte/KB/MB/GB. I
> live in a G20 country outside the US and pay for traffic usage. And
> anyone using a mobile connection (maybe shared to their laptop) will
> most likely be paying for usage and not bandwidth.

Bytes vs. bitrate is an equivalent numbers game. If such a person
has budgeted for no more than 135GiB/mo, they can set the
cap on their NIC to 56kbps and they will not exceed their budget.
They have to either pass what they want under 56kbps, or play
with the sliders and eat into their days budget which will either
leave them dead before the month, or compromise security.
Even tor itself today has its own natural full path to exit or HS
bitrate limit that you're unlikely to exceed without explicitly
picking your path. There's nothing new / penalty with fill
there. The links will just reduce fill (today silence) until full.

"Unlimited" mobile data plans are available in places around the world.

Fill traffic could be optional on the part of the client or relay nodes.
However to give at least some non global protection to their traffic,
there must be at least one other node doing peer2peer fill with their
next hop nodes. Or at their endpoint.

The various scenarios would need to be drawn on paper towards
a paper proof of concept.
-- 
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