[Author Prev][Author Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Thread Index]
Re: 20090101 (log data)
On Mon, Nov 12, 2007 at 01:13:23PM -0700, Kasimir Gabert wrote:
> The Overnet idea seems a tad silly. If connections in between servers
I don't know how well hidden services and current Tor codebase scales,
but having an anonymous communication space is certainly worthwhile,
even if read-only. Do hidden wikis see much defacement, currently?
> need to be logged, I do not think the requirement of logging would
> change were the connections to be for the Overnet or for the Internet.
Not all Tor hosts log, and cooperation between different legal compartments
is much less than within e.g. US and EU. The average network bandwidth
and latency are likely to get much better in future, so the number of
hops in a circuit can be adaptively increased to make attack much more
difficult, logs or no.
> And I honestly do not see a problem with engaging in illegal
> activities to ensure the anonymity of Tor users. What the government
> is doing is illegal by any decent rational standards, and it will
I agree -- but so far there's no need for it yet. As others have correctly
stated we need to stay in full compliance of the law (as long as that law
is not unconstitutional), to not put public support into jeopardy.
Once however such illegal retention laws have been passed, then only outlaws
will have anonymity.
> [hopefully] never come to the level of abuse against us that Ghandi
> and other active peaceful resistors were subjected to in order to
> achieve their ends, so it is unlikely that standing on the sidelines
> and shouting that more people need to join Tor will accomplish much.
As your attorney, I advise you to to rent a very fast car with no top, and to
not discuss such issues with anybody else you don't trust absolutely.
Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> http://leitl.org
ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE