Re: Marketing Tor (Was Re: For those using Tor with windows)

[Christian Siefkes <siefkes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

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

Jeffrey F. Bloss wrote:
> I for one would be willing to pay for private network access, by the way. :) I 
> can see a serious gain in throughput from a network of machines with 
> commercial, more "fully bi-directional" connections. And given enough nodes 
> of course, it would be nearly as secure as a free public supported version 
> with the notable exception that a commercial entity is a single point of 
> compromise. The conspiracy nut in me could envision a scenario where an owner 
> might be served a warrant with a gag order that effectively compromised the 
> entire network in one fell swoop. :(

What would be the purpose of running Tor in a private single-owner network?
The network owner knows who you are and what you do, so unless you know you
can trust them _and_ they won't surrender to legal or hacker attacks you're
out of luck.

You can just skip the Tor part and use a private SSH tunnel such as
Privacy.li, that'll give you the same amount of security.

Bye
	Christian

- --
|------------ Christian Siefkes ------------- christian@xxxxxxxxxxx -----|
|    Web: http://www.siefkes.net/     |     Jabber: hc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx     |
|  Graduate School in Distributed IS:   http://www.wiwi.hu-berlin.de/gkvi/
|------------ OpenPGP Key: http://www.siefkes.net/key.txt (ID: 0x346452D8)
It's elementary that laws don't decide right and wrong. Every American
should know that, forty years ago, it was against the law in many states
for a black person to sit in the front of a bus; but only racists would
say sitting there was wrong.
	-- Richard Stallman, Why Software Should Not Have Owners
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFDe03L301HxjRkUtgRAkJzAJ9GSMyZ83vR7cs29qXelhDeuDP2wACgzdsU
ckORvuNWnBXkbuTfwrTwN+4=
=+nS/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----