Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have no idea what you are talking about "revealing" a weapon or why you would do that... If someone was flashing a gun in a public setting I would be calling the police. Oh wait, let me guess your friends get nervous when a "black" person walks near them so they have to "reveal" they are armed. Funny, this was just in the news the other day... A man purchased a new gun and was flashing it. You guessed it, he was mu…
> Oh wait, let me guess your friends get nervous when a "black" person walks near them so they have to "reveal" they are armed. What the hell is wrong with you? This is shockingly presumptuous and divisive.
Partnering with Mozilla
101–104 of 104 posts
Re: Partnering with Mozilla
#102Earlier quoted context omitted.
it's hard to answer this with a blanket statement because it's one company that does many things and builds many products. i'm not sure what the law says about requiring a company to continue to operate a service just for the sake of intercepting traffic, when the morals/mission of the company would otherwise terminate the service. i'd be interested to see if something like this has been tested in court. the general…
Company morals, mission statements, constitutions etc are marketing material and not law. If the law requires a company to comply but their mission statement goes against this, the law will win every time.
Unfortunately, some jurisdictions don't allow sufficient customization of corporate charters to do this yet. It's been getting a bit better recently.
Re: Partnering with Mozilla
#103Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not bigiain, but an obvious motivation would be that the more people use Tor for obviously mundane reasons, the more plausible deniability exists for all Tor users. After all, the fact that you're using Tor cannot be hidden, and you don't want people to fall under suspicion merely for being Tor users. In other words, there is probably no direct benefit to bigiain for doing this, but she/he is doing everybody a se…
Exactly this. Since Facebook has a .onion, I sometimes use instead of the .com, and even if I don't use my real name on Facebook, I'm not at all anonymous there. I also have my personal web page accessible as a Tor Hidden Service [1] and as an EepSite [2], even if a personal web page is the least anonymous thing you can think of. [1] http://pablo6zbxiijn5hd.onion/ [2] http://p4bl0.i2p/
Re: Partnering with Mozilla
#104Earlier quoted context omitted.
Exactly this. Since Facebook has a .onion, I sometimes use instead of the .com, and even if I don't use my real name on Facebook, I'm not at all anonymous there. I also have my personal web page accessible as a Tor Hidden Service [1] and as an EepSite [2], even if a personal web page is the least anonymous thing you can think of. [1] http://pablo6zbxiijn5hd.onion/ [2] http://p4bl0.i2p/
Hmmm. Wouldn't trying to remain anonymous be better? I mean, if most of the people on Tor are not anonymous (because they "disclose" themselves voluntarily), the rest of them might be in the spotlight...
Consider the extreme case where Tor is only used by dissidents in a single country X. As soon as country X's secret police observes your home internet connection connect to Tor relays, they know that you are a dissident.
Now consider the case where only 1% of the traffic on Tor is by dissidents in country X. When your home internet connection is observed to carry Tor traffic, it is impossible to tell whether you're among the 1% of dissidents or the 99% of non-dissidents. So they have some reason to suspect you, but it's already a clear win, because rounding up and terrorizing 100x as many people takes more effort and is more likely to result in pushback.
The only place in the Tor network where the "trying to remain anonymous" makes a difference is when the secret police collects exit relay traffic. However, if all they see is that 1% of exit traffic is TLS sessions to dissidents.xx and the other 99% is unencrypted sessions to facebook.com (hypothetically), that still doesn't help them figure out which Tor clients are sending those 1% of traffic that they want to chase down.
Of course, all of the above is subject to the inherent limitations of Tor (e.g., somebody who is able to observe all relays can do statistical timing-based attacks to correlate relay input-streams with relay output-streams; they can then trace back the Tor circuits and figure out which user is responsible for which exit traffic; somebody who is able to observe a fraction of relays will be able to do such correlation attacks with a certain probability of success; the secret police might observe dissidents.xx as well as the home connections of everybody using Tor, and might be able to sieve out the 1% of dissidents using timing correlation, etc. [0]). The point is that the nature of the 99% of non-targeted traffic doesn't matter; the important thing is that it's there, and the more, the better.
[0] This seems to suggest that if you want to hide some of your traffic via Tor, it actually makes sense to tunnel everything via Tor. However, this also has problems: for example, if you use the same browser to access both facebook.com and dissidents.xx, browser fingerprinting might kill you. I don't actually know what the best practices recommendation is. Given an adversary with sufficiently tight control over the communications infrastructure, you're basically screwed.