Slashdot Mirror


EFF Promotes Freenet-like System Tor

An anonymous reader writes "The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) just announced that it has become a financial sponsor of Tor, an open-source project to help people 'engage in anonymous communication online.' It sounds like a simpler version of Freenet, e.g. 'a network-within-a-network that protects communication from ... traffic analysis.' Like Freenet, the source-code is freely available and binaries exist for Windows, Linux, etc." Read on for more details.

The submitter continues "It also allows you to install Tor-aware apps, such as an HTTP proxy (for private browsing), or maybe private P2P? Unlike Freenet, it doesn't use massive encryption (as far as I can tell) and relies more on something called onion routing to randomly bounce requests between other Tor proxies, thus obfuscating the IP of the original client. So it allows you to browse regular Internet sites! Maybe it should be considered more of an 'open-source' Anonymizer? But I don't know if it's actually Open Source - you can download the source (and compile it yourself) but I don't know if the developers are letting anyone else touch their code. They are, however, looking for contributors and other forms of help. And, finally, they're hoping people will start running Tor servers!" It's open source, however contributions are handled.

379 comments

  1. EFF makes me happy. by The+I+Shing · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The EFF is a light in a dark wilderness. How amazing that a group of people so talented, experienced, and dedicated to digital liberty can come together and accomplish so much. Episode #74 of This American Life features EFF co-founder John Perry Barlow's touching account of a romance that blossomed between him and a wonderful woman he met at a convention. (Computer geeks take heed... play this story for a girl you fancy and see if it softens her heart.)

    --
    You are in error. No-one is screaming. Thank you for your cooperation.
    1. Re:EFF makes me happy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow! that dude's daughters are HOT

    2. Re:EFF makes me happy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You'd sing a different tune if your child was abused of by a predatory pedophile with a taste for pictures and video. It is JUST these kinds of people that systems like Tor are designed to protect, and that is morally abhorrent.

    3. Re:EFF makes me happy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not sure about the EFF, they obviously do some good work but I feel some of what they do is misguided.

    4. Re:EFF makes me happy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      (Computer geeks take heed... play this story for a girl you fancy and see if it softens her heart.)

      Tried it. The restraining order is still on.

      Jerk.

    5. Re:EFF makes me happy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tor... could this be the new safe way to distribute Bit-Torrent .torrent files? Would make sense to call it Tor then.

    6. Re:EFF makes me happy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is JUST these kinds of people that systems like Tor are designed to protect

      Tell that to the tens of thousands of Chinese dissidents using freenet to communicate and spread their word of democracy and religion.

      Tell that to the reporter who was sentenced to six months of jail time for not caving in to the judge's order to reveal his source for a "secret" tape depicting wanton corruption within the government.

      Tell that to whistleblowers across the country who either lose their jobs or have their lives made miserable when they reveal the soulless corporations who run our country (and the soulless executives who run them) for the criminals that they are.

      But hey, we have to think of the children, even as they grow up in a world thats increasingly going to Hell. I guess its ok for you until the pedos run a giant energy company and hand out millions to make sure the police overlook their little trips to the local school. What are you going to do then?

    7. Re:EFF makes me happy. by joeljkp · · Score: 1

      I'm not arguing with you here, I'm genuinely curious:

      Do you have evidence of Freenet being used for any kind of actual dissident/freedom fighter/whistleblower activity?

      I run a server myself, but every time I log on, it seems like there's nothing but pornographers, pirates, and bigots.

      --
      WeRelate.org - wiki-based genealogy
    8. Re:EFF makes me happy. by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      Don't sing thier praises too highly. Sure, they support a lot of good things, but they still advocate spamming.

      That's the position that's kept me from making any donations to them so far.

    9. Re:EFF makes me happy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Learn chinese, then start here.

    10. Re:EFF makes me happy. by Baricom · · Score: 1

      The rights of users to send and receive email must not be compromised for quick and dirty ways to limit unsolicited bulk email.

      I read their position on spam, and it seems very sensible to me. They're basically saying that false positives are bad.

      I'd like to read a counter-analysis, if you can provide one.

    11. Re:EFF makes me happy. by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      Claiming to hold the position that "False positives are bad" is like holding the position that "Water is wet."

      Their position is "False positives are bad, therefore, shut up and eat your spam," which keeps them from getting any money from me.

      I, and my users, prefer that I take the "omlette" approach.

  2. If they really want by Neil+Blender · · Score: 3, Interesting

    If they really want to sniff you, what is to stop them from sniffing at that unavoidable first hop?

    1. Re:If they really want by Gorny · · Score: 2, Informative

      There are some trusted nodes which serve as the starting point. You can also add your own trusted nodes if you're sure they're trustworthy.

      --
      Alan Perlis once said: "A language that doesn't affect the way you think about programming, is not worth knowing"
    2. Re:If they really want by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      It's more than that; the entry nodes don't have to
      be trusted. Your communications with them are
      encrypted and they know only the next hop in the
      circuit -- they do not know the exit node and they
      do not know the content of your communication.

    3. Re:If they really want by grahamsz · · Score: 1

      If the network were encrypted then you could simply argue that the packet wasn't yours and you were merely forwarding it. But if it's in the plain then they'd be able to see that it didn't come in and infer that it was yours.

    4. Re:If they really want by weaselp · · Score: 5, Informative

      The first node knows your IP and the second node, but not the plain text. The last node knows the second-to-last node,the service you are connecting to, and the plain text unless you do some encryption on the application layer (like https).

      It's not entirely unlike Mixmaster, only low latency.

      --
      Weasel
    5. Re:If they really want by LnxAddct · · Score: 1

      Do you know if torrents could be used this way? or n o?
      Regards,
      Steve

    6. Re:If they really want by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      Of course, the reason that mixmaster has high latency is to defeat traffic analysis. If you see a burst of traffic go from node to node to node, you can trace the connection even if it is encrypted.

      Unless the nodes maintain constant noise with junk traffic you need latency...

  3. Is this really anonymous? by bigstupid · · Score: 1

    What degree of obfuscation is enough to thwart determined tracking attempts?

  4. Yay! Piracy! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny


    I'm sure this network will be used to share protected speech and not copyrighted binaries.
    </sarcasm>

  5. AT&T Crowds by grub · · Score: 3, Informative

    If it's not encrypting and just passing packets around then it sounds like the AT&T research Crowds proxy they were distributing a while ago. (it used to live at this page but I see it's gone now.)

    --
    Trolling is a art,
    1. Re:AT&T Crowds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tor does encrypt hops and the encryption uses
      keys negotiated between the user and each hop
      (much like the anonymous remailer networks).

      You might think of Tor as a somewhat more mature
      system along the lines of Crowds. Tor's
      bibliography cites the Crowds work (among other
      things) favorably.

    2. Re:AT&T Crowds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      what about this:
      http://anon.inf.tu-dresden.de/index_en.html

      jap offers anonymous surfing for http.. but it seems tor offers even more?

    3. Re:AT&T Crowds by GoodNicsTken · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It sounds like MPLS to me, which is a protocol used in VoIP. Same setup, the route is added one hop at a time. The first message has to find it's way, but after that, each router peels the label (L in MPLS), routes it to that hop, and therefore routhing is very fast after the connection is established. What I don't understand is, the first hop has to know your requesting a www.yahoo.com page or it wouldn't know where to send your message. Therefore, if an open source TOR server can decode your message, then why couldn't a packet capture tool and post processing do the same?

    4. Re:AT&T Crowds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Each Tor server has its own key and is operated by a separate individual. This is much like the remailer networks. The individual Tor server can decrypt because you encrypted to it, but a third party can't decrypt.

      It isn't fatal to the anonymity if some privacy-unfriendly people run Tor nodes because no one node should have complete information about who is doing what.

    5. Re:AT&T Crowds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      find it's way

      "its".

    6. Re:AT&T Crowds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Therefore, if an open source TOR server can decode your message

      Are you sure thats your message? How do They know that its not a packet that your machine "peeled the label" off of and routed from somewhere else? (Other than by traffic analysis of your own node, but then you've already lost)

  6. This actually works.... by Ajmuller · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Unlike freenet, which I have tried to use for years and never got it to work properly, this actually works. Five minutes after I installed TOR i'm actually surfing the internet, anonymously, at decent speeds. Unlike freenet, i'm not stuck in a chatroom while someone tells me... Just wait 4-5 days for your node to associate with the network....
    TOR is great, go EFF, making me proud to be a member!!!!

    1. Re:This actually works.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, Ajmuller (acct 88594), we know exactly who you are. Does your mom know you visit those kind of sites?

    2. Re:This actually works.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Heh. My mom always despairs of my conservatism. At my age, she was "enjoying group sex (lots of), and plentiful marijuana". No, I don't know how she manages to pronounce parentheses like that. Yes, I do have to point out that back in her day, group sex didn't lead to HIV or antibiotic resistant syphilis quite so readily.

      But hey, I'm in europe.

    3. Re:This actually works.... by verbatim_verbose · · Score: 1

      It's true, Tor does work well. The thing is - Freenet works well too. But Freenet is it's OWN network - not a gateway to browse the standard WWW. The two have almost nothing to do with each other.

    4. Re:This actually works.... by Ajmuller · · Score: 4, Informative

      Actually, Tor does have an internal network. They are called hidden service URLS, they are URLs that work only on the tor network, though they are not distributed content the way freenet is.
      A Hidden Service URL looks something like this:
      http://6sxoyfb3h2nvok2d.onion/
      And, obviously, only functions when the TOR daemon intercepts your web browsers requests...
      The very cool thing about TOR is that it not only can forward HTTP but also any other arbitrary protocol... You can even forward SSH traffic if you are among the uber paranoid elite.

    5. Re:This actually works.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      "Heh. My mom always despairs of my conservatism. At my age, she was "enjoying group sex (lots of), and plentiful marijuana". No, I don't know how she manages to pronounce parentheses like that. Yes, I do have to point out that back in her day, group sex didn't lead to HIV or antibiotic resistant syphilis quite so readily."

      Anonymous Coward, I AM your father

    6. Re:This actually works.... by Taladar · · Score: 1

      Or you could tunnel your traffic through ssh through tor...

    7. Re:This actually works.... by zx-6e · · Score: 1

      Freenet works better these days, however it still can be quite slow at times. You might want to give it a try again.

    8. Re:This actually works.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Five minutes after I installed TOR i'm actually surfing the internet, anonymously,

      Dear God, Slashdot, you have screwed yourself by revealing this. This is a Slashdot crapflooder's/troll's dream come true. I installed this in a few minutes and I have posted anonymously (which I am currently banned from doing). I just hit a website that I can view the logs to in real time - every hit, a different IP. NO MORE SLASHDOT BANS!!!!

    9. Re:This actually works.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      i'm actually surfing the internet, anonymously

      by Ajmuller (88594) on Wed December 22, 21:05 (#11162360) (http://www.adamjacobmuller.com/)

      can't blame TOR, though.

    10. Re:This actually works.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How could you possibly know?

    11. Re:This actually works.... by Ajmuller · · Score: 1

      I actually did this,
      http://tsocks.sourceforge.net/
      "tsocks is based on the 'shared library interceptor' concept. Through use of the LD_PRELOAD environment variable or the /etc/ld.so.preload file tsocks is automatically loaded into the process space of every executed program. From there it overrides the normal connect() function by providing its own. Thus when an application calls connect() to establish a TCP connection it instead passes control to tsocks. tsocks determines if the connection needs to be made via a SOCKS server (by checking /etc/tsocks.conf) and negotiates the connection if so (through use of the real connect() function )"

      The problem is, tsocks does not intercept DNS requests. So you "leak" dns requests.
      So if someone wanted to track your internet usage, they only need to look at what dns requests you make, even though they can't actaully see your traffic. I suppose you could solve this by setting up /etc/resolv.conf to use a local dns server, and having that server tunnel all dns requests through Tor.

  7. Like Freenet? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well Freenet HAS NEVER WORKED
    A fork of Freenet has been popular in Japan.
    But the Freenet project itself has been a huge failure.
    Thankgod some other people are working on creating something that might actually work.

    1. Re:Like Freenet? by Isao · · Score: 1
      A fork of Freenet has been popular in Japan.

      The Japanese fork of Freenet (Winny) was popular, and supposedly included a fundemental flaw in their implimentation (which does not appear in Freenet). Two users were arrested, and the Winny network collapsed.

    2. Re:Like Freenet? by Bagels · · Score: 1

      The "fundamental flaw" involved those two users bragging over the *unencrypted* bulletin-board service included with WinNY. The only fundamental flaw was those two users not reading up on the software they used... WinNY still works fine, it's perfectly anonymous if you avoid the BBSs.

      --
      --- Bwah?
  8. But... by ultrabot · · Score: 0, Redundant

    ...is it good for distributing binary content that might be in violation of copyright laws of some countries?

    --
    Save your wrists today - switch to Dvorak
    1. Re:But... by koreaman · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      OT:

      Cool, another dvorak user!

    2. Re:But... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Now that the EFF has become firmly pro-piracy (and therefore politically irrelevant), you can assume so.

    3. Re:But... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LUNIX is unhackable!

    4. Re:But... by ultrabot · · Score: 1
      Cool, another dvorak user!

      ...

      The Anti-1337 Manifesto [umanwizard.com]


      Yeah, dvorak absolutely pwns ;-).

      --
      Save your wrists today - switch to Dvorak
    5. Re:But... by koreaman · · Score: 1

      The only problem is, when other people want to use my keyboard they get mad at me.

      "How do I set it to the regular keyboard???!?!!!"

    6. Re:But... by eatmadust · · Score: 1

      hehe, I get that too :)
      setxkbmap -layout de_CH
      with me

  9. Solutions are simple. by robyannetta · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Disclaimer: IANAL!

    I, for one, do not use peer-to-peer file sharing for any reason. However the answer to secure peer-to-peer file sharing is so simple it's right in front of our noses.

    First, encrypt the file you want to send with GPG, make the decrypting password "1" or "A" or something that simple. If "any one else" decrypts the file and prosecutes you for it, you can get off by using the DMCA. That's right, the DMCA works for people too.

    Under the DMCA, the sender and receiver are the only two authorized to decrypt that file. If "any one else" decrypts it, even though they know the password, they are guilty of violating the DMCA. Now, from what I understand about the law, without a warrant to decrypt your encrypted file, it's not admissable in court because a law was broken to retrieve the file contents. No court likes "bad" cops, it's bad PR for judges.

    Current peer-to-peer technologies that are wide open are sufficient to carry "secure" information. Expending the extra energy to encrypt the file before it's sent is the problem. People need to stop being lazy.

    "If technology is plausible, we acheive it. Now pull the lever and 'beer me'."

    --
    - Just my $0.02, take with a grain of salt, your mileage may vary.
    1. Re:Solutions are simple. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Can you really sue someone for violating the DMCA when they decrypt content that is not yours?

    2. Re:Solutions are simple. by airConditionedGypsy · · Score: 2, Insightful
      You have to be careful. What if the receiver is a member of the RIAA? Under your scheme, they are authorized to download from you and decrypt...

      Nice idea, but tough in practice.

      --
      I bootleg Fizzy Lifting Drinks.
    3. Re:Solutions are simple. by pclminion · · Score: 5, Informative
      IANAL either. This doesn't work.

      The DMCA prohibits circumventing a protection on a copyrighted work. Encryption only qualifies as a "protection device" if the person doing the encryption is the holder of the copyright. You can't "protect" what you do not own.

