Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Covid-19’s impact on Tor

blog.torproject.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 204 posts

Re: Covid-19’s impact on Tor

#41

Post by dillondoyle »

Renaud wrote: post #19

They are too dependent on government sponsorship. 80% of their funding comes from the US government in some shape. I would imagine that a project of that importance deserves to be able to be self-sufficient. A US$2M budget/year is not that much, (m|b)illionaires making their money from the Internet could easily sponsor the project. Better yet, having grass-root sponsorship is even more important. Maybe they need mark…

It's nowhere near that small. That's like a 4-6 person 501cX. Their 2019 revenue was 309 Million

https://www.aclu.org/other/aclu-annual-report-2019

Re: Covid-19’s impact on Tor

#42

Post by geofft »

SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #8
mc32 wrote: post #7

This got me to think about the ACLU and what they are doing. I see some issues about accommodating justice and other issues affected by the pandemic and the intersection with liberties... it's more about looking at the compounding effect than protecting against fundamental change and fundamental threats to civil rights. But I don’t see any take on any measures governments have taken to kerb civil rights in the time o…

The ACLU has largely transitioned away from civil rights absolutism towards progressive advocacy. They haven't entirely tossed it out the door, and still sometimes defend the civil rights of non-progressive groups, but the modern ACLU definitely feels it's important to contextualize liberties.

You mentioned Milo downthread, but I'll give another counterexample: the ACLU sued the city of Charlottesville when they said they'd only permit Unite the Right to happen at the larger McIntire Park on safety grounds. As a result of the lawsuit, the rally happened at the much smaller and busier Lee Park.

(Personally, that's why I no longer support the ACLU - this wasn't analogous to the Illinois Nazis case, and as everyone expected, violence happened and someone died. I felt like the ACLU had let their focus on civil rights absolutism drive them to defending someone whose civil rights weren't actually under threat instead of spending their resources on actual ongoing threats to civil rights.)

Re: Covid-19’s impact on Tor

#43

Post by whoisjuan »

jzb wrote: post #6

I’m sorry to hear this, also surprised. Is the funding for Tor going to be so immediately affected they had to cut staff without a public appeal or anything?

It can totally happen. Funding commitments are gone fast when a crisis hits. People start cutting costs and start trying to find ways to reduce expenses. Giving away money it's definitely a bad idea during an economic crisis, so non-profits are hit hard.

Exhibit from the 2009 Financial Crisis: https://publish.illinois.edu/illinoisblj/2009/09/20/the-impa...

A good recent article on the topic: https://www.philanthropy.com/article/As-Coronavirus-Threat/2...

Re: Covid-19’s impact on Tor

#44

Post by geofft »

dillondoyle wrote: post #41
Renaud wrote: post #19

They are too dependent on government sponsorship. 80% of their funding comes from the US government in some shape. I would imagine that a project of that importance deserves to be able to be self-sufficient. A US$2M budget/year is not that much, (m|b)illionaires making their money from the Internet could easily sponsor the project. Better yet, having grass-root sponsorship is even more important. Maybe they need mark…

It's nowhere near that small. That's like a 4-6 person 501cX. Their 2019 revenue was 309 Million https://www.aclu.org/other/aclu-annual-report-2019

Did you mean this for the thread about the ACLU? The comment you're replying to is about Tor, which is much smaller.

Re: Covid-19’s impact on Tor

#45

Post by samatman »

burrows wrote: post #3
anigbrowl wrote: post #2

Why isn't there a public open-source fund to finance open projects (ie one to which the donors have no clue or control where the funds will eventually go; they're disbursed on the basis of how widely something is used)?

What does “public” mean in this context? And if you want this thing, why don’t you make it?

Everyone knows that there's a huge gap between wanting something to exist, and wanting something to exist, while having the expertise, time, resources, and will, to bring it into existence.

Since you know this as well as I do, I want to ask: what is your motive in asking this question?

Re: Covid-19’s impact on Tor

#46

Post by duckMuppet »

SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #13
yingw787 wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, that is interesting. I donate to the ACLU monthly and I haven't gotten anything related to the pandemic, just regular board of directors voting. ...are they working on the EARN IT act by any chance?

Their current efforts are focused on getting lots of people released from jails and prisons, since they might catch COVID-19 if they're in jail.

Well it's far more important to have the ACLU working on advocacy and rights for LGBTQ+ where there are demonstrable acts of violence and systemic oppression rather than waste time hand holding individuals who think they should be able purchase an Arsenal of firearms and spread Covid by not obeying and respecting their fellow citizens through their non compliance.

I'd say they are definitely where they need to be.. It's prudent and wise they not be involved with rabble rousers who through their non compliance, indifference, and questioning of authority silently slaughter members of minority communities that this disease adversely affects more than wealthy elites who miss their bed bath and beyond or their tee time.

Re: Covid-19’s impact on Tor

#47

Post by dmix »

geofft wrote: post #42
SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The ACLU has largely transitioned away from civil rights absolutism towards progressive advocacy. They haven't entirely tossed it out the door, and still sometimes defend the civil rights of non-progressive groups, but the modern ACLU definitely feels it's important to contextualize liberties.

You mentioned Milo downthread, but I'll give another counterexample: the ACLU sued the city of Charlottesville when they said they'd only permit Unite the Right to happen at the larger McIntire Park on safety grounds. As a result of the lawsuit, the rally happened at the much smaller and busier Lee Park. (Personally, that's why I no longer support the ACLU - this wasn't analogous to the Illinois Nazis case, and as ev…

ACLU changed their policy of supporting everyone against any freedom of speech and freedom of assembly repression by the government AFTER Charlottesville. That only supports the OP's point. That was the point they gave into to pressure from outside groups and gave up their values.

Compromising once is enough to compromise it always and their recent posturing on social media has done nothing to dissuade that this is the case. They've only doubled down and joined the outrage mob driven political system.

I personally don't want to live in a world where every political ideology needs their own legal defence non-profits which only do things for political ends... not for a higher purpose. Largely because they lose tons of credibility in the face of dismissal when they compromise their values for politics.

Credibility is very important in this sort of thing. Plenty of other major human rights groups including Human Rights Watch and the ACLU long defended far-right groups and the world didn't burn down in the 1960s, 70s, 80s, 90s, etc.

They did it because they same thing that shuts those 'bad guys' down will be used to bring down the 'good guys'.

I highly recommend the founder of Human Rights Watch's book on this topic when they defended Neo-nazis in the 1970s:

Defending My Enemy: American Nazis in Skokie, Illinois, and the Risks of Freedom:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aryeh_Neier

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_Party_of_Am...

https://www.amazon.com/Defending-My-Enemy-Neier/dp/052508972...

Re: Covid-19’s impact on Tor

#48

Post by geofft »

dmix wrote: post #47
geofft wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You mentioned Milo downthread, but I'll give another counterexample: the ACLU sued the city of Charlottesville when they said they'd only permit Unite the Right to happen at the larger McIntire Park on safety grounds. As a result of the lawsuit, the rally happened at the much smaller and busier Lee Park. (Personally, that's why I no longer support the ACLU - this wasn't analogous to the Illinois Nazis case, and as ev…

ACLU changed their policy of supporting everyone against any freedom of speech and freedom of assembly repression by the government AFTER Charlottesville. That only supports the OP's point. That was the point they gave into to pressure from outside groups and gave up their values. Compromising once is enough to compromise it always and their recent posturing on social media has done nothing to dissuade that this is t…

Again - I disagree with the view that they "gave up" their values, and I don't want to live in a world where every political ideology needs its own non-profit, either. I think the ACLU can and should be an organization that defends the right to freedom of speech of everyone regardless of political affiliation.

I'm arguing that their lawsuit in Charlottesville didn't actually serve the goals of protecting civil rights or defending principles which are important to protect other people's civil rights. I'm arguing that the Charlottesville case was different from the Illinois Nazis case - Unite the Right wasn't primarily about speech, it was about violence, and the speech acts that Kessler et al. wanted to do would have worked just fine in the other park, which would have been logistically easier from a public safety perspective. I'm arguing that if Charlottesville's original decision had stood and established precedent that somehow later applied to a "good guy" protest, that would be okay, because of the specific facts of the Charlottesville case.

I'm arguing that the ACLU was right to take on the Illinois Nazis case, and would be right to take it on again today. You don't need to convince me of that. (If the ACLU has somehow managed to get itself into a position where it's not willing to do that anymore and it hasn't convinced people like me that it's learned its lesson from Unite the Right, then they're truly incompetent.)

It is of course a little difficult to separate the idea of protecting civil rights from political ideology: the idea that civil rights are worth protecting is a political ideology itself! But I think the broader point, which I agree with, is that you should be willing to protect the civil rights of people who do not think that civil rights are worth protecting.

Re: Covid-19’s impact on Tor

#49

Post by SpicyLemonZest »

duckMuppet wrote: post #46
SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Their current efforts are focused on getting lots of people released from jails and prisons, since they might catch COVID-19 if they're in jail.

Well it's far more important to have the ACLU working on advocacy and rights for LGBTQ+ where there are demonstrable acts of violence and systemic oppression rather than waste time hand holding individuals who think they should be able purchase an Arsenal of firearms and spread Covid by not obeying and respecting their fellow citizens through their non compliance. I'd say they are definitely where they need to be.. I…

Right, this is the kind of position I was referring to. The modern ACLU tends to direct their attention towards specific identity groups they feel are most deserving. I don't think they're quite as far along that path as you are - I can't imagine an ACLU representative implying you have a civic duty to unquestioningly accept the government's pandemic control measures - but maybe I'm wrong.

Re: Covid-19’s impact on Tor

#50

Post by dmix »

geofft wrote: post #48
dmix wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

ACLU changed their policy of supporting everyone against any freedom of speech and freedom of assembly repression by the government AFTER Charlottesville. That only supports the OP's point. That was the point they gave into to pressure from outside groups and gave up their values. Compromising once is enough to compromise it always and their recent posturing on social media has done nothing to dissuade that this is t…

Again - I disagree with the view that they "gave up" their values, and I don't want to live in a world where every political ideology needs its own non-profit, either. I think the ACLU can and should be an organization that defends the right to freedom of speech of everyone regardless of political affiliation. I'm arguing that their lawsuit in Charlottesville didn't actually serve the goals of protecting civil rights…

> Unite the Right wasn't primarily about speech, it was about violence

This is easy to say with retrospect. How many other major protests in history would you have compromised had you known there would be violence?

Any embedded provocateur could easily kill any protest.

Any extremist portion of any political group, no matter how small, could kill the mainstream purpose of the wider legitimate group.

I'd much rather we strongly defend their right to protest in public spaces, regardless of ideology, and instead we react to any planned or actual violence (which is already illegal). Including targeting individuals who have that as part of their agenda. Not attacking the larger groups at the point of their freedom of assembly. Which is all ACLU ever protected them from when they defend their right to protest in one city park instead of one far away from downtown.

I'd love to see where Unite the Right people fought for the right to commit violence in court and where ACLU had any part of that...

Post reply on HN