Discussion in 'privacy general' started by Daveski17, Nov 23, 2011.
Secret net Tor asks users to sign up to cloud services ~ BBC News Technology
I know TOR is HTTPS, but why would they,
1 - Team up with Amazon, with big fat pipes connected to "You Know Who " ?
2 - Give Amazon $ ?
3 - Also, it "could" enable the TOR network, or a large part of it, to be shutdown instantly at the flick of a switch, or mouse click ! If ordered to by "YKW"
So based on that, i don't get it
Yes, it is odd. I don't know that much about TOR but I always understood it to be a free service.
Sounds like the creators of TOR aren't as paranoid as their users.
Or getting less fussy about who they "connect" with !
Aren't the creators of TOR supposed to be anonymous, isn't that called being paranoid.
Are they? I don't know about that.
HMN? the article said
I still Don't know what to think about this?
If the government asks a person to turn over the computer they won't have the legal means to fight the request.
A company will have the money/ legal teams.
But we can't be sure they'd use their money/legal teams to fight any request. In fact, if it's a National Security Letter, there's no discussion or they go to jail. That's how far probable cause and such has disappeared when it comes to federal intrusion and spying on American citizens.
Operators of major Tor relays are generally not anonymous. Developers aren't anonymous either. There's considerable academic literature. You may be thinking of Truecrypt developers, Carver.
This proposal invites people to run bridges in Amazon's cloud. Bridges are basically reverse proxies for Tor. They are not internal (or exit) relays. IP addresses of bridges are not simply published. They are provided upon request, sometimes privately via email. Please see tor-talk for specifics.
Not really. Google contests government demands for information once in a while and they make it public what the government was asking for.
This smells real damn funny to me. I'm going to do a little asking around.
It really doesnt matter whose servers you use. You can use the damn NSA's servers for all TOR cares - it's all encrypted. They would have to control a ton of the network/ have all of one persons traffic go through their servers for this to matter at all.
It seems to me that it's a tutorial on how to setup a TOR bridge on the Amazon cloud services.
I said, "If it's a National Security Letter." The use of the NSL has spread to many things other than investigating terrorism. They are only issued by the FBI and no, you cannot say "no" to a NSL.
Lately, the notion of connecting via Tor seems like... using the airport security express lane
you know, the one marked "this lane reserved for passengers who MIGHT be toting concealed weapons".
A buddy of mine called last night, asking how / why he was "immediately banned" when he registered an account at a discussion forum. After a bit of digging, we determined that the forum software is using an "antispam" plugin which checks the registrant's IP against a centrally-maintained, continually-updated list of Tor exit nodes. Anyone connected via Tor when attempting to register a forum account WILL wind up with an "immediately banned" account. Sheesh!
Separate names with a comma.