      I don't know if the DMCA contains precisely this language, but it's certainly the way it would be interpretted in court.

      I'm more interested in the case of using encryption to protect a computer virus. Since the author of the virus actually is the owner of the copyright on the viral code, then the encryption should qualify as a copyright protection device under the DMCA. Law enforcement officials who decrypt the virus to reverse engineer it would be in violation of the DMCA.

    4. Re:Solutions are simple. by Lehk228 · · Score: 1

      won't work, DMCA only applies to encrypting stuff that you own.

      --
      Snowden and Manning are heroes.
    5. Re:Solutions are simple. by airConditionedGypsy · · Score: 1
      Since the author of the virus actually is the owner of the copyright on the viral code, then the encryption should qualify as a copyright protection device under the DMCA

      That's an interesting thought. I'd imagine at some point the virus would have to decrypt itself and then could be legally captured by some piece of monitoring software. An interesting technical challenge resulting from a "creative" use of the law.

      --
      I bootleg Fizzy Lifting Drinks.
    6. Re:Solutions are simple. by C64 · · Score: 1

      I, for one, do not use peer-to-peer file sharing for any reason. However the answer to secure peer-to-peer file sharing is so simple it's right in front of our noses.
      [...]
      Under the DMCA, the sender and receiver are the only two authorized to decrypt that file. If "any one else" decrypts it, even though they know the password, they are guilty of violating the DMCA.
      The problem is not so trivially solved. Remember - folks looking to prosecute filesharers are perfectly capable of joining a P2P network. Once they're in the network, the can examine any file they want just like any other member of the network - they can be "receivers" too, after all.
    7. Re:Solutions are simple. by Abm0raz · · Score: 1

      IANAL, either, but there is a flaw in your sceme: protectionary laws (for the most part) do not apply to illegal activities. The same way you can't call the cops cause your distributor took your drugs but didn't pay.

      I believe under the DMCA (again, not a lawyer) there is clause allowing for checking of owned material. The **AA would just have to get a writ (warrant, subpeona ... whatever) to allow them to open the file to check if it contained files owned by them that they believe were being transferred illegally.

      -Ab

      --
      Nothing fails quite like prayer.
    8. Re:Solutions are simple. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just sign it digitally.

    9. Re:Solutions are simple. by Taladar · · Score: 1

      So you say if I use ssh to admin my server all the text output of the programs I use and have not written myself can be decrypted by everyone without legal problems because I do not own the copyright?

    10. Re:Solutions are simple. by pclminion · · Score: 1
      So you say if I use ssh to admin my server all the text output of the programs I use and have not written myself can be decrypted by everyone without legal problems because I do not own the copyright?

      Yes. Where did you get the idea that it's illegal to crack encryption?

      The eavesdropper would probably be guilty of wiretapping or some other type of communications crime, but the fact that he broke the encryption has nothing to do with it.

    11. Re:Solutions are simple. by cheekyboy · · Score: 1

      Is this why some torrent downloads are RARed with a password that you have to find? So that the 'authorities' have to get a warrent, even though you could google the password?

      --
      Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
    12. Re:Solutions are simple. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Law enforcement officials who decrypt the virus to reverse engineer it would be in violation of the DMCA.

      A rubber stamped warrant can take care of that little problem I'm sure.

    13. Re:Solutions are simple. by pclminion · · Score: 1
      A rubber stamped warrant can take care of that little problem I'm sure.

      I'm sure it would, but it gives the virus that many more hours to spread unimpeded. My point is that if the DMCA hampers the execution of law enforcement, then the DMCA is a fucked up law. (We already knew that, but this is another potential reason why.)

    14. Re:Solutions are simple. by idiot900 · · Score: 1

      I also am not a lawyer.

      In that case, how about putting two things in the encrypted archive:

      1) A file for which you own the copyright (easy to autogenerate)
      2) Another encrypted archive, with some simple password, of the files you really want to share

      This way, whoever wants to give you trouble would have to violate the DMCA to get at your file before they could know what file you really meant to share.

      If this suggestion doesn't work, interesting things could come of its failure.

      1) If copyright owners are allowed to decrypt the archive to see if it contains their file, then this could be turned against them. People could then claim that they were decrypting DMCA-protected works to check if they contained their property.

      2) If the encryption method is deemed to be too weak to qualify as real encryption, then that's a shot against stupid protection schemes from big content providers.

      Thoughts?

    15. Re:Solutions are simple. by evilviper · · Score: 1
      Since the author of the virus actually is the owner of the copyright on the viral code, then the encryption should qualify as a copyright protection device under the DMCA. Law enforcement officials who decrypt the virus to reverse engineer it would be in violation of the DMCA.

      Clever application of the law. However, the Law Enforcement angle is bound to fail... Police are legally allowed to do a great many things that would otherwise be illegal.

      Where this REALLY applies would be to companies such as Symantec, McAffee, etc. Since they don't have the added legal rights that law-enforcement does, it's entirely possible they could be liable under the DMCA.

      It wouldn't be an easy case though... You need to show that you were using encryption specifically to protect your copyrighted material, not just to evade detection... Maybe including a haiku in an encrypted virus would help that end, though it's not strictly required.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    16. Re:Solutions are simple. by Sweetshark · · Score: 1
      In that case, how about putting two things in the encrypted archive:

      1) A file for which you own the copyright (easy to autogenerate)
      2) Another encrypted archive, with some simple password, of the files you really want to share

      How about making the content of the copyrighted file the password for the other one?
      And to make it funny, let the copyrighted file contain a Perl-Haiku (so it is real art).
    17. Re:Solutions are simple. by Lancaibheal · · Score: 1

      But my understanding is that the law enforcement doesn't get into it before the *AA anyway.

      I believe that what happens, is that the **AA sees that you're sharing files, and downloads them. They then (sometimes) verify that the files in question are indeed copyrighted material, and then they call in their lawyers to sue you. Law enforcement doesn't usually enter into it until it's too late, at least when they're just after casual swappers.

      Since the RIAA doesn't (yet) have the law enforcement powers that the constabulary have, this could be a good idea for the casual swapper. Then again, the casual swapper isn't likely to take any precautions for their own safety at all, as shown by the continuing popularity of security-hazard software like Kazaa.

    18. Re:Solutions are simple. by damiam · · Score: 1

      IANAL, but they wouldn't know that the content wasn't yours until after they already decrypted it. So I think you probably could sue them.

      --
      It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.
    19. Re:Solutions are simple. by evilviper · · Score: 1
      But my understanding is that the law enforcement doesn't get into it before the *AA anyway.

      You clearly have no idea what you are talking about. This is a thread about the DMCA with application to encrypted viruses.

      What the RIAA does has NOTHING at all to do with the DMCA, and only has to do with the (rather ancient) laws on copyright infringement.
      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    20. Re:Solutions are simple. by hesiod · · Score: 1

      I agree. In US courts, AFAIK, illegally obtained evidence is inadmissable.

    21. Re:Solutions are simple. by hesiod · · Score: 1

      > Where did you get the idea that it's illegal to crack encryption?

      Well, the DeCSS case made a heck of an argument to that end.

    22. Re:Solutions are simple. by hesiod · · Score: 1

      Okay, while I was technically right, I forgot that laws don't apply to law enforcement, who can do whatever they want, right or wrong, when it suits their agenda.

    23. Re:Solutions are simple. by pclminion · · Score: 1
      Well, the DeCSS case made a heck of an argument to that end.

      Yeah, but the DeCSS case took place in a nation other than the U.S. (which makes it somewhat less relevant relative to discussions of U.S. copyright laws) and it involved encryption protecting digital copyrighted works.

      Speaking generally, cracking encryption is not in and of itself an illegal act in the United States. I can't say the same for all other nations.

    24. Re:Solutions are simple. by hesiod · · Score: 1

      > but the DeCSS case took place in a nation other than the U.S.

      Wasn't it a complaint based on US laws? I thought the US kinda' poked its way into Finnish (?was that where it was?) law because the MPAA had a hissyfit that people could actually watch their movies.

  10. How does this differ from a regular anon proxy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This exactly seem revolutionary. Are there some features not covered in the whitepage that aren't currently available to "power" users today? Or is this simply an idiot proof proxy tool?

    1. Re:How does this differ from a regular anon proxy? by grahamsz · · Score: 1

      Well the anonymous proxy knows all. It knows your IP address, what you are connecting to, and what you are sending.

      No one node in the tor system knows all of this.

  11. Spammers by bm17 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Two questions come immediately to mind:

    1) Can spam be sent through Tor?

    2) Can spammers collect data by running a Tor server of their own?

    I checked the site's FAQ but couldn't find answers there.

    1. Re:Spammers by miope · · Score: 5, Informative

      Look the documentation

      2. Decide what exit policy you want. By default your server allows access to many popular services, but we restrict some (such as port 25) due to abuse potential. You might want an exit policy that is either less restrictive or more restrictive; edit your torrc appropriately. If you choose a particularly open exit policy, you might want to make sure your upstream or ISP is ok with that choice.
      the faq responds your second question
      6.1. Can exit nodes eavesdrop on communications? Isn't that bad? Yes, the guy running the exit node can read the bytes that come out there. Our first answer is "then use end-to-end encryption such as SSL", which is great but not always practical. (The corollary to this answer is that if you are worried about somebody intercepting your traffic and you're *not* using end-to-end encryption at the application layer, then something has already gone wrong and you shouldn't be thinking that Tor is the problem.) Our second answer is that in a future release, we plan to have Tor clients recognize when the destination is co-located with a Tor server, and exit from that Tor server. So for example, people using Tor to get to the EFF website would automatically exit from the EFF Tor server (assuming it's nearby in network geography), thus getting *better* encryption and authentication properties than just browsing there the normal way. But this has a variety of technical problems we need to overcome first (the main one being "how does the Tor client learn which servers are associated with which websites in a decentralized yet non-gamable way?"). Stay tuned.
    2. Re:Spammers by rainman_bc · · Score: 1

      Uhm, I don't think you can use a proxy server to send spam AFAIK.

      --
      09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
    3. Re:Spammers by bm17 · · Score: 1

      But since no one is sending SMTP traffic there won't be any email addresses to harvest. Thanks! I hope they add that bit about no port 25 to the FAQ.

    4. Re:Spammers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I haven't anything but here's my guess:
      1) The product is for anonymous commmunications. The spammers would need to have your TOR address. (See #2)
      2) They probably could collect your TOR info with a modified TOR server. Spammers won't bother for this TOR network unless it becomes popular. The US Big Bro..er.. Homeland Security dept., however, is probably working on this as we speak.

      The worst thing is that neither hole can be plugged otherwise it will severely limit the random-router feature that it is based on.

    5. Re:Spammers by snorklewacker · · Score: 1

      > Uhm, I don't think you can use a proxy server to send spam AFAIK.

      With an open proxy, you certainly can. Use the proxy to open an arbitrary socket connection direct to your victim's ISP. More cleverly, have it relay through the ISP of the open proxy (not an easy problem, so most don't). Many billions of spam messages are sent this way. Even a lot of HTTP proxies allow this. Good proxies don't, but the proxies being exploited aren't good ones.

      --
      I am no longer wasting my time with slashdot
  12. Funded by DARPA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The site says it's partially funded by DARPA. Keep that in mind ... It might be backdoored so as to spy on bloodthirsty terrorists.

  13. Is that in England? by worst_name_ever · · Score: 2, Funny

    System Tor... I think that's in Devonshire, right?

    --

    In Soviet Rush, today's Tom Sawyer gets high on you.
    1. Re:Is that in England? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      O come on, that was a goody - please give the chap more than a 2!

    2. Re:Is that in England? by WomensHealth · · Score: 1

      That is one of the best sigs I've ever read. Thanks!

    3. Re:Is that in England? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tor is German for Gate. Wonder if they were thinking of that when they picked the name?

  14. Anonymity is a good thing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny
    Are you sure all this anonymity is a good thing with all the terrorism and unpatriotic sentiment floating around?

    Besides, getting rid of anonymity would help with the spam crap.

    In fact, I don't see anything positive in anonymity.

    1. Re:Anonymity is a good thing? by VistaBoy · · Score: 4, Funny

      In fact, I don't see anything positive in anonymity.

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 22, @04:11PM

      You are the god of irony and paradox.

    2. Re:Anonymity is a good thing? by DirtyLiar · · Score: 1
      Are you sure all this anonymity is a good thing with all the terrorism and unpatriotic sentiment floating around?
      Besides, getting rid of anonymity would help with the spam crap.
      In fact, I don't see anything positive in anonymity.

      That's right, 'cause only criminals fear a police state!
      I bet you have a webcam, don't you?

      --

      THINK! It's patriotic

    3. Re:Anonymity is a good thing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OTOH, maybe he just doesn't like soul-sucking registrations, like I imagine most of us ACs. I've really got better things to do with my time and bandwidth than to register at EVERY FROGGING PLACE I want to make a snarky comment like this one against people who invite such comments, like yourself.

    4. Re:Anonymity is a good thing? by VistaBoy · · Score: 1

      Heh. You obviously have enough bandwidth and time to make that holier-than-thou post about how you don't submit to "soul-sucking registrations." I'd say you have enough bandwidth and time to make a registration.

    5. Re:Anonymity is a good thing? by IpalindromeI · · Score: 1

      If you don't register, how do you expect to attach a name to your comment other than Anonymous? Would you like the system to read your mind and fill in user info for you magically? That sounds like a good trick. Let me know when you have it implemented.

      --

      --
      Promoting critical thinking since 1994.
    6. Re:Anonymity is a good thing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      bug me not and the firefox extension; whiner.

      right click on a password field and select bug me not, it fills it in and even presses enter.

    7. Re:Anonymity is a good thing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thank you captain obvious

    8. Re:Anonymity is a good thing? by kliment · · Score: 1

      I have a webcam. A public one at that. I even run around naked in front of it sometime. However, I like to be anonymous when I choose to be, like in some public discussions. I like to have the possibility to turn my webcam off. The spam crap is best handled by not buying from them, not by compromising anonymity.

    9. Re:Anonymity is a good thing? by Kirth · · Score: 1

      Are you sure all this anonymity is a good thing with all the terrorism and unpatriotic sentiment floating around?

      You Sir, are either a moron or a fiend of democracy. Anonymity is key to democracy. Not only for voting, but also in access to news, books, and other information, and probably also in publication.

      Read Anonymity, Democracy and Cyberspace or What is anonymity? for background. In the hope that you realize that anonymity is terribly important. Unless you're an anti-democrat who wants to enact a fascist society, that is.

      --
      "The more prohibitions there are, The poorer the people will be" -- Lao Tse
    10. Re:Anonymity is a good thing? by DirtyLiar · · Score: 1
      I have a webcam. A public one at that. I even run around naked in front of it sometime.

      Ahem...

      Yes... Well then, I suppose the letters "TMI" would mean nothing to you.

      Thanks for not inculding the URL though! ^_^

      --

      THINK! It's patriotic

    11. Re:Anonymity is a good thing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      silly boy.
      The whole thing is a joke, I am suprissed that people wouldn't get it.

      Viva anonimity (and the revolution).

    12. Re:Anonymity is a good thing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think a hearty YHBT is in order.

    13. Re:Anonymity is a good thing? by geminidomino · · Score: 2, Informative

      Erm... looks like you missed the point. It was tongue-in-cheek, an anti-anonymity rant posted by an AC.

      I'd call him brilliant for that one. :)

  15. Yeah, right by Anonymous+Crowhead · · Score: 2, Funny

    And wait for my traffic to pass through some hippy's 386 running linux? I sure hope this requires some minimum hardware and bandwith to allow participation.

    1. Re:Yeah, right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Microsoft FUDDER!!

      Nothing to see here folks Move along.
      Just another Microsoft SL*& Slamming
      Linux

  16. not cost effective to track and sue for RIAA et al by Cryofan · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I wonder if this could somehow be a case where it is not cost effective for RIAA/MPAA to track down the sharer of a particular file? I mean, they could do track down at least ONE file-sharer and then sue that person. But is just one person being sued serve as a sufficient deterrent to stop many filesharers?

    Right now, there are hundreds or even thousands of file sharers being sued (or being threatened, or getting letters etc). That threat serves as a real deterrent. But if it were too costly for them to detect hundreds of file sharers, the threat posed may not deter many people from sharing files. So, if so, then Tor could be a real plus for file sharers.

    --
    eat shiat and bark at the moon
  17. finally an alternative by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I love Freenet, but it's a mess of a program using a rickety network. Long live Tor!

  18. Whups, so much for that idea. by Tackhead · · Score: 5, Informative
    From the design documents:

    Based in part on our restrictive default exit policy (we reject SMTP requests) and our low profile, we have had no abuse issues since the network was deployed in October 2003. Our slow growth rate gives us time to add features, resolve bugs, and get a feel for what users actually want from an anonymity system. Even though having more users would bolster our anonymity sets, we are not eager to attract the Kazaa or warez communities-we feel that we must build a reputation for privacy, human rights, research, and other socially laudable activities.

    Well, so much for that. *badaboom*

    1. Re:Whups, so much for that idea. by slyall · · Score: 1

      While the current network doesn't seem to be going out of it's way to attract the usual p2p (read copyright avoiding) crowd it would seem to be pretty easy to use this for bittorrent distribution.

      Setting up a "Hidden service" ( see: http://tor.eff.org/cvs/tor/doc/tor-doc.html#hidden -service ) as a website listing torrents and (assuming bittorent itself is easy to get working with this) even running connections to trackers over it seems to be straightforward.

      The amount of bandwidth consumed by trackers is fairly small and should easily be able to be handled by the system.

      As a bogus using the current backbone will both provide more servers for existing traffic to use and also insure the network as a whole isn't just a file trading network.

      --
      "To stay awake all night adds a day to your life" - Stilgar | eMT.
  19. Double dipping by el+borak · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Tor was initially designed and developed as part of the U.S. Naval Research Laboratory's Onion Routing program with support from ONR and DARPA.
    Gotta love this. Paid for by my tax dollars, then I also get to pay for the NSA to develop improved snooping technology to crack it. Still, good to know at least some of my tax dollars was well spent for a change.
    --
    An imperfect plan executed violently is far superior to a perfect plan. -- George Patton
  20. ... and also sponsored by .mil? by skabb · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Seems like a great system, but I just cant understand this statement: "Currently, Tor development is supported by the Electronic Frontier Foundation. Tor was initially designed and developed as part of the U.S. Naval Research Laboratory's Onion Routing program with support from ONR and DARPA."

    *Puts on tinfoil-hat* isn't the guys at *.mil making their jobs harder by doing this? anonymous "terrorists" communicating freely without any traces, or do they already have this covered in the system? a honeypot?

    1. Re:... and also sponsored by .mil? by bm17 · · Score: 1

      Maybe they can classify it as a munition and ban its export.

    2. Re:... and also sponsored by .mil? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As someone who is forced to deal w/ the Naval Research Lab on a weekly basis, trust me: these geniuses are completely and totally incapable of anything malicious.

      Some people get angry when they find out what their government is up to. If you knew what the Naval Research Lab was up to, you'd break down and cry.

      This is your tax dollars at work.

  21. Just one slight problem with the name.... by farrellj · · Score: 2, Interesting

    TOR Books, one of the largest publishers of Science Fiction and Fantasy in North America *might* have some problem with this...Methinks that I should let David Hartwell know...and the wonderful people at EFF...

    ttyl
    Farrell

    --
    CAN-CON 2019 - Ottawa's only book oriented Science Fiction Convention! October 18-20, Sheraton Hotel, Ottawa, Canada h
    1. Re:Just one slight problem with the name.... by el+borak · · Score: 1

      No worries. We'll just let the real Tor handle the dispute.

      --
      An imperfect plan executed violently is far superior to a perfect plan. -- George Patton
    2. Re:Just one slight problem with the name.... by pclminion · · Score: 1
      I doubt it. Have they started letting people trademark simple words now?

      Even if "TOR Books" was trademarked, it's not in the same industry or even sector as the Tor sharing system, so trademark protection wouldn't apply anyway.

    3. Re:Just one slight problem with the name.... by lederhosen · · Score: 1

      Tor is a common name in scandinavia, and a somewhat stupid but strong god.

    4. Re:Just one slight problem with the name.... by el+borak · · Score: 1
      Have they started letting people trademark simple words now?
      Yes.
      --
      An imperfect plan executed violently is far superior to a perfect plan. -- George Patton
    5. Re:Just one slight problem with the name.... by RazzleFrog · · Score: 1

      When did they not allow you to trademark simple words? Might come as a surprise to companies like Apple, Catepillar, Dell, Ford, Hallmark, etc. You are quite correct on the other part. Trademarks only apply to the industry they are registered in.

    6. Re:Just one slight problem with the name.... by Taladar · · Score: 1

      [nerd] Isn't Tor a small Roswell Alien that poses as a God but really is the Supreme Commander of the Asgard Forces? [/nerd]

    7. Re:Just one slight problem with the name.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When they're able to put out a Wheel of Time paperback that wasn't bound with spit, maybe I'll care what the guys at Tor think.

    8. Re:Just one slight problem with the name.... by Kehvarl · · Score: 0

      nah, that's Thor.

    9. Re:Just one slight problem with the name.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If I wanted to open a seafood restaurant or adult entertainment business and call it Oracle, there's not a damn thing they could do about it. And jeez, I thought you were going to link to windows.com (cname for guess who?)

    10. Re:Just one slight problem with the name.... by DylanQuixote · · Score: 1

      It is spelled Thor, though.

    11. Re:Just one slight problem with the name.... by Alsee · · Score: 1

      Tor Books is going to have to get in line behind the trademarked Tor Consulting, Mattel Inc's trademarked Tor-Speedo, TOR Minerals International's trademarked TOR BRITE pigment which they also also trademarked as TOR COAT, BTJ's trademarked TOR book sorting machines, Metal Box's TOR empty containers, Huntington Lamboratories' tradmarked Tor Multi-Purpose Germicidal Cleaner, and almost a hundred others.

      I was going to link the full list, but I don't think the search result link will work. Instead you can simply go to the US Patent and Trademark Office, click Trademark-search, New User Form Search (Basic), and enter search term TOR.

      Having a trademark does not make that word or phrase your "property". Like all so called "intellectual property", trademarks exist for the public's benefit not the holder's benefit. To put it simply, trademarks exist to protect the public from being confused/deceived as to what they are buying or who they are buying it from. I am perfectly free to sell Tor bubblegum because no one is going to confuse it with Tor science fiction novels. I cannot however sell Folex watches because people are likely to be confused and ripped off thinking they were buying a high quality and valuable Rolex watch.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    12. Re:Just one slight problem with the name.... by lederhosen · · Score: 1

      In English yes, not in Swedish. I belive it is spelled Tor in Danish and Norvigian too, but I am not certain.

      And it is pronounced like "t" and not like "th".

      In Swedish it is Tor, Oden, Loke, Balder etc, in English its Loki, isn't it?

    13. Re:Just one slight problem with the name.... by DylanQuixote · · Score: 1

      Ah, right. I guess in Danish versions of SG:SG1, it's Tor. :)

  22. Mod Parent Up by KarmaOverDogma · · Score: 1

    That one is both Funny and Insighful.

    --
    uR iGn0ranc3, Their Power
  23. Onion Routing != FreeNet by pridkett · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Just a quick FYI, TOR is an onion routing system, meaning that the data is passed between TOR proxies until it reaches it's destination. This means that eventually you still need to fetch the data from a server, which means that the server can still be put under attack or taken down.

    FreeNet is much more robust as you inject content and then it is stored in many nodes. Thus, it can't be taken down. Furthemore, in FreeNet different parts of the data are obtained from different sources, preventing more work that could be done with traffic analysis.

    To say that TOR is like FreeNet is to seriously discount the features of FreeNet. TOR is a system for running Onion proxies. FreeNet is a completely anonymized hosting and content distribution system.

    --
    My Slashdot account is old enough to drink...
    1. Re:Onion Routing != FreeNet by adturner · · Score: 1

      One interesting thing that tor provides for "hidden services" so you can publish/host content, but without giving up your location. The nice thing about this is that you can run any tcp service such as a web or irc server, not just static content.

    2. Re:Onion Routing != FreeNet by Vaste · · Score: 1

      And unlike FreeNet onion routing is anonymous.

      FreeNet: Can't shut down a "site" (document) without shutting down the network. Plausable deniability. Yet, it's not anonymous in that anyone downloading a piece of data is infinitely more likely to be the initiator than one who isn't. You're still among the suspects, it's just that there are some more of them.

      Onion Routing: Can't find a site without shutting down the network (well yes you can, see end to end traffic analysis on the Tor site). Can't find who's communicating what with whom. I.e. "true" anonymity. You're still among the suspects, but so is the whole network. (Depending on the number of proxies you use.)

    3. Re:Onion Routing != FreeNet by bitspotter · · Score: 4, Informative

      To summarize:

      Freenet is a system which anonymizes content. Specifically, digital files.

      TOR is a system which anonymizes connections. Specifically TCP connections.

      While anonymizing client TCP connections has been around for awhile, TOR is the first major project (possibly second to i2p) that allows one to anonymize TCP *server* connections.

      In my experience, TOR has been vastly more reliable than Freenet. Whether this can be attributed to the youth and small size of the TOR network relative to Freenet remains to be seen...

    4. Re:Onion Routing != FreeNet by burns210 · · Score: 1

      Absolutely agreed. The problem is, geeks have gotten tired of Freenet not working.

      When it is recommended to run the service for several *days* (to fill your local cache through routed information), Freenet doesn't work. I think a broadband user should get ~= dialup speeds using a freenet-like network. After a brief time of running the service(less than an hour. THe network should be able to discover/learn my presence completely in a resaonable time) and route information to me effectively.

      Freesites often do not work. They often take minutes to work, even after letting the service run for hours on end.

      I am a *huge* supporter of the idea of Freenet. But it just doesn't work. It takes WAY too long to completely discover/join the network, it takes to long to retrieve information FROM the network, and it just doesn't function in a usable way.

      I don't know if this is coding bugs that just cause inefficiencies. Broken routing system. Not enough nodes. I don't know. Stories of freenet nodes pounding IP addresses requesting data after a freenet client has been turned off for several days, for instance, is rediculous.

      What is it that has caused so much development trouble with Freent? Why is it seem to be constantly broken and overly slow?

    5. Re:Onion Routing != FreeNet by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      TOR is a system which anonymizes connections. Specifically TCP connections.

      Not entirely.

      Suppose I'm running a TOR server. Somebody goes and downloads an illegally hosted file. My computer ends up being the last one in the chain, so it goes out and downloads that file. The download is via an unencrypted TCP connection to a webserver or soemthing like that. It turns out to be run by the RIAA in a sting operation, and they sue me for distributing copyrighted content.

      Suppose I'm running a Freenet server. Somebody goes and downloads an illegally hosted file. My computer ends up being the one that is hosting the file (unbeknownst to me), so it serves up that file. The RIAA can't tell that I did that, so I don't get sued.

      TOR works quickly since it can use the standard web protocols to figure out where to ultimately retrieve data from. It just hides the trail the data takes. Freenet hides everything from source to destination.

      I probably wouldn't want to run a TOR server unless I could configure it to not do anything but be part of the routing chain - I'd never let it open traceable TCP connections to heaven-knows-what.

    6. Re:Onion Routing != FreeNet by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      Uh, freenet uses onion routing - how can there be a difference? Nobody knows who is downloading what - if a node gets a request from another node, it doesn't even know what it is downloading, let alone where it is ultimately going.

      The main difference that I see is that with TOR, one node eventually makes a non-anonymous and non-encrypted TCP connection to a webserver or the like. If that webserver is part of an ??AA sting operation, whoever is running that node gets sued.

      I think I'll pass on that...

    7. Re:Onion Routing != FreeNet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The simple fact that a request is made to other peers ("I want the (encrypted) file for this key"), make them completely different.

      Onion routing is message oriented, where as Freenet is storage oriented. Someone seeing a filerequest from you obviously knows that either you requested the file yourself or you did it for someone else. The fact that the file is encrypted doesn't make it untracable. It simple makes it necessary for an adversary to know the "bad" files. How is that anonymous? While it does provide deniability, that is something completely different.

      In onion routing, you can see that someone (A) is sending a message to a peer (B). After receiving the message that peer (B) send a couple of messages to other peers (possible including A). One of them is probably the original message (from A). To track the original then, you have to track all the messages that B sends out. Then you have to track all the messages from the peers that received a message from B, and so on. It's combinatory explosion, and that's what providing the anonymity.

      Oh, and the last clear-channel TCP connection is of course necessary to be able to communicate with the "old" internet. Nobody's saying there's any anonymity in that step, nor that it's what Tor is all about. (I.e run a mix yourself and don't provide the clear-channel service.)

    8. Re:Onion Routing != FreeNet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I probably wouldn't want to run a TOR server unless I could configure it to not do anything but be part of the routing chain - I'd never let it open traceable TCP connections to heaven-knows-what.

      Have you actually looked at Tor? Set up a server as a "middleman" and you're all set.
    9. Re:Onion Routing != FreeNet by Alsee · · Score: 1

      Freenet is a system which anonymizes content. Specifically, digital files.
      TOR is a system which anonymizes connections. Specifically TCP connections.


      Double your pleasure, double your fun! Best of all double your access times! Route Freenet through TOR!

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
  24. Is is in Java? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Freenet is unusable for me because of its java nature (for ideological reasons - it is absurd to require something as vehemently antifree as Java for freenet).

    What is Tor implemented in?

    This is an honest question, not a troll.

    No, I can't "check out the link" - because it's just been /.ed.

    1. Re:Is is in Java? by Lord+Kano · · Score: 1

      The devil is in the details huh?

      Java may not be free enough for your liking, but Freenet offers the promise of a much more substantive freedom.

      I can understand your principled opposition, but Freenet is a good idea.

      LK

      --
      "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
    2. Re:Is is in Java? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      It's written in C and you only have 120 files, very small program to read and study :)

    3. Re:Is is in Java? by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 1

      Freenet may offer promises, but last I heard, all it was good for was pr0n, and I can get that on the regular internet.

      --
      Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
    4. Re:Is is in Java? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, freenet is a good idea. But for the love of St. Columcille, freaking COMMON LISP would have been a better choice of implementation language than Java!

      A freenet implemented in perl or python (or, hey, for sake of argument, common lisp), would take off much faster than the java version has, imho.

  25. So if this routes through Onion servers... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    ... it must be intended primarily for satirical content.

