Re: [tor-talk] More on the tor scam

[grarpamp <grarpamp@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 4:29 PM,  <x50@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 18, 2014, at 05:18 PM, Ted Smith wrote:
>> The talk was almost certainly canceled because it contained admissions
>> of violating federal wiretapping laws, which is what happens if you
>> de-anonymize Tor users in the wild.
>> This is a legally gray area in theory, but I think in practice it would
>> never be judged in favor of the defendant, and so the CMU legal team
>> pulled the talk to avoid exposing themselves to liability.

Wiretapping usually involves collecting content or traffic metadata
that is identifiable to the user. When not against a specific user,
disclosing a real IP address in itself might be more of an edge case
along the lines of circumvention of the tech, cracking what the user
setup, etc. There probably need to be test cases to cover these areas
as applied to anonymity networks.

> I've still be extremely disappointed in the lack of cooperation with the
> Tor project on addressing the concerns. Especially given the
> relationship between CMU and CERT.

That's still thinking in terms of some BS non-full-disclosure
legal/professional/industry play-nice rules. There's no reason
why, if their is no crime, no contractual party loss, etc that
the 1st amendment can't be used to disclose it.

And ZERO reason whatsoever that the research cannot simply
be anonymized, rewritten and anonymously posted somewhere
as if it were developed in parallel by some anon.

It's as if while playing their legal/credit games they forget/ignore
that vulnerable users come first. Or someone bought them out.
-- 
tor-talk mailing list - tor-talk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe or change other settings go to
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk