[Author Prev][Author Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Thread Index]
Re: Marketing Tor (Was Re: For those using Tor with windows)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
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.
|------------ 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
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----