  26. Cool. by NoMoreNicksLeft · · Score: 1

    Where can I get some EFF grant money?

    1. Re:Cool. by DirtyLiar · · Score: 1

      I got 2c for ya. Where do you want it?

      --

      THINK! It's patriotic

  27. Sounds pretty good to me by caluml · · Score: 2, Funny

    Freenet - but not in Java?! Sign me up. Keep that nasty java off my system. GRSec and PaX don't like it and keep killing it off anyway.

    1. Re:Sounds pretty good to me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That would be more like GNUnet (C, GPL) and not tor.

  28. Right... by Kjella · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Let me get this straight. As a TOR node, my computer will request information from regular web sites unencrypted. This means that when someone requests e.g. child porn on the network, and my node is chosen to retrieve it, my IP will be the one logged?

    You are in for a world of hurt if you run a TOR node. Since you are perfectly aware of all plain HTTP requests your node makes, you are likely to stand trial for contributory copyright infringement, import/export/distribution of child porn, conspiracy to [whatever] and so on. Since I assume by default it doesn't log anything to give you someone to blame it on, they pin it on you.

    I would honestly never run a TOR node. If I did, I would firewall it to only allow connections to other TOR nodes, i.e. be a pure leech on the network. Anything else is to expose yourself for a wide range of legal disasters. Freenet had this right. You must not know what you are transmitting. This idea is fundamentally flawed and I'm amazed that the EFF would support it.

    And beyond that, from the brief techincal discussion, you have a single point of failure in the directory server. Gather a small botnet, compromise the server and present the botnet as the routing nodes. You control all the keys, you decrypt everything. Or just a simple DDoS attack, so you don't find any nodes to route through. Overall, I'm not impressed.

    Kjella

    --
    Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    1. Re:Right... by DeathFlame · · Score: 1

      What about ISP's? There routers and switchs and lines are used for distribution of copyright material and child porn. Yet they are not held liable. Why would someone running this program that mereley routes traffic through it, be held liable?

    2. Re:Right... by EnronHaliburton2004 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Freenet had this right. You must not know what you are transmitting.

      So you don't mind transmitting the child porn, you just don't want to be associated with the transmission.

    3. Re:Right... by awolk · · Score: 1

      Actually, you do not, when in client-mode, recieve any requests from any IPs.
      In default-mode you're _only_ a client. In the article above they are even asking for people to act as servers!
      And btw (note: IANAL), at least here in Germany it's legal to route information to other computers, and you do not have to keep any logs at all.
      The police can only ask you for the logs you have, and you're not forced to keep any logs at all, apart from those that you need to run a ceratin service, but you'll have them either way.
      JAP (http://anon.inf.tu-dresden.de/) is another anonymizer service, but from Germany. Once they were forced to build in a feature to track abusers of the service by the police. But they won in court, and were able to remove the "feature", at least as far as i know. (I think that they are still tracking some abusers, though)

      Note that this is NOT legal advice.

    4. Re:Right... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yep just like every ISP is charged with those things.

      um, downloading isnt the illegal part of it, possessing those things are. you are not possessing it since its being passed on

    5. Re:Right... by theCAS · · Score: 1

      So you say all the postmen must change their job: they could be delivering child porn.

    6. Re:Right... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > I would honestly never run a TOR node. If I did, I would firewall it to only allow connections to other TOR nodes, i.e. be a pure leech on the network.

      Actually, it would make you more like a bittorrent peer, since you'd still be load-balancing traffic from other TOR nodes (as well as issuing requests through others). In fact there's no reason TOR couldn't institute some sort of tit-for-tat trade algorithm like BT.

    7. Re:Right... by Fareq · · Score: 1

      ISPs are only protected because they have "common carrier" status.

      that basically means that they are a standard distribution mechanism, and are therefore not responsable for requests made of them.

      This is not true for TOR

    8. Re:Right... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Note that this is NOT legal advice.

      Seems like a good idea to finish with that statement; German law is about to change (Jan 2005)
      to require ISPs to log information and make it available to the authorities on request; the interesting loophole seems to be the 'not so clear' definition of what an ISP is, though this probably will change sometime.

    9. Re:Right... by Tony+Hoyle · · Score: 1

      The post office is a common carrier.

      End users are not. In a lost of countries even ISPs are not (they're liable if someone hosts kiddie porn on their serviers).

    10. Re:Right... by damiam · · Score: 1

      Whether or not a Tor node is legally a common carrier, it certainly behaves like one. For ethical purposes, that's enough for me.

      --
      It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.
    11. Re:Right... by catenos · · Score: 1

      (Note that most references to German sites, because the topic is about Germany.)

      Well, I don't agree on the clarity thing (P3 TKÜV [Telekommunikations-Überwachungsgesetz, the law about wire-tapping that comes to effect in 2005] is quite clear, IMHO). There are some public calls for clarification, but it doesn't look like those actually have doubts about who is affected, they just want to prevent unnecessary confusion (see e.g. this critic, point 3.

      But even if we accept that the wording could be clearer, we already have 3 different laws (one for common carriers (Telekommunikationsgesetz, TKG), one for unmoderated services (Teledienstegesetz, TDG) and one for moderated, editorial services like news-sites (Mediendienste-Staatsvertrag, MDStV).

      There is a very good chance that the courts will interpret "Telekommunikation" in the TKÜV the same as in the TKG, especially since the TKÜV has several references (in fact, a lot of terms are defined by reference) to the TKG, but none to the TDG or MDStV.

      So while there is a different uncertainty, namely whether some service providers (like chats) fall under TDG (most do) or TKG (which they would prefer not to), one can safely ignore TKÜV if one didn't already have to care about TKG.

      Additionally, there are several exception clauses (in P3.2), and a Tor node would fall at least under these:
      - P3.2.1: it doesn't offer a subscriber line (defined by TKÜV P2.2 which refers to TKG P3.9, and TKÜV P2.11, which narrows TKG P3.9 down to subscribers) and only connects two networks
      - P3.2.5: not more than 1000 subscribers are attached[1]

      Ah, and "Telekommunikationsdienstleistungen" (telecom services) are defined in TKG P3.19, which says they have to be commercial. Another point why John Doe wouldn't be affected.

      Btw, the law is not about logging (ahead) information as you say, but about providing an ready interface for wire-tapping, for the case a telcom/provider receives a court order: that is, you don't have to log anything due to this law, but only have to "make a full copy of the communication [in question] available" at a transfer point, like on one of your lines. Only if that doesn't work, or you prefer the other way, you can make a logfile.


      [1] And no, this has nothing to do with TCP/UDP connections to the computer... if the judge doesn't laugh such an argumentation out at once, just explain to him, that his computer at the home also provides those (considering the TKÜV is clearly advertized at addressing public access providers, he'll get it).

      --
      Keep an eye on which arguments are silently dropped in replies. Not always, but often times it's very telling.
    12. Re:Right... by Rich0 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Clearly I wouldn't want to be associated with that garbage. However, neither system prevents it. The difference is that somebody who innocently ends up spreading it can get sued with TOR, but won't be discovered if they're using Freenet. The guilty get away with it either way.

      So, which is better:

      1. Guilty get off free. Innocent sent to prison.

      2. Guilty get off free. Innocent get off free too.

      Clearly it would be better if we could block garbage like this altogether, but nobody has come up with a good way of doing that...

    13. Re:Right... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Being a carrier for strangers is a bitch! Oh, and even if you just route, you'll still have kiddie porn passing through your machine. If someone snoops you, they'll just see you downloading kiddie porn from other TOR nodes instead of the source website.

      Don't be someone's ISP unless you can handle it.

    14. Re:Right... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since you are perfectly aware of all plain HTTP requests your node makes...

      I object! I run Windows!!

    15. Re:Right... by RedBear · · Score: 1

      So you don't mind transmitting the child porn, you just don't want to be associated with the transmission.

      All the conscientious mods in the audience should be modding the parent down, not up, and certainly not insightful. It's wrong in a way that should be discouraged whenever it is encountered.

      That is what is called a straw man argument. It is a logical fallacy. Whether or not you "mind" the possibility that your Freenet node might be anonymously transmitting portions of a digital file that contains child porn, has nothing to do with whether or not you want to be directly associated with someone else downloading child porn through your computer, or whether or not you support anonymous expression and transmission of digital information.

      The reason it's a "straw man" is because you made it up out of thin air. The original poster never stated that he "didn't mind" child porn going through his Freenet node. What he said was he didn't want to be accused of a crime that someone else did. The entire concept in your statement is fabricated. You put words in the poster's mouth. This type of argument is very common and popular among people with no training in critical thinking skills. It's hard to defend yourself against a statement you never made. This kind of thing is used in political press releases all the time. Example from Bloom County (paraphrased):

      Milo: Senator Bedfellow, can you confirm that you sunk the body of Jimmy Hoffa in Farmer Brown's pond?
      Senator Bedfellow: NO!
      Milo: "I lost the body, said the Senator"

      That carbon dioxide you are exhaling with every breath helps plants grow. Some of those plants get turned into food for humans and animals. Some of the animals that are fed with that plant food also get turned into food. Some of that plant and animal food is eaten by child pornographers, and fed to the children they will use for creation of child porn. By your own logic, if you fail to consent to being attached to a breathing machine which retains all of your exhaled carbon dioxide and converts it into a form unusable by plants, you "don't mind supporting child pornography". You do like to breath, don't you? Kind of liberating, isn't it? Sort of like, oh, I don't know, a freedom? Something that normally hurts nobody and should never be banned just because "insert scapegoat here" happens to do it also.

      You've got to draw the line somewhere. Supporting freedom does not equal supporting the ability to do bad things with that freedom. Those are two different things. All Freenet does is transmit digital information anonymously. Humans create that digital information, not the other way around. Just like a firearm will never jump up and shoot you all by itself, that digital information will never jump off your computer screen and create more digital information all by itself. Digital information can't kidnap a child. Digital information can't hold a video camera. Go after the sources, don't try to legitimize the destruction of every possible freedom for the purpose of stopping the flow of certain types of digital information.

      Oh, by the way, just because I'm arguing against you doesn't mean I support kiddie porn or other bad things either. I shouldn't have to say that, but I've already seen you using non-logical manufactured "evidence" to imply that your parent poster does support such things.

  29. NAT all traffic? by caluml · · Score: 1

    What about a network (possibly implemented in VPNs), where all packets are NAT'd by each node. Anyone viewing the traffic would never know if the request originated on that host, or if it was a host 10 hops away. (Apart from the TTL, which could be randomised between 200 and 255 anyway).
    Obviously, this would still break things that don't play well with NAT.

    1. Re:NAT all traffic? by amalcon · · Score: 1

      That is basically what this is...

      --
      -Amalcon
    2. Re:NAT all traffic? by caluml · · Score: 1

      God I'm good. Someone should put me in charge of the world/internet. Deniability, anonymity, or trust. If you can get total- of any of those 3, you are OK. I would say that Deniability is the easiest, followed by Anonymity, then Trust. (Trust for networks of over 50 people say)

  30. not ready for prime time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Disclaimer: I'm using windows 2000, not linux.

    WinMX: Install, run, use the slick GUI, get speedy transfers.
    KaZaA Lite: Install, run, use the slick GUI, get speedy transfers.
    eMule: Install, run, use the slick GUI, get speedy transfers.
    DC++: Install, run, use the slick GUI, get speedy transfers.
    Gnucleus: Install, run, use the slick GUI, get speedy transfers.
    Freenet: Install, run, suffer through the web-based GUI, and groan as it gobbles up all your memory and CPU time while taking ages to load a page.
    Tor: Install, run, stare at a console window that says

    Dec 22 13:17:21.875 [notice] tor_init(): Tor v0.0.9.1. This is experimental software. Do not rely on it for strong anonymity.
    Dec 22 13:17:26.859 [notice] circuit_send_next_onion_skin(): Tor has successfully opened a circuit. Looks like it's working.

    Inexcusable. Next!

  31. Misconceptions about Tor (from Chris @ EFF) by innerFire · · Score: 5, Informative

    Hi there! I'm Chris Palmer from EFF. I am working with the Tor developers, so I know a bit about it. I'll try to clear up some questions and misconceptions people seem to have.

    1. Spam? Well, spammers already have much better tools than Tor. Namely, botnets. The Tor network currently doesn't support the kind of bandwidth usage spammers can chew up. By their willingness to break the law, spammers and criminals already have good tools to hide their network origin. Tor doesn't really help them. Plus, the default Tor exit policy is to block port 25.

    2. Free/open source? Yes, three-clause BSD. EFF would not financially support a non-free/open source project!

    3. Do you have to trust the nodes? You have to trust the entry node and the exit node. The entry node can be on your own computer, which I highly advise people to do. It's easy to install on all platforms, so that shouldn't be a hurdle. As far as trusting the exit node: Yes, the exit node can see the plaintext of your communications. That is why you should always use end-to-end encryption, anyway! Remember, all normal Internet routers in your route can read your traffic; Tor is actually BETTER because traffic is strongly encrypted (AES, multiple times) while inside the Tor network.

    So, you actually have to trust Tor a bit less than regular Internet routes.

    Use encryption. :)

    4. Is it like Freenet/Crowds/Anonymizer? Yes, and no. It is like somewhat like those systems in goals, but the design is different. For example, unlike Freenet, Tor helps you talk to the real Internet. Unlike Anonymizer, Tor uses a whole network of proxies, not a single proxy; and the proxies are generic SOCKS proxies, not specifically HTTP.

    5. Version number is too low. Is this alpha software? Roger and Nick are very modest. :) Tor works. It is stable, many bugs have been fixed, and the protocol is moderately stable. Tor does not crash randomly or eat all your memory. What's in flux is bigger picture items, such as "How can we reduce our dependency on the central directory server" and "Wouldn't a GUI configuration tool be nifty?"

    6. Is there a backdoor? Well, you tell me. The source code is open. Is there a backdoor in other free software you like?

    7. Minimum bandwidth requirement? For exit and middleman nodes, yes, you should have a reasonable pipe and a stable machine. "Reasonable" pipe can mean a good DSL connection. Crappy nodes can degrade the network for those poor saps whose circuit goes through one. That is why the directory server operators won't list your server unless it meets basic stability and bandwidth requirements.

    1. Re:Misconceptions about Tor (from Chris @ EFF) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry to sound like a fourth-grader, but you guys rock!

    2. Re:Misconceptions about Tor (from Chris @ EFF) by my_haz · · Score: 1

      I have wondered alot about the effectiveness of end-to-end encryption and I was wondering what you would say to the MUTE developers views on this. http://mute-net.sourceforge.net/personInTheMiddle. shtml

    3. Re:Misconceptions about Tor (from Chris @ EFF) by flossie · · Score: 1

      There is an interesting point raised here. Have you got any reply for that?

    4. Re:Misconceptions about Tor (from Chris @ EFF) by DarkHelmet · · Score: 1
      I'm not sure if this is the place to put this kind of comment, but I'd really like to wish you and the Tor group a warm thank you for developing this software.

      I've been interested in getting a socks proxy like this for a long time. I'm sure many other people can see the application for this as well.

      Once again, thank you sir. This is an awesome gift to the community.

