I guess we can put away the pitchforks?
Nay! Don't be hasty! Find someone else to point them at. We live in a target rich world.
Facebook Is Not Blocking Tor Deliberately
11–20 of 54 posts
Re: Facebook Is Not Blocking Tor Deliberately
#12Recent evolution of a story on Hacker News:
An incorrect story is posted, and quickly rises up the homepage.
Hacker News commenters wave their torches and pitchforks.
Somewhere between a couple hours and a couple days later, a correction is posted.
The correction never attracts the same amount of attention, and multiple people inevitably post comments saying something to the effect of 'just because this time proved to be factually inaccurate doesn't mean our rage isn't justified, since this could conceivably happen in the future.'
Re: Facebook Is Not Blocking Tor Deliberately
#13Whether or not FB is deliberately blocking Tor now , how out-of-line would it be for them to eventually block it in the future? It doesn't seem in their best interest as a company to allow Tor connections...but other than that, what ethical obligations do they have to allow anonymous connections? FB already has a policy more-or-less mandating real identities...so for them, this is kind of a non-issue, right? By using…
> Whether or not FB is deliberately blocking Tor now, how out-of-line would it be for them to eventually block it in the future?
> tl;dr: Why use Tor + FB?
Fair point, there may only be some arcane use cases for the combo, but the dilemma becomes far more stark at: "How out-of-line would it be for users of the internet writ large to aggressively block IP addresses associated with malicious activity?"
There was a call to "name and shame" DDOS participants a few months back, with the argument that every operator has the obligation to keep their "systems in trim."
http://bsdly.blogspot.ca/2012/12/ddos-bots-are-people-or-man...
I was enamored with the idea. AV blacklists code, why not source? The AV industry has learned (for the most part) that sharing malware samples is for the good of everyone. But victims tend to stay silent about the IPs that participated in a DDOS, or worse, launched targeted intrusions.
Why not build a list of pariah IPs and refuse to talk to them until they get their act together?
Turns out that puts radical constraints on some useful projects, like Tor. Bot farmers might accidentally DDOS not only their target, but all of Tor if exit nodes were quickly blacklisted. Possibly worse, a government could intentionally spew noisy malicious activity through the network to get the endpoints shut down with deniability.
Is it possible for a Tor exit node to "keep their system in trim?" Preventing its use as a gateway for malicious activity?
You could make a crippled Tor that only allows a certain limited set of services, but that's not really Tor anymore.
Anyone have a way to address: a) policing malware by IP addresses while b) allowing deniability of communication that's better than just giving up on one priority or the other?
Re: Facebook Is Not Blocking Tor Deliberately
#14This is also reason why most of the time you cannot use online bank systems through Tor: banks block big chunk of Tor exit nodes as malicious traffic sources (for legimate reason, I believe).
Re: Facebook Is Not Blocking Tor Deliberately
#15Recent evolution of a story on Hacker News: An incorrect story is posted, and quickly rises up the homepage. Hacker News commenters wave their torches and pitchforks. Somewhere between a couple hours and a couple days later, a correction is posted. The correction never attracts the same amount of attention, and multiple people inevitably post comments saying something to the effect of 'just because this time proved t…
i.e. The Sean Parker wedding fiasco.
Re: Facebook Is Not Blocking Tor Deliberately
#16Recent evolution of a story on Hacker News: An incorrect story is posted, and quickly rises up the homepage. Hacker News commenters wave their torches and pitchforks. Somewhere between a couple hours and a couple days later, a correction is posted. The correction never attracts the same amount of attention, and multiple people inevitably post comments saying something to the effect of 'just because this time proved t…
i.e. The Sean Parker wedding fiasco.
I'd say the PRISM stuff is a better example. "They have direct server access!"
Re: Facebook Is Not Blocking Tor Deliberately
#17Recent evolution of a story on Hacker News: An incorrect story is posted, and quickly rises up the homepage. Hacker News commenters wave their torches and pitchforks. Somewhere between a couple hours and a couple days later, a correction is posted. The correction never attracts the same amount of attention, and multiple people inevitably post comments saying something to the effect of 'just because this time proved t…
The worst part of that life cycle is being one of a minority group trying to explain what's really going on. I had the top comment on 3 different NSA stories at one time, correcting misinformation in each. I still don't think it helped.
Re: Facebook Is Not Blocking Tor Deliberately
#18Recent evolution of a story on Hacker News: An incorrect story is posted, and quickly rises up the homepage. Hacker News commenters wave their torches and pitchforks. Somewhere between a couple hours and a couple days later, a correction is posted. The correction never attracts the same amount of attention, and multiple people inevitably post comments saying something to the effect of 'just because this time proved t…
[deleted]
Re: Facebook Is Not Blocking Tor Deliberately
#19Recent evolution of a story on Hacker News: An incorrect story is posted, and quickly rises up the homepage. Hacker News commenters wave their torches and pitchforks. Somewhere between a couple hours and a couple days later, a correction is posted. The correction never attracts the same amount of attention, and multiple people inevitably post comments saying something to the effect of 'just because this time proved t…
Well, this story is higher than the old one for me. Do people get different views of the front page?
Re: Facebook Is Not Blocking Tor Deliberately
#20Earlier quoted context omitted.
Facebook is not forcing you to give them your personal information ? I understand and pretty much agree with most of what you say but can we agree that Facebook is simply another company trying to make money and be a thriving business and not an evil organisation trying to take over your life and destroy your liberties ? capiche ?
This. If there is evil at Facebook, I haven’t seen it. It might be big, but at the most basic level it’s just a directory of people where you share stuff and see some ads to support the site. That’s not unlike the vast majority of sites that we all use every day. Besides, the goal of advertising on Facebook is to provide suggestions to people that are actually valuable. It’s good for people to get discounts on produc…
>Making money is just a happy side effect of creating actual value.
Pretty much Google's MO as well.
Aside: People really need to stop bandying about the word "evil" as a value judgement, it manages to be inaccurate, non descriptive, subjective, and emotionally loaded all at the same time.
Every time Google changes the slightest facet of their service, the idiot crowd starts up with "WELL SO MUCH FOR DONT BE EVIL HURR DURR!!1" Facebook much the same, except it's just become hip to hate on them after all this time. Familiarity breeds contempt, I suppose.