[Author Prev][Author Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Thread Index]

Re: Like to run TOR-Node

     On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 20:51:57 +0200 Eugen Leitl <eugen@xxxxxxxxx>
>On Fri, Sep 14, 2007 at 07:38:33PM +0200, BlueStar88 wrote:
>> better way (i hope). Think on professional service providers, they get
>> the chance to *cooperate*, not just get cut off. What 'cooperation'
>> means in detail, who knows...
>The 'professional service providers' bend over backwards to
>accomodate Big Brother's every whim. All they care is about who's going
>to cover their expenses -- the surveilled (via taxes) or the surveilled 
>(by upping the bills). Kinda reminds me of the really nice Chinese practice
>of billing the executed's relatives for the ammo spent by the execution
>I'm compiling a list of who'll be first put to the wall, come
>the revolution. (For the occupationally humor-impaired, 
>that was a joke. Really).

     One needs to be careful about certain kinds of jokes these days.
Here in the U.S. only a few years ago, a man in one of the Dakotas was
sentenced to 18 months, IIRC, in prison for cracking a joke in a police
station about a burning bush.  (Yes, our Constitutional republic is long
>> Until there is more *legal certainty*, we have to go a stony way to
>I would start making plans for the time at which there will be no legal
>certainty whatsoever. On the plus side, illegal things are more fun.
>We all know this is not really about drug-trafficking pedophile
>terrorist mobsters, right? It's there to identify uppity
>sheep early, and take them out of circulation before they can utter
>their first treacherous bleat. Baaaah.
>> promote this. But we can try to generate more goodwill. The plausibility
>> of the Tor operator raises and falls with *how* he's doing such things.
>Plausibility? You don't think this is war, do you?
>> So the point i was up to still remains: Transparency on Tor usage at all
>> levels of the infrastructure. The hosters/providers shouldn't get known
>> about the Tor usage by bad surprise only, then it gots blacklisted by
>> AUP sometime, until no one remains!
>Isn't there a conflict of interest between the common flatfoot,
>who'd rather see that source of petty annoyance gone, or the SIGINT
>guys, for whom this is a honeypot, and a nice sandbox to cut
>their teeth? 
>> There's a need for Tor (and anonymity in general) and a part of the
>> society knows it. But we have to find the right and open way to it, we
>> loose otherwise..
>Perhaps you're naive, and perhaps I'm just bitter, but I don't believe
>in Hanlon's razor, when looking at the global, concerted witch hunt against
>anonymity. These varmints are up to no good, and they're more than halfway
>there already.
>> So operating Tor servers in administrative secret could benefit the
>> latter.
>What this Internet really needs, is a benign Tor worm (default exit, forcibly
>converting browser proxy to privoxy), but I keep repeating myself. Let
>them deal with a 10^7 exit nodes, instead of just 10^3, total (the bad
>guys are all ahead, as usual; the good guys are at a massive disadvantage).
>Maybe after they'll outlaw anonymity, we'll all really be outlaws.
     Eugen, you might find interesting reading in a book titled _Unintended
_Consequences_ by John Ross.  The last time I bought a copy it cost about

                                  Scott Bennett, Comm. ASMELG, CFIAG
* Internet:       bennett at cs.niu.edu                              *
* "A well regulated and disciplined militia, is at all times a good  *
* objection to the introduction of that bane of all free governments *
* -- a standing army."                                               *
*    -- Gov. John Hancock, New York Journal, 28 January 1790         *