      --
      /^[A-Z0-9._%+-]+@[A-Z0-9.-]+\.[A-Z]{2,4}$/i
    5. Re:Misconceptions about Tor (from Chris @ EFF) by iminplaya · · Score: 1

      As much as I apreciate the efforts put into this, I can't help feeling you're feeding a false sense of security to the users. Since my posts aren't widely read here, I'll tell you directly what I just finished posting to another person: "We can never, ever be anonymous as long as there is somebody else's wire attached to our machine. It is impossible! I repeat, once AGAIN. Only true, ad hoc, mobile, encrypted wireless will ever give us even the remotest chance at anonymity and true P2P. There is simply no other way. Anything else is exactly the illusion that the bad guys want you to believe. If you're wired they will find you! Remember that please." Sorry to be so redundant, but this message must be spread far and wide. So far I'm not sure how much effert is being put into this. I do see stories about improved wireless this and that, and I hope it leads to what I asking for.

      --
      What?
    6. Re:Misconceptions about Tor (from Chris @ EFF) by quinxy · · Score: 1

      > Do you have to the [entry/exit] nodes? [Yes]

      I don't mean to seem stupid here, but Tor seems stupendously dangerous in this sense.

      It essentially means people can volunteer to relay (and potentially watch) other people's traffic. I don't pretend that my data is entirely protected when it goes from my computer to XYZ server, I realize my ISP, the feds, the various networks handling the data, and ultimately the destination server could be watching/recording, but there is some basis for trust there. Don't give me a hard time, you know what I mean, I'm not saying they aren't looking, aren't logging, only that at the very least, you're not likely to have John from Foo Networks logging into your Hotmail account because you didn't log in HTTPS.

      But with Tor you could have evil people being motivated to run a node in the hopes that they'll catch "valuable" exit traffic (traffic with logins/passwords). Assuming there is no trust factor used to determine which nodes are exit nodes/etc. then isn't this an incredibly serious concern? It's all well and good to say "only login to sites via https" but if Tor becomes more mainstream (and even if it doesn't) carelessness and inexperience will mean a lot of people having valuable data compromised.

      > ...all normal Internet routers
      > in your route can read your
      > traffic; Tor is actually BETTER...

      I would just argue that again, normal internet routers are controlled by people who are trusted in some sense. The network admins who could listen at every hop are trusted by their employers who are trusted by their shareholders and their customers, and their peers, etc. In this situation Tor is less secure because anyone could volunteer for access to some percentage of other people's unencrypted traffic.

      Am I totally misunderstanding something?

      Q

      --
      Don't vote for Eugene Papansanovich for Congress!
    7. Re:Misconceptions about Tor (from Chris @ EFF) by catenos · · Score: 1

      Without any references to back up your claims, it just sounds like a case of paranoia. I am not saying you are wrong, but if you want it spread the message, you should start working on the "convincing" part.

      --
      Keep an eye on which arguments are silently dropped in replies. Not always, but often times it's very telling.
    8. Re:Misconceptions about Tor (from Chris @ EFF) by arodland · · Score: 1

      4. Thank you. Apparently slashdot editors' definition of "freenet-like" is "almost, but not entirely, unlike freenet."

    9. Re:Misconceptions about Tor (from Chris @ EFF) by iminplaya · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure what references you're looking for. Is anonymity is possible using a wire? If it is, then great. We'll never know until someone gets caught and finds out how it happened. At this point however, I still believe that wireless is far and away the more secure solution. I hope somebody is working on it. So far, the evidence indicates the the guy who owns the wire will be more than happy to turn you over whenever the authorities request it. It's usually stated in your contract with them, and if you want service, you're going to sign the contract. I would prefer to have access without having to sign a contract with anyone. Unless you use an internet cafe exclusively(and a different one at that each time you need access), how are you going to have real, free(as in speech) access without wireless? How are you going to stop the ISP from sniffing your packets? What if your one and only ISP demands that you send only plain text over the wire so they can eavesdrop(With a "signed warrant" of course)? Aren't these valid concerns? It seems to me that only wireless can really address these concerns adequately. If I'm wrong, please refer me to the possibilities. The things I've seen so far are too easy to take down and put many people at risk.

      --
      What?
    10. Re:Misconceptions about Tor (from Chris @ EFF) by catenos · · Score: 1

      At least half of the questions (if not all) you ask are answered on the Tor homepage and in their papers. Obviously you didn't bother to inform yourself beforehand about what you are talking about.

      Come back when you have reduced your list of questions to the ones that aren't answered already.

      --
      Keep an eye on which arguments are silently dropped in replies. Not always, but often times it's very telling.
    11. Re:Misconceptions about Tor (from Chris @ EFF) by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      I don't see much problem with being a middle-node (though I have reservations about being an exit node).

      However, I cannot get tor to run as a server. I set my server address to a dynamic domain name which will resolve to my outside-the-NAT IP from anywhere on the Internet. That is, anywhere but the host tor is running on - I have the IP in my hosts file so that I can connect to local services using the internet domain name. Tor gives up when it resolves my address setting and gets a private IP.

      Is there an easy way to run a server with this setup? Freenet works just fine, as does just about everything else in existance. However, those programs advertise my DNS address, not an IP address (which is hard to figure out).

      I guess another option is to make up a dummy DNS address used only for tor and not mess with its resolution...

    12. Re:Misconceptions about Tor (from Chris @ EFF) by iminplaya · · Score: 1

      Ok. I read it. My question still is, what do you do if your ISP restricts anything you upload to clear text? If they find anything at all that they might not be able to decipher, they'll just bounce it back at you or drop the info. And as discussed here, there's the matter of end points and directory servers. The nature of this system is very easy to comprehend, and to compromise, at least to me anyway. I had these kinds of ideas swirling around in my head long before I ever read about them. It reminds me of spread spectrum technology, only here it's applied to IP hops. My idea could go a little further by constantly changing you own IP address, kind of like what happens when you disconnect and reconnect to you ISP. I never claimed to be very good at expressing my ideas, so I need all of you to fill in the obvious gaps. I was aware of these things before I posted the first comment. At this point I still believe what I am looking for can only be achieved through wireless, without the internet providers turning you over at the drop of a hat. With wireless you can pick up and run off the moment you become suspicious of anything wrong. Think of it as mobile SCUD internet. I'm sure it can't provide absolute security, but I'm convinced it's best option to work towards.

      --
      What?
    13. Re:Misconceptions about Tor (from Chris @ EFF) by catenos · · Score: 1

      My question still is, what do you do if your ISP restricts anything you upload to clear text?

      In what context are we working? It's unreasonable for the upstream to restrict everything to clear text. That would shut down any SSL traffic, which includes banking software, all VPNs, which are used by a lot of major companies, all of SSH, which is quite widespread for remote administering, and so on.

      In most countries you could probably simply sue your ISP (it's not in the business of censoring). If you say we are talking about a country where the ISP has the backing of the goverment, well, then say so. Then it's not the ISP which is restricting you, but your gov. And if that's the case, then they can simply make the use of any encrypting or anonymizing device a criminal offence no matter what the method is and you have lost anyhow. So that argument is a non-starter.[1] Btw, that's not a purely theoretical point. IMHO, China would be one of the prime candidates for making such laws.

      Well, and if you allow SSL, all we have to do is to make a Tor entry node that speaks SSL :)

      My idea could go a little further by constantly changing you own IP address, kind of like what happens when you disconnect and reconnect to you ISP.

      With Tor, you don't need that. Augmenting your traffic with that of others by being a transfer node has a similar effect without the hassle (well, you have the hassle of giving up bandwith).

      I never claimed to be very good at expressing my ideas, so I need all of you to fill in the obvious gaps. I was aware of these things before I posted the first comment. At this point I still believe what I am looking for can only be achieved through wireless, without the internet providers turning you over at the drop of a hat.

      Don't take me wrong, I don't think your idea is bad. I just argue that you are wrong to say that it's only possible your way. Tor is at the point where they have shot down most problems and are well aware of the remaining weaknesses. Which are few.

      And while I don't understand your idea enough (or have enough details) to say much about it, you have the same problem that you accused Tor of: if the ISP doesn't play along, it won't work.

      If you really want to get your idea of the ground, I suggest to write a paper. Present it fully (and not only in chunks as you do here). Also show a threat analysis (which you obviously already did in your head). As a bonus, explicitly list how your solution behaves in the threats others have looked at (i.e. take the Tor paper and take the scenarios they present), so that one has an easy comparison of the merits and flaws.

      The first version doesn't need to be perfect. Label it a draft and go through iterations whenever someone presents valid critic. The scientific method needs you to enable others to look at entire idea at once and do the threat analysis themselves. Presenting it here, with a lot of hand-waving does it no good.

      With wireless you can pick up and run off the moment you become suspicious of anything wrong. Think of it as mobile SCUD internet.

      And another thing is, that it is quite inconvenient. If the method expect someone to run, if something suspicious is going on, there is a problem: why do I have to run? Anonymity should be good enough so that nobody manages to find out my place to begin with. Regardless, if I am supposed to run, it's implied that I am also supposed to not come back to the same place soon. And that implies that I cannot use this kind of anonymity from home. Which is a *major* drawback, because it will prevent widespread adoption.

      [1] While - if your anonymizer works good - they can't get you at first, they can get the one they see the traffic coming from (an ISP, a node, a wireless hotspot, whatever) and shut that down. Sooner or later there is nothing left to grant you anonimity and they will get you.

      The only recourse is that the method finds *a lot* of pa

      --
      Keep an eye on which arguments are silently dropped in replies. Not always, but often times it's very telling.
    14. Re:Misconceptions about Tor (from Chris @ EFF) by iminplaya · · Score: 1

      You spell it out much better than I could ever hope to. I just saw the ISP that you use everyday as a big weak spot in all anonymizer services, and I was looking for an alternative. Please don't take that as an accusation or attack against Tor A way to connect through various...nodes if you will. Neural net?

      The only recourse is that the method finds *a lot* of participients.

      This is what I was hoping to see, but if it came to a fighting war, I would consider it best to shut down, go home, forget about the damn computer, do the Gandhi thing, and not cooperate in any way with the authorities. Easy to talk about...Hard to practice, especially in the frozen north. I think it's best to let them have the planet, but they won't have me. I need a way to take away their will to fight us. So I guess I'm grabbing at straws. I sure hope there's beer at the other end :-)

      I'm not sure China is the worst. I believe Burma(Myanmar?) had or has a law stipulating a 15 year sentence for anyone operating an un registered(with the gov't) computer. If we ever let it get that bad, it's time to give it up.

      Your sig is right on...

      --
      What?
  32. Freenet is a tremendous disappointment by zymano · · Score: 1

    I looked on there for music and movies and the only thing i could see was 'Kill Bill'.

    There is no reasonble way to search freenet.

  33. Scalability by Sanity · · Score: 2, Informative
    I think the general problem with this kind of architecture is that it dodges the hard issue - which is how new peers get integrated into the network, and how do you ensure their reliability.

    In Tor's case there is a centralised global list of all peers which must be added to manually by Tor's developers. This is fine with a small number of users, for which Tor clearly works well, but isn't practical when dealing with large numbers of users.

    Freenet, for all its faults, is designed to deal with potentially millions of unreliable peers. It is its ability to do this that makes it such an ambitious project, and makes any comparision between it and Tor a situation of apples and oranges.

    1. Re:Scalability by Kjella · · Score: 1

      In Tor's case there is a centralised global list of all peers which must be added to manually by Tor's developers.

      Which is also a centralized place of control. "Your directory may now only point to peers which have backdoor x.y.z installed."

      Freenet, for all its faults, is designed to deal with potentially millions of unreliable peers.

      Going off-topic, freenet is not designed for unreliable peers, but yes potentially millions in number. The routing in freenet is dependent on historical data are requires nodes to be around for longer periods of time. It is one of the many reasons Freenet has *cough*issues*cough*.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    2. Re:Scalability by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      This is the old myth that decentralized systems are always more scalable. Wake up, Ian, decentralization comes at a cost, and for many ways of doing decentralization, that cost will be so high that you cannot gain any scalability that way. Scalability is certainly not why I would choose to run Freenet over tor. I`ve been running a tor server for a long time, and traffic/scalability is certainly not the issue.

      The question is, can you get other important properties for your system that you cannot get with tor, and for many users the answer will be no, tor is all I need. Some users may need stronger anonymity, searchability, distributed storage, better economics or whatever, but scalability -- come on, do you even believe that yourself?

    3. Re:Scalability by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That might actually sound like a sincere reply except that Freenet doesn't actually solve that problem either. It still requires some form of initial introduction, as is true in any case where the node density/topology doesn't allow neighbor discovery via broadcast etc. Dijjer is even worse, with the seed peers embedded in the code which you've promised to distribute but haven't.

      Just keep beating the PR drum for your half-thought-out projects, Ian. I'll keep pointing out the lies.

    4. Re:Scalability by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      Uh, I'm not aware of any completely anonymous P2P network comparable to Freenet. GNUnet is probably close if you don't use its content-hosting capabilities.

      TOR is hardly anonymous - it requires some poor server operator to stick out their neck downloading heaven-knows-what from web servers in the clear using their IP. Sounds like a recipie for lawsuits if you ask me. Maybe you can argue it and get off the hook, but only after spending tens of thousands of dollars...

      About the only thing you can find out about somebody running Freenet is that they're running Freenet. It might be slow, but you really have no idea what they're hosting, what they're retrieving, and what they're passing along.

    5. Re:Scalability by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, it doesn't require some poor server operator to stick out their neck downloading heaven-knows-what. Take a second look on the "hidden" services. (And set up the server as a middleman.)

      Freenet suffers from the fact that even if you only pass on a request, you're then infinitely more likely to be the initiator than if you don't request at all. The anonymity cloud is simply alot smaller than in onion routing, i.e. the list of suspects shorter.

    6. Re:Scalability by Sanity · · Score: 1
      This is the old myth that decentralized systems are always more scalable.
      Strawman argument. I never said that all decentralised systems are always more scalable. Freenet, an example of a decentralised system, is more scalable than Tor, an example of a non-decentralised system.
    7. Re:Scalability by Sanity · · Score: 1
      Going off-topic, freenet is not designed for unreliable peers, but yes potentially millions in number. The routing in freenet is dependent on historical data are requires nodes to be around for longer periods of time. It is one of the many reasons Freenet has *cough*issues*cough*.
      Its a question of degrees. By "unreliable" I mean that it is relatively easy for an attacker to introduce a trojan node. Of course NGR requires that nodes stay around for a while.
  34. trouble by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Alice visits Bob's childporn server which the FBI is monitoring. If you are the last encyrpted hop and you fetch the childporn they have your IP and you are in trouble.

  35. But but but by halcyon1234 · · Score: 3, Funny
    Terrorists might use this! Won't someone please think of the children? If my government can't hear what my neighbor is saying, how do I know he isn't planning on killing me in my sleep?

    I mean, why do you even need something like this? If you don't have anything to hide, there shouldn't be a problem with your internet chats being monitored.

    BTW, click here

    1. Re:But but but by fr2asbury · · Score: 1

      Oh calm down. . . the pre-cogs will get your neighbor before he has a chance to swing the scissors.

  36. Re:pros and cons by DeathFlame · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Then where do we draw the line between "Omg, technology for terrorists" and real useful software? What about instant messanger systems?

    Does AIM and MSN user = Terroist?

    No.

    But they can very easily use such software can they not?

    What about Planes? Maybe we should stop using planes.. I mean terrorists can use them to fly into our buildings.

    Why are you drawing the line at this piece of software? Where should this line be? The further it goes into our freedoms...

