Re: Interoperating with p2p traffic

[Brian C <brianwc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi,

Matt Thorne wrote:
> That isn't a bad Idea, and possibly something that They (with help 
> ofcourse :-) could build into their P2P software. Probably not a bad 
> thing for them to lookinto just for their own use, not because We ask 
> them to, but becuase that would really mess with the heads of the people 
> at (Insert 4 letter accronym here).
>  
> question:
>  
> how do the people who feel posesive towards tor think about this idea?
>  
> -=Matt=-
>  
> On 10/12/05, *Arrakistor* wrote
>     What  if  we  designated  some type of tor family specifically for p2p
>     content, and coordinated with the software developers?

If an anonymizing service based on Tor were integrated into some p2p 
project or if a fork of Tor were to devote itself to serving p2p, then 
that should only be encouraged by the current Tor community if

1. It didn't take away any current tor servers or tor resources.

2. It used another name and was clearly its own standalone effort.

The reason for 1 is obvious. If the point is to make Tor more usable, 
then we shouldn't support a migration of its resources elsewhere.

The reason for 2 should also be obvious. Tor is a neutral technology 
that allows privacy. Some people use their privacy for uses we want to 
support; others for uses we wish they wouldn't engage in. But, if 
something were called "Tor" and were devoted to p2p traffic then it 
would taint the whole Tor project. Don't get me wrong. p2p also has 
legitimate uses. But in the current climate anything remotely associated 
with file-sharing is assumed to be illegal. Let's not let that shadow be 
cast upon Tor. It has enough reputational problems already.

Also, Tor is open source. If someone wants to take the code and change 
it to use their own farm of servers exclusively for p2p traffic then 
there's nothing the Tor community can do to stop them. I'm not 
suggesting we should try to stop them. Rather, I'm suggesting we insist 
that if someone does do that, then they should not call it "Tor" or 
anything confusingly similar.

Brian