[Author Prev][Author Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Thread Index]
Re: ATTN: for-profit Tor operators
On Wed, 23 Nov 2005, Eugen Leitl wrote:
Personally, I like the alternate side of this service -- the access to
hidden tor services.
With recent legal developments in the US, some very interesting sites --
even those which are text-ONLY have gone away. The draw of being able to
offer existing threatened sites an alternative is a good thing (along with
careful auditing and accounting of said sites to make sure no obvious
clues as to the actual server location are left).
It could make paid-tor access very feasible, indeed.
For example, a tor-ized mirror of a "fetish stories" site, if the
mirroring was automatic, might be stupid and mirror the thing from its own
public IP (thus giving its location away), instead of more properly
mirroring the site THROUGH tor (or some other anonymous proxy service).
I love tor, personally, but I'm daunted by the number of pieces of
software I've had to set up to get it to work. I *really* think the
necessary element here that stops things is the lack of a single-shot
On Wed, Nov 23, 2005 at 03:21:29PM -0600, Paul Andrew de La Soujeole wrote:
I am definitely interested. I have a 10Mb/s server in Florida which is
currently running Tor. How would users be charged? Would they be rate
How you would charge your users is entirely at discretion of the individual
operators. I suggest some low-friction payment scheme (PayPal, IBAN bank transfers
for EU users) to reduce entry threshold, but for the truly tin-hatted acceptance of
anonymous payment schemes (cash, e-gold & Co) are almost mandatory, even
if almost nobody will make use of it.
limited and charged per Mb/s, per GB/month, or by using a 95th percentile
For starters, I would limit the service to web browsing and assume a flat
fee (say, 5$/month subscription for basic anonymous browsing via Tor/privoxy).
This can be abused, but this requires some malignancy on part of the users.
Given that the first leg is encrypted but authenticated it's fundamentally
feasible to charge individual users for traffic by the GByte.
scheme? I think this has some real potential.
Paranoia and willigness to rely on anonymization services provided by
a commercial entity (and subsequent tradeoff in accountability) are somewhat
mutually exclusive. We'll see whether the market will accept it.
"Of course she's gonna be upset! You're dealing with a woman here Dan,
what the hell's wrong with you?"
-S. Kennedy, 11/11/01
Techie, Sysadmin, WebGeek
Gushi on efnet/undernet IRC
ICQ: 13735144 AIM: LarpGM