  37. one more to the list by my_haz · · Score: 1

    We Have Freenet, MUTE, iip, WASTE, Ants etc, etc. What they are lacking is a base. This lack of base is do to certain unavoidable (or leaste very difficult to avoid) constraints of the problem
    In order to have a useful p2p network it must be realitivly fast and easy to navigate. In order for the network to be anymous and safe from centralized attacks, it must be decentralized. Unfortunetly Anonymous and fast download seem to be indirectly proportional. Decentralization requires that packets bounce all over the network which results in lower download speeds. Centralization however fast, will result in it being easy for some one or some group to target the center and easily bring the whole community down. People are not going to use a system which is too slow to be useful.
    Solving the anymouse p2p problem is very difficult to do when you wish to have realitively reasonable download rates and not too much house keeping in the way of covering your tracks. To think of an analogy; consider haveing a town with three types of people, Reds, Blacks and Whites. The objective is for the Blacks to figure a way to send mail to each other in some way that the Blacks will not know what they are sending or where it came from
    Reds own what Blacks are mailing. So Blacks want to hide from Reds and Reds want to find out who the Blacks are. Every Black can easily know who is another Black. Yet every Red must assume that every other person that they talk to or mail through is a Black. Whites are a noise factor and distract both Black's and Red's. Blacks, ultimately, are trying to behave as much like Whites as possible while still being able to send information that the Blacks would not have them send.
    Tors meathod of solving this problem (i.e. being a protocol for the Blacks to send mail) is to have everyone who is Black act exactly like a Black and nothing like a White while allowing any Red to hide easily in the community of the Blacks. Tracfic anaylisis may be more difficult but it will be easyer for the Reds to determine which trafic to monitor.
    The whole problem is interesting to think about and any solution that I can think of would require that the complexity of determing who is Black would grow NP in the number of Blacks while the the levels of indirection of any packet would grow linerially or else the network would be too slow to be of much more use then a chat protocol and for that I guess we have iip.
    At any rate I look forward to seeing what the Hacker community can do to bring the idea of an anonymous internet to life.

    1. Re:one more to the list by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      What they are lacking is a base.

      What they are missing is sufficient whitespace to break up the text to make it easy on the eye. If you want your posts to be read, format them better.

    2. Re:one more to the list by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      The objective is for the Blacks to figure a way to send mail to each other in some way that the Blacks will not know what they are sending or where it came from.
      Easy, just hide the mail inside baggies of crack. As the crack moves from one Black to another, so does the mail.
      Every Black can easily know who is another Black.
      That's for damn sure. Not only does it take one to know one, it takes one to understand what in God's name the other one is saying.
      Yet every Red must assume that every other person that they talk to or mail through is a Black.
      Indeed, everyone must be on their guard when Blacks are around. Mail has a tendency to go missing when being handled by Blacks.
      Blacks, ultimately, are trying to behave as much like Whites as possible.
      Alas, this is where your analogy breaks down.
  38. Re:Yay! Piracy! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And in ten years from now, when ONLY this kind of software will protect your freedom to speak, what will you say? We must fight and write our tools now, not wait that we're forbidden to do anything before moving our asses...

  39. Try Frost by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See here.

  40. comment on Freenet by MikeCapone · · Score: 1

    The Freenet concept is great and Ian Clarke must be applauded, but it really needs an implementation that is more user-friendly and lower latency before it can become really popular.

    I know that there are a lot of technical problems that keep these things from happening right now, but I have hope that they'll figure out something before it is impossible to have any real privacy on the net.

  41. The normal people being the ones by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The normal people being the ones killing and torturing people in Palestine, Iraq, Chechnya, Guantanamo Bay?

  42. Works well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm impressed. After only a couple minutes, this is working perfectly! One more vote that, yes, this works.

  43. Spies need anonymity too... by Jim+McCoy · · Score: 5, Interesting

    As someone who has watched, helped with, and discussed various anonymous networks from Pipenet through Onion routing and Tor I can give you the quick summary for why NRL was interested in anonymous browsing (because when they first came out with the Onion network stuff it really was a surprise.)

    Sometimes, government agencies would prefer it if web queries did not show up in the server's logs as coming from a .mil or .gov site.

    Just knowing what someone is reading or researching is a good source of intel, some government agencies see more benefit to this than the downside of potential terrorist uses.*

    Jim

    * anyway, if you work for a big governement agency you have the resources to treat these sorts of networks like a big black box and link up the endpoints. This is a fatal flaw to _all_ real-time anonymous networks. A big attacker can treat all of the fancy games you play in the middle of network as noise and just link up "message X went into dark network at time T and a message close to the size of message X came out of the network at time T +1, followed by a similarly linkable message going back the other way..."

    1. Re:Spies need anonymity too... by dgatwood · · Score: 1
      ....This is a fatal flaw to _all_ real-time anonymous networks. A big attacker can treat all of the fancy games you play in the middle of network as noise and just link up "message X went into dark network at time T and a message close to the size of message X came out of the network at time T +1, followed by a similarly linkable message going back the other way..."

      Actually, that's not a workable solution. Try "message X went into dark network via entry point 127.0.0.1". The only thing they have is the point at which it exits. Further, it supports services that are internal to the dark network, at which point, it becomes possible for the entire communication to be end-to-end anonymized.

      That said, if this was designed by the government, there are undoubtedly flaws in the algorithm that can be exploited in a way that reduces the anonymity to a manageable level if the government decides to wiretap someone.... :-)

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    2. Re:Spies need anonymity too... by Vaste · · Score: 1

      Well, that'd be a damn small darknet, running on one computer, eh? Seriously though, the data will leave your computer at which point it can be tracked.

      What they can do is link two people communicating. E.g. they can set up a decoy with something illegal, find out who they're communicating with, and voila, a suspect. Even if this doesn't hold as legal evidence they've you're discovered, after which they just need to collect evidence, arrest you, harass you, send a hitman etc.

    3. Re:Spies need anonymity too... by dgatwood · · Score: 1
      The darknet doesn't have to exist solely on one machine. It merely must include that machine (along with others) to make it impossible to determine that the unencrypted packet that appeared elsewhere on the internet, originated at your machine. The notion of a packet of similar size existing on both ends of an encrypted or obfuscated path can't be used if one or both ends is -part- of the encrypted or obfuscated path.

      This, of course, assumes that reasonable protection is included to ensure that the payload size cannot easily be sniffed along the way within the darknet itself.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    4. Re:Spies need anonymity too... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sometimes, government agencies would prefer it if web queries did not show up in the server's logs as coming from a .mil or .gov site.

      I'm sure any government agency with such concerns can get a dial-up or ADSL account under a private name and use that, or even just go through a proxy setup at a remote server with the ISP of their choice.

    5. Re:Spies need anonymity too... by aminorex · · Score: 1

      Sure, if AES has a backdoor, Tor has a backdoor.
      But, actually using the information gained from
      the backdoor means risking the exposure of the
      backdoor. If AES is backdoor'ed, there's no way
      the US Feds would use any sole-sourced information
      in a way that could give away that game, short of
      a need to avert a national holocaust of the nuclear
      or biological variety.

      --
      -I like my women like I like my tea: green-
    6. Re:Spies need anonymity too... by Alsee · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The notion of a packet of similar size existing on both ends of an encrypted or obfuscated path can't be used if one or both ends is -part- of the encrypted or obfuscated path.

      Incorrect, although it can be challenging. For the sake of argument assume the NSA (our hypthetical attacker) has a Carnvore logging activity into and out of every ISP. They can therefore observe the existance, and perhaps size, of every packet between every node in the network, even if they cannot decrypt them. It also means they can observe the timing and pattern of such packets.

      It can be possible to correlate existance, timing, patterns, and perhapse sizes, of (unknown encrypted) packets at one point with the existance, timing, patterns, and perhapse sizes, of packets (possibly unencrypted) at some other point.

      Perhaps you check your anonymous Hotmail account every morning at roughly 9-something AM. Perhaps some morings you download really large attachments resulting in particularly large traffic. On some other morning you've gote the flu and don't use the network at all. They take the pattern of known traffic to the Hotmail website and run a pettern match against traffic patterns recorded at every single node in the network. And with each cluster of activity they manage to match up with a source, the smaller the unknown dataset becomes and the easier it becomes to match up each other outbound plaintext with a source internal node.

      And if an ISP happens to be down for a day, well that gets them tons of info. For every data group that is active that day (for example various Hotmail accounts), they can exclude every user of that ISP as candidates for matching each of those datasets. And if you personally are connecting and disconnecting from the network then your connection patterns can easily be correlated with patterns of observable activity coming out of the network.

      The main defense against such attacks is that you must remain connected pretty much constantly, and that the network must keep the flow at each link in the network at a constant, by padding real packets with dummy packets to keep the pipelines "full" and constant. Unfortunately it's rather costly to keep every single link running at max capacity with tons of garbage packets.

      And if the NSA can meddle in the ISPs then they can twiddle the latancy for various nodes to potentially probe which encrypted nodes are responsible for which observable activity.

      And the NSA can join the network themselves, running a signifigant number of servers. If your data happens to route completely through their trojan servers then you're sunk. And even without that total compromise, they get tons of information for narrowing down the possibilites and teasing out the consealed connections.

      It's just one giant puzzle, and each peice and each clue helps fit the other peices into place.

      The good news is that a well designed TOR network will be pretty damn secure against all but the most resourcefull attackers like the NSA who could conceivably log and analize data from a thousand covert points. On the otherhand if you are a casual user routinely connecting and disconnecting from the network, and you are already specifically under suspicion of specific visible activity, then your encrypted accesses can probably be trivially matched against the dates and times of the target activity.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
  44. Could it have the reverse-effect? by MoogMan · · Score: 1

    It seems to me that Tor (and possibly all onion-type concepts, although I dont know a huge amount about them as a whole) actually increases the footprint of any given request/response by increasing the amount of hops taken from source to destination. Could it be that it increases anonymity of a connection but also potentially decreases the privacy instead? Couple this with payload analysis (HTTP packets having obvious information about destination at least) and you have a powerful tracking mechanism

    1. Re:Could it have the reverse-effect? by RPoet · · Score: 1
      I'm not sure I understand why you worry.

      Could it be that it increases anonymity of a connection but also potentially decreases the privacy instead?


      Why do you think so? It does increase anonymity, but why would it decrease privacy in the same process? You are as private as you wish; if you send your name anonymously, you break the whole point, of course. If you allow harmful Javascript to snoop your real IP and send that over Tor, you are of course busted; but Tor users should browse with Privoxy to filter out all that.

      Couple this with payload analysis (HTTP packets having obvious information about destination at least) and you have a powerful tracking mechanism


      That's the whole beauty of onion routing. If you're A and you tunnel through B -> C -> D to reach D, B only knows it should deliver the package to C, and that it came from A. It does not know whether A is the originating node, and it does not know whether C is the final destination. Unless you have a global, colluding attacker controlling a very large amount of the nodes, there is no way to track routes. You cannot analyze the payload of a package, since it's encrypted in layers and layers. When receiving a package, you peel off a layer to get at the routing information you need, but that's all you get.
      --
      "Oppression and harassment is a small price to pay to live in the land of the free." -- Montgomery Burns.
  45. Apples and oranges by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Freenet has a way to go, but it is a very ambitious project.

    For example, consider this: Freenet is designed to support millions of unreliable peers. Last time I checked, Tor uses a centralised list of peers which is manually edited by Tor's developers.

    This is not to say that Freenet is better than Tor, they have different goals. They may sound similar based on a one sentence explanation, but as soon as you scratch the surface you see that they don't have much in common beyond that.

  46. Because they're not common carriers. by Kjella · · Score: 1

    ISPs have clear access logs as to what subscriber held what IP when, should the police come knocking. You do not. If all TOR nodes keep a record over what URLs were requested from (uplink), you would continue up to the originator and the entire point of TOR will disappear. In addition, there are common carrier exceptions in the law which would not apply to you.

    Kjella

    --
    Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    1. Re:Because they're not common carriers. by adturner · · Score: 1

      Huh? The whole point behind tor is that you can't back-track a connection from an exit-node back to the originating host. All traffic between tor routers is encrypted and middle nodes can't see the actual clear text. That means:

      Client --> A --> B --> C --> Server

      Where A, B & C are tor routers, only C can see the clear text. Of course, if you're using SSL or SSH, then even C can't see the clear text.

    2. Re:Because they're not common carriers. by Bald+Wookie · · Score: 1

      Here's the problem:

      Client wants kiddy porn
      Server hosts kiddy porn
      You're the exit node C

      Your node, using your IP address, contacts the kiddy porn server and delivers the content back to the Client. As far as I'm concerned SSL is irrelevant for the last hop:

      1. You're still responsible for distributing child porno, even if you don't know it.

      2. Server logs show your IP address requesting 8_year_old_gangbang.mpg

      Morally, I don't like being involved in #1. Even if it were 100% legal under common carrier provisions, it still makes me queasy.

      Legally, I really don't like the thought of some pervert using my IP to connect to a FBI kiddy porn honeypot. You're looking at tens of thousands of dollars in costs the second you hear the knock at the door. Every computer in your house, gone, probably forever.

  47. no no no no by grahamsz · · Score: 1

    It's a completely different system.

    Tor allows you to access existing internet resources anonymously.

    Freenet allows you to PUBLISH and access resources anonymously - if it works.

    1. Re:no no no no by lachlan76 · · Score: 1

      Tor allows you to run a server anonymously. Read the docs.

  48. Re:pros and cons by my_haz · · Score: 1

    Solving a problem between communicating cells being terrorist or otherwise is a much simpler task then gereral p2p. There is a level of "speak easy" that just doesn't exist in the general p2p world when talking about these small communities. Don't let this kind of consideration turn you off to privacy if for not anything else but that it is what the terrorists want.

  49. Firefox extension? by multiOSfreak · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Somebody quick! Make a FireFox extension that adds a button to the toolbar that says "Switch to TOR mode" or something to that effect.

    It would be nice if TOR were easy to turn on and off within a given browser or other http-aware client. I can't see need the for use TOR 100% of the time, especially since there is a performance hit. And it seems like it would be a pain in the ass to have to reconfigure the browser's proxy settings each time you want to use TOR for browsing/downloading.

    I'd take a crack at it myself, but I'm no code monkey. I'm a documentation nerd. If anybody wants to develop this, let me know and I'll do the docs and help files.

    1. Re:Firefox extension? by javab0y · · Score: 1

      Already done. SwitchProxy allows hot switch into Tor. You set up a new proxy set for localhost:9050. As long as you are running Tor already, your secure anonymizing session is ready to use by a single mouse click.

    2. Re:Firefox extension? by evilviper · · Score: 1
      Make a FireFox extension that adds a button to the toolbar that says "Switch to TOR mode" or something to that effect.

      There is already a fast proxy-switcher extension for firefox.
      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    3. Re:Firefox extension? by russint · · Score: 1

      I use prefbar with Firefox, and it allows me to put a little "Proxies" checkbox on the toolbar. Works great with tor.

      --
      ^^
    4. Re:Firefox extension? by justrob · · Score: 1

      You can simply bookmark the "toggle" bookmarklet at this site and put it on your toolbar. Voila: on/off

      It doesn't actually shut off tor, it just tells privoxy to go in passthrough mode, so you don't have to reconfigure Firefox.

    5. Re:Firefox extension? by spikedvodka · · Score: 1

      another idea... someone unmask tor in gentoo...

      --
      I will not give in to the terrorists. I will not become fearful.
    6. Re:Firefox extension? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe it is masked for a reason?
      Is it really so hard to use ACCEPT_KEYWORDS="~yourarch" emerge tor

    7. Re:Firefox extension? by aminorex · · Score: 1

      It's possible that God hasn't actually made the universe yet, you're just remembering the memories that he is going to create 500 years in the future when he does make it.

      --
      -I like my women like I like my tea: green-
  50. Re:pros and cons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I trust you will immediately give up any and all vehicles that you own. Obviously, to drive a car is to condone the very technology that makes the terrorists' car bombs possible.

    Be a patriot -- boycott Ford!

  51. Smilin is all the anonymity I need. by Smilin · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Look, you don't know who I am. I'm anonymous. I don't really want you knowing who I am because some of you are freaks (no offense). It works and it's all I really need.

    Is this REAL anonymity? Not really. If I come on here and say I'm going to kill George Bush they'll find out who I am in a heartbeat. I don't really have a problem with that. Basically the only people who are not anonymous are criminals. This is simply because in the vast sea of people on the internet who really gives a crap who "Smilin" is unless he does something wrong. You don't like it? Don't pirate software and don't threaten dubya!

    I WANT criminals to be tracked down by IP and prosecuted. It's just difficult enough to find out who someone is to stop most freaks (like you guys, no offense) but not difficult enough that law enforcement can't do it when they need to. I would rather things stay in this false illusion of anonymity state. Thank you very much.

    P.S. For you secret service guys who just read this: No worries. You can all basically just go take naps anyway. No one is going to kill dubya while he has Cheney next in line for assasination insurance.

    1. Re:Smilin is all the anonymity I need. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you have nothing to hide, then you have nothing to worry about... Hmmm... who else said that?

    2. Re:Smilin is all the anonymity I need. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We all know who you are Smilin. You've been broadcasting your IP address to all and sundry.

    3. Re:Smilin is all the anonymity I need. by RPoet · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The problem with this logic is that it works very poorly for political activists in totalitarian regimes, or anyone with sufficiently unpopular opinions. These people have the right to communicate, and people have the right to hear what they have to say.

      --
      "Oppression and harassment is a small price to pay to live in the land of the free." -- Montgomery Burns.
    4. Re:Smilin is all the anonymity I need. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This requires absolute trust in the autarch.

      I agree that having an autarch that could be fully trusted would simplify things, but no one has yet devised such a system.

    5. Re:Smilin is all the anonymity I need. by Smilin · · Score: 1

      Quite true.

      So which should we concentrate on fixing:
      1. The oppressive govornment.
      2. Ways to talk secretly under the oppressive govornment.

      Don't say that fixing #2 is the solution to fixing #1 either. It ain't. You figure out how to communicate with absolute anonymity on the 'net and they'll just tap your phone, put a bug in your dog's butt, or something similar.

      The real solution is fix #1 then you won't have to worry about #2.

    6. Re:Smilin is all the anonymity I need. by RPoet · · Score: 1

      It would seem to me that if you have a way to communicate with absolute anonymity on the net, you should use that technology and only that technology to plan your coup d'etat. If what you are suggesting is that developing anonymizing technology is useless because you can be tracked when using other technologies, I have to say that's a bit of a silly argument.

      --
      "Oppression and harassment is a small price to pay to live in the land of the free." -- Montgomery Burns.
    7. Re:Smilin is all the anonymity I need. by Vaste · · Score: 1

      Well, now we're trying to fix #2 before #1 comes around so if (continuing current IP Enforcement, when) we need to fix #1 we have the tools to do it. Lacking these it's kind of hard.

    8. Re:Smilin is all the anonymity I need. by lachlan76 · · Score: 1

      Good luck fixing #1 if you have no way to organise a resistance.

      They can't tap everyone's phones.

  52. Sounds nice, but something troubles me. by Spy+der+Mann · · Score: 1

    If it indeed works as an anonymizer, what prevents its users from scanning/cracking web servers?

    1. Re:Sounds nice, but something troubles me. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Scanning? Nothing prevents that. Don't run a bunch of other services on your web server box. Cracking? That's easy to prevent: Quit running IIS. ;)

  53. Since noone believes me when I post about it... by Kjella · · Score: 3, Informative

    ...maybe I'll just dig up the link to what happened with the JAP proxy network, providing pretty much exactly the same service:

    Net anonymity service back-doored

    Basicly, they were given the choice of backdooring it or shutting it down. Yes, the whole network. They did install a backdoor (still with source), got found out but they didn't exactly have much trust left.

    Can someone explain to me why the exact same will not happen to this service? Any reason why TOR servers would have greater legal immunity? I don't see it, at least.

    Kjella

    --
    Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    1. Re:Since noone believes me when I post about it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Tor team made illusion to the possibility of being back-doored in the future in their faq:

      "Not right now, but if this answer changes we probably won't be allowed to tell you. You should always check the source (or at least the diffs since the last release) for suspicious things; and if we don't give you source, that's a sure sign something funny could be going on."

      What prevents this from happening? Probably nothing. But for now, it will be a push in the right direction.

    2. Re:Since noone believes me when I post about it... by wildwood · · Score: 3, Informative

      Basicly, they were given the choice of backdooring it or shutting it down. Yes, the whole network. They did install a backdoor (still with source), got found out but they didn't exactly have much trust left.

      Can someone explain to me why the exact same will not happen to this service? Any reason why TOR servers would have greater legal immunity? I don't see it, at least.

      One reason: the white-hat lawyers at the EFF.

      I didn't see any indication from your link whether the JAP team got any legal consultation. Did they fully understand their rights and options before they gave in to the authorities?

      I don't think the EFF is sponsoring this just to move the technology along. I'd bet that they also want to use Tor to advance their legal arguments for anonymity. They've probably already drawn up "battle plans" for likely legal challenges.

      --
      normal(adj)- people who don't sit on slashdot all day wondering why everyone else isn't building robots [DECS]
    3. Re:Since noone believes me when I post about it... by Aphelion · · Score: 1

      JAP was in Germany, this is in the U.S.

    4. Re:Since noone believes me when I post about it... by iminplaya · · Score: 1

      Very good article. I also believe they should have "shut down with a warning that JAP can no longer fulfill its stated obligation to protect anonymity due to police interference". It would have more in keeping with their stated purpose. In light of what they(JAP) did, I don't believe they were ever very trustworthy to begin with. All the other anonymizer services are equally suspect to me for this very reason. That includes this, freenet, and whatever else is running these claims. We can never, ever be anonymous as long as there is somebody else's wire attached to our machine. It is impossible! I repeat, once AGAIN. Only true, ad hoc, mobile, encrypted wireless will ever give us even the remotest chance at anonymity and true P2P. There is simply no other way. Anything else is exactly the illusion that the bad guys want you to believe. If you're wired they will find you! Remember that please.

      --
      What?
    5. Re:Since noone believes me when I post about it... by evilviper · · Score: 1
      Can someone explain to me why the exact same will not happen to this service?

      If you look though the source, and compile it to a binary yourself, you can be very certain if there is backdoor in the program or not. Even if you aren't a programmer, and the program you use is popular, there will be plenty of other eyes on it.

      The real question in all of this is... If you can't trust an open source anonmizer, then what's the alternative? Go without any anonmizer at all?
      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
  54. Re:Yay! Piracy! by discord5 · · Score: 3, Informative
    I'm sure this network will be used to share protected speech and not copyrighted binaries.

    I don't think this system will be usable for piracy. Have you ever used <hat foil="tin">Freenet</hat>? Because of all the hopping though random nodes, "random" routes and encrypted traffic it's quite slow.

    Take the example of the average "anonymous proxy" on the internet. After someone finds the proxy, it usually takes about 5 to 10 hours before the proxie's bandwith is completely saturated making it unusable. Even if Tor is to loadbalance all it's nodes, it's still going to be SLOW with the added encryption etc. Remember kids, using proxies that are close to you isn't anonimity but asking for problems with the law (usually why people want to use anonymous proxies is to avoid problems their employer/government could create).

    Lastly, most anonymous networks are unreliable by nature. Freenet is unreliable because it drops "unpopular" keys and their content in favour of popular keys. Anonymous relays (eg mixmasters) are known to drop messages at random.

  55. GNUNet by Da+Twink+Daddy · · Score: 2, Interesting

    What's about GNU's own GPL'd freenet "clone" GNUNet?

    I've successfully used it to get some pr0n, at decent speeds. You might also search it for "Billy Joel" to see my additions to the network.

    1. Re:GNUNet by RPoet · · Score: 2, Interesting

      What about it? GNUNet is an anonymous file sharing application, while Tor is a generic anonymizing networking layer. It can run file sharing apps, but it wasn't even primarily designed for it -- it was designed for safely and anonymously exchanging messages. The American navy started what became the roots of Tor, and it was designed for their needs.

      --
      "Oppression and harassment is a small price to pay to live in the land of the free." -- Montgomery Burns.
    2. Re:GNUNet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      GNUnet is not really a freenet clone. The goals are similar, but the protocol is rather different (routing by key, not history, content migration possible, but it also stays at the peer that originally inserted it (better persistence), searchable, swarm distribution, tunnels over tcp/udp/http, and so on). So calling it a clone is definitively wrong.

    3. Re:GNUNet by nutznboltz · · Score: 1

      What about E.N.T.R.O.P.Y. for that matter? A new field like this needs as many different approaches as possible. We are in "throw against the wall and see what sticks" mode now.

  56. Re:not cost effective to track and sue for RIAA et by nytes · · Score: 1

    *IAA might not be able to sue the actual file sharers on Tor, but it looks like it might be vulnerable to the same attack that was use on Bit Torrent: go for the trusted nodes or the servers that maintain the lists of trusted nodes on grounds of contributory copyright infringement.

    --
    -- I have monkeys in my pants.
  57. you don't have to be an exit node by adturner · · Score: 4, Informative

    Tor already provides the means for people to run a tor node as only a router (add the line: reject *:* in your torrc), not an exit node. Hence, your IP will never download kiddie porn or anything like that.

    1. Re:you don't have to be an exit node by adturner · · Score: 1

      Btw, that line should actually read:

      ExitPolicy reject *:*

      But I'll assume most anyone reading the torrc would of figured that out on their own.

      (Happy Nick? :)

  58. Is this like the ZeroKnowledge network by mlynx · · Score: 1

    This sounds an awful lot like the network started by the guys a ZeroKnowledge (now defunct something like 4 years). Can someone summarize how this is different?

    1. Re:Is this like the ZeroKnowledge network by towaz · · Score: 1

      its exactly that.

      Though with no corporation backing this project I can not see it getting shutdown.. If thats actually what happened to zeroknowledge.. I hear the one they have atm is just a watered down version.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - Voltaire
  59. the problem with Freenet by The+Tyro · · Score: 1, Interesting

    for me is not the speeds, or the difficulty in implementing it... it's the child porn.

    Sorry, but I just can't get past that. I hear all the posters and academics argue about "free speech means tolerating speech you don't like"... but free speech != exploitation of the innocent. Adult porn is one thing... you can at least make the argument that they're consenting adults just making a living... child porn is simply vile... it's sexual exploitation of someone too weak to fight, and mentally unable to understand and/or consent.

    I'm not attempting to play the "won't you think of the children?" card. I'm an EFF member, and a believer in free speech, but there's a bright line there for me. It's my job, literally, to take care of children who have been either physically abused, sexually abused, or both. Those kids are often brought straight to the ER, where Children's Services and I try to pick up the pieces. Maybe I'm too close to the issue, because it's simply visceral for me; I cannot stand the thought of aiding and abetting those kinds of acts, or encouraging the slime who get their jollies from that kind of thing.

    I'm a free speech supporter, but child porn on my computer? I just can't get there.

    --
    Even if a man chops off your hand with a sword, you still have two nice, sharp bones to stick in his eyes.
    1. Re:the problem with Freenet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How can any speech exploit someone? Why do you not have something against videos of people killing each other or other horrible content?

    2. Re:the problem with Freenet by RyanFenton · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's a method for the transportation of data - it in no way encourages any specific type of traffic. I could mention several straw-men arguments about telephones and vehicles that also could be used for horrible child crimes...

      Relative anonymity isn't inherently destructive - nor is the anonymity offered here absolute. Conventional methods of online social investigation will still catch the people you imagine, as there is still a source and destination. With child crimes in particular, the investigation should move offline as soon as possible anyway as soon as suspicions arise.

      People who attack and cruelly manipulate children deserve punishment - the rest of the world does not need to close entire realms of technology down for the sake of that punishment. The nerds of the world shouldn't be forced to think about punishing criminals when they make their tools any more than car manufacturers.

      Ryan Fenton

    3. Re:the problem with Freenet by snorklewacker · · Score: 1

      > I'm not attempting to play the "won't you think of the children?" card.

      Well, yes you are, actually, otherwise you could have come up with some other kind of content. Free speech isn't about protecting illegal acts or content that results solely from illegal acts. It's about protecting the means of speech regardless of what it might be used for.

      > I'm a free speech supporter, but child porn on my computer? I just can't get there.

      It's quite unlikely that neither will the pornographers. TOR simply won't stand up to large downloads like that. You're perfectly free to pass by this technology, but where does a technology get too generic to apply the objection? Any encrypted store-and-forward system, like remailers? Cryptography in general? Common carrier status? It sounds to me like you're doing your part already, but you need to keep your perspective -- you are not the victim, and the kids are better served by you keeping a clear head, not tilting at windmills. Think of how many lives could be saved if the opponents of violent videogames focused their energies on mentoring some "at risk" kids instead.

      Yes, someone should think of the children. People like yourself should, because any one particular technology can't. Judging that technology on what it could do is not helpful to anyone.

      --
      I am no longer wasting my time with slashdot
    4. Re:the problem with Freenet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Try this thought experiment: Forget, for the moment, about child porn, because it's such an extreme, emotional and, simply disgusting example. We can't think clearly about something like that, so we look to an analogy.

      It is, essentially, a photo of a crime scene (assuming you don't mean hentai), distributed because some people like to see that kind of crime, so what if someone was using your computer to transmit photos of themselves robbing houses? Potentially, especially if they're not careful, there could be clues that law-enforcement could use. Also, if there was any money being made from the distribution, that might leave a trail for law-enforcement to follow.

      Even if it's no help catching the people, it's robbing the house that's the problem, far more than using your computer to help distribute information about the crime (whether footage or simply a written account).

      The more practical problems, in my opinion, are:
      - Any society where this can happen unnoticed by (the caring) relatives or the community.
      - Whether you know it's there or not, it's illegal to simply have child porn stored on your computer.

      I'm not denying it's a problem, that allowing these people a channel to distribute their filth is in some measure an unwitting encouragement, but if nobody could distribute evidence of it, children would still be abused, the only way to get rid of it is with the right legal and social structures in place in any given to community. The internet is not the primary problem.

      It is, however a new and strange environment. As a species we've got a long way to go to properly adapt.

    5. Re:the problem with Freenet by jafac · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Fine. Then allow the child pornographers to distribute their "product" - and bust them at other phases of their operation.

      Tell me this. How many child pornographers are busted when someone trades illegal pictures? Not illegal picture-traders, the actual people who TAKE the pictures?

      By blocking the flow of information, you can only bust the picture-traders. And you get a nice excuse to bust anyone else whom you can reasonably define as a "terrorist" or other undesirable.

      Bust the guys taking the pictures, at the source. When you get a kid who's been abused in this way, they can lead you to the picture taker.

      The excuse of "needing better tools for law enforcement" is very often used as an excuse to abridge civil rights.
      Child pornographers are bad. And should be stopped wherever their found. But I'm not ready to accept that we, as a civilization, can afford to eliminate anonymous speech. When we have better rules (that are enforced) to protect whistleblowers and dissidents, then maybe we can do away with anonymity.

      --

      These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
    6. Re:the problem with Freenet by ajs · · Score: 1

      "I hear all the posters and academics argue about "free speech means tolerating speech you don't like"... but free speech != exploitation of the innocent. Adult porn is one thing... you can at least make the argument that they're consenting adults just making a living... child porn is simply vile... it's sexual exploitation of someone too weak to fight, and mentally unable to understand and/or consent."

      The idea behind systems like this is that what people exchange electronically should be very much like what they discuss in private. By partaking in such a system you are helping to ensure that the concept of online privacy isn't just the types of privacy that the combination of business and government decide to leave you with.

      Will some of that "discussion" be of a nature that would shock or disgust you? Sure, it will. That, however, is none of your business. People who engage in child abuse of any sort should be sought out and punished to the full extent of the law. I have no qualms about this, but you attack that problem in the real world, not on-line. On-line communication is NOT child abuse; it's just communication. It would be nice from a law-enforcement perspective if we could monitor all such speach for the most heinous of crimes without damaging our freedom in the process, but we cannot.

      By opening some of your resources to arbitrary, unmonitored use, you are providing yourself and others with a measure of privacy. This is a good thing.

    7. Re:the problem with Freenet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful
      I think you need to adjust your definition of "aiding and abetting." When you run a Freenet node, you are essentially saying, "I believe in a world where anyone can anonymously share any file." Now, if you consider this belief tantamount to aiding and abetting every single crime that could be commited in such a world, then just come out an say it. I, however, do not.

      In what sense have you helped these criminals? Have you donated bandwidth and storage space to them? Only very indirectly. You have donated bandwidth and storage space to an entire network, a network that can be useful to anybody. Yes, "anybody" includes violent pedophiles and terrorists - but by the same token, should WalMart close its doors, because it sells food to anybody, even the bad guys? Closer to the issue at hand, if you worked at an ISP, would you try to ban encrypted tunnels, which are beneficial to not only society and commerce in general, but also to terrorists, dirty hippy pirates, and child porn distributors? At some point, you have to draw a line and say, "He did something wrong, whereas he just provided a service which could be abused." If common carrier status doesn't provide a moral defense, then we in the technology field all very evil people.

      Finally, as I'm sure you would agree, people need to consider the consequences of their speech. If every time someone mentions Freenet on Slashdot, you write an essay equating it with child pornography, then you are, in a way that's every bit as real as uploading other people's encrypted possibly-child-porn data, promoting the distribution of child porn on Freenet - you encourage pedophiles, or even just curious /.ers (many of whom clicked goatse after knowing what it was), to see what disgusting filth Freenet has to offer, while scaring away the many people who would otherwise use Freenet for legal and moral purposes.

      AC because I really don't want to get into a debate about this, as I probably can't change your mind, nor you mine.

    8. Re:the problem with Freenet by badzilla · · Score: 1

      Suppose though that regular internet communications had evolved differently and were inherently unsniffable as a matter of course. In that case nobody would credibly suggest that the network must be sniffably re-architected just because a very small minority of its existing traffic was genuinely undesirable in some way.

      On that planet the problem would be resolved some other way, such as grabbing the traffic before or after it was in the tunnel, and that is how any Freenet issue needs to be fixed.

      --
      "Don't belong. Never join. Think for yourself. Peace." V.Stone, Microsoft Corporation
    9. Re:the problem with Freenet by The+Tyro · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Ryan,

      Thanks for the reasoned reply.

      I don't disagree that Freenet is a tool, but I'm not sure all factors are equal in judging tools. We could compare to Kazaa, which does trade legitmate files... but trades scads of pirated material. Kazaa may trade many pirated files, but the relative harm is far less. Copyright infringement isn't in the same ballpark as child molestation... the law recognizes this with the vast difference in their respective penalties. The amount of harm (and type of harm) with Kazaa can be argued either way... I don't find Freenet to be nearly as grey.

      Admitted, the Freenet choice is binary; install it and tolerate the content, or not. However, I don't find free speech as an issue to be so black-and-white (that'll bring on the flamewar). Like most things, one needs to apply the doctrine of competing harms.

      Everyone makes choices for themselves based on their own risk/benefit analysis. Cars and firearms inarguably cause thousands of spectacular deaths every year... yet if you really crunch the statistics, most guns are used to punch holes in pieces of paper, and most cars are tranportation devices rather than deathmobiles. My feeling is that the positive balance of content on Freenet is far less clear. If there's one legitimate persecuted speech document on Freenet, does that mean we tolerate 10000 pieces of child porn? That scale doesn't balance for me... but that's me, particularly when there are other ways to distribute that content without the baggage.

      I don't disagree with the existence of the tool... just one particular use of the tool. The choice being all-or-none, I couldn't justify a node for myself... I'm not saying those who set up those nodes are evil or amoral... just that their scales balance a little differently than mine.

      --
      Even if a man chops off your hand with a sword, you still have two nice, sharp bones to stick in his eyes.
    10. Re:the problem with Freenet by soupdevil · · Score: 5, Insightful

      By this argument, you could never own an apartment, rental house or hotel, because child abuse could be committed on your property.

    11. Re:the problem with Freenet by westlake · · Score: 1
      The idea behind systems like this is that what people exchange electronically should be very much like what they discuss in private.

      How does an "exchange" of photographs constitute a private "discussion" of any sort? There is no such thing as a legal right to create, possess, or distribute child pornography.

      By partaking in such a system you are helping to ensure that the concept of online privacy isn't just the types of privacy that the combination of business and government decide to leave you with.

      I can believe in privacy and free speech without allowing my home to be used as a secure forum and mail drop for the Ku Klux Klan. I retain this freedom everywhere it seems but in Freenet.

      Government and business are usually slow-moving and pragmatic. Those who wield power are generally aware of it's limits. Rather I fear more the idealist who would impose his absolutist values on everyone.

      but you attack that problem in the real world, not on-line

      I distrust so easy and careless a distinction between the "real and "online" worlds. In the end, there can be only one. You attack an enemy where he is active and vulnerable, you are not obliged to provide him with a safe haven anywhere.

      On-line communication is NOT child abuse; it's just communication.

      The child might beg to differ, when images of her rape are distributed over the net.

    12. Re:the problem with Freenet by bwalzer · · Score: 1
      I'm a free speech supporter, but child porn on my computer? I just can't get there.
      The stuff on any particular Freenet node is encrypted right? So in what sense would you have child porn on your computer? This all seems philosophical to me. Trees falling in the forest and all. In the absence of the key are any the encrypted files child porn? All of them? Do you have child porn on your computer now encrypted with an unknown encryption method? If someone uses a existing file from your computer and uses that file as a key to encrypt child porn, then destroys the original child porn, then where does the child porn now reside? After all, the file from your computer might be very much longer than the encrypted child porn. Maybe the file on your computer is actually the child porn and the other file is just the key. In the Freenet system where does the property of child porn-ness exist? Perhaps the key is the actual child porn. After all, the child porn can not exist without the key. Perhaps the people who are in possession of the keys for child porn are the ones that the powers that be should be spending taxes tracking down. ...or maybe you need to have both pieces.

      For a related (but perhaps more fundamental) argument, if someone interprets a whole bunch of bits in such a way as to see abused children, then do they not share part of the blame for the interpretation? Some anti child porn laws forbid mere possession. I don't see how that can be proved in any meaningful sense in a case where someone has to interpret the bits. At least in the case of distribution you have more than one entity agreeing on that interpretation but that case only seems somewhat better defined. Any question considered long and hard enough becomes philosophical, but this question gets philosophical real fast no matter where you start...

    13. Re:the problem with Freenet by damiam · · Score: 2, Interesting
      their scales balance a little differently than mine.

      I don't have a problem with Freenet because

      a) Freenet doesn't actually cache child porn on your drive. It may cache fragments of binary data which, if pieced together with other fragments from other sources and decoded a certain way, could be interpreted as something illegal. But that's a far cry from actually putting pictures or video on your disk.

      b) If someone looks at child porn from Freenet, no child is harmed. Since it's on Freenet, not only has the producer not been paid, he has no way to know that anyone has even seen it. Obviously the act of producing porn can harm children, but I can't think of any reason that anonymously viewing it with Freenet would lead to any further harm. So it's pretty much a victimless crime.

      Still, I don't currently run a node because Freenet's slow as fuck and has almost no content (legal or illegal). But I think the concept behind it is incredibly important, and I'll probably start running a node once it gets faster and/or I get a static IP.

      --
      It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.
    14. Re:the problem with Freenet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Obviously the act of producing porn can harm children, but I can't think of any reason that anonymously viewing it with Freenet would lead to any further harm

      Freenet's purpose isn't so much to communicate as it is to guarantee that those doing the communicating can't be held accountable for their communications.

      So Pedophile #1 posts the money shot of Little Timmy and his pet basset hound on Freenet and calls up Pedophiles #2, #3, and #4. #2, #3, and #4 send PayPal payments to #1 for "Goods/Non-Auction", whereupon #1 gives them the URL to the goods. Here, Freenet has facilitated a transaction that goes beyond mere speech. It still shouldn't be suppressed, but it can't be confused with a telephone or other means of accountable (to law enforcement) communication.

    15. Re:the problem with Freenet by __aadhrk6380 · · Score: 1

      You have a very reasoned argument, and I agree in principle. However, while this method of data transmission doesn't encourage specific types of traffic, it certainly lends itself handily to groups wishing to hide unlawful activity.

      Trust me here, I understand all sides of the argument. And I agree that anonymity in communication is important. But using anonymity to either commit or further a crime is a problem. How we deal with that problem will define us as a society, if it doesn't destroy us as a society first. Having a societal capacity to handle new freedoms responsibly doesn't necessarily coincide with the rapid introductions of those freedoms, especially when Google has all the answers for even the most technically inept criminals.

      Technology outstrips law enforcements ability to deal with it (at least at local levels) on an almost daily basis. Whether we are talking about a kiddie porn mogul or a real live terrorist (yes, they do exist) technologies such as these offer a perfect avenue for the purveyance of illegal communication.

      99% of the people (I hope) will be the kind of folks that use this technology for what it is intended for (based on TOR's stated goals). But there will be those, especially early on, that manipulate it to their ends. Spammers are a pain in the ass. Those with more sinister goals are something else entirely.

      I don't have a ready answer for how to handle this, I am just trying to point out a measured, non-hysterical response showing the other side of the coin.

    16. Re:the problem with Freenet by Rainer · · Score: 1
      for me is not the speeds, or the difficulty in implementing it... it's the child porn.

      Are you sure that hindering the distribution is an effective way of reducing the production?

      If it is difficult to find material for free there will be a huge potential for profit that just waits for organized crime to turn it into real profit.

      If you want to avoid this you have to reduce the potential profit and increase the risk.

      So it might be more effective to allow unhindered distribution (reduce profit) and to put up high rewards for identifying participants (increase risk).

    17. Re:the problem with Freenet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Give me an f#ing break with the children crap.In case you haven't noticed in bushco,it's ABOUT THE MONEY.When is the last time you heard about them actually BUSTING the guy who MADE the kiddy porn?They bust the dumb@ss who downloads it free(btw,a socialogy prof spent 10 years studying the downloaders and found more than 80% POSED NO THREAT TO KIDS!They are mostly loney and socially retarded males who get a thrill at veiwing ANYTHING illegal)In my neighborhood there is 3 methlabs run by scum who'd sell to a 5 yr old if he had the cash.And every week i watch the nice officer come and pick up his envelope full of cash.Meanwhile,they just recently gave a little 15 year old kid 10 years for selling the junk made by the meth lab that the nice officers ignore.When he is being gang raped in prison who's going to scream "what about the children?"then?NO ONE!Beause in bushco,IT"S THE ALL ABOUT THE MONEY.As long as there is profit to be made in drugs,kiddy porn,etc. then the PRODUCER can just buy a cop (or 2,i hear they're pretty cheap these days)while the dumb@ss with no money and a public pretender goes to jail.Besides,what are you worried about?With the feds and courts tied up fighting the *.a.a battles they aren't going to have time or resources to fight something as unprofitable as child porn.At least with tools like freenet we'll be able to let the outside world know what's happening when "homeland insecurity"has us turned into a chinese style democracy.

    18. Re:the problem with Freenet by Alsee · · Score: 1

      Child porn? Don't forget terrorism!

      In fact the government should quit wasting so much time and effort prosecuting people who commit terrorist acts. Effort which should more approriately be directed against those who distribute images and even textural descriptions of such heinous crimes!

      Yep! I'm 100% behind you! Lets lock up the REAL criminals, Aljezeera and CNN and the New York Times! They all peddle in this crap! Terrorism is an abomination, and this is what we must do to save innocent people from being killed!

      Though to be honest I doubt such tactics would be effective in relation to child abuse. Supressing all news coverage of terrorists attacks would massively reduce the effectiveness and incentive in committing such crimes. It would be signifigantly effective in reducing terrorist attacks. However anyone who would abuse a child does so regardless of any other consideration. They really aren't going to care that other people get busted for having the pictures. he vast majority of such abuse is an on going daily event, rarely reported or discovered. In many cases the abuse only ends when the abuser is so helpful as to provide the police with photographic evidence with which to track him down and convict him. So obviously the best way to actually rescue children and to end ongoing abuse is to do everything possible to dissuade the abuser from providing such evidence. And obviously we should suppress the distribution of such evidence (when it is helpfully created/provided) so that even the police even have a hard time obtaining a copy quickly, if ever. Yep, obviously the best way to actually catch the criminals and actually end the abuse and actually save children.

      Remember, if we didn't see it then it didn't happen. A wonderful and perfect Leave-it-to-Beaver world where everything and everyone all happy and pretty. Ingorance is Strength. Peception is Reality. War is Peace.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    19. Re:the problem with Freenet by PsykhoKiwi · · Score: 1

      I understand your bring the example to a less harsh version however I do not believe it stands.

      Put yourself in the position of the victims in both cases:

      a) You have had your house robbed and pictures of it are being distributed on the Internet

      b) You have been raped and pictures of it are being distributed on the Internet

      I really don't think that a) has many major problems but think of b). It is enough of a humiliation that the event ocurred let alone that other people are being allowed to see it.

      I am left thinking if the border of free speech is being blurred. People can talk about what they like, fine but images and videos of the same events are an entirely different matter in my opinion.

      --
      Just remember that if the world didn't suck we'd all fall off.
    20. Re:the problem with Freenet by ajs · · Score: 1

      "How does an "exchange" of photographs constitute a private "discussion" of any sort?"

      The exchange of any information between two individuals, regardless of how that information might be interpreted should, IMHO, be treated the same way in electronic form as physical. If I rent an apartment to you, you could invite people over and show them dirty pictures. Does that mean that all apartments should be monitored? Why is it any different on-line?

      "I can believe in privacy and free speech without allowing my home to be used as a secure forum and mail drop for the Ku Klux Klan."

      You can believe in privacy and free speech, but I would suggest that you are truer to your values if you provide a secure means for ALL people to have private conversations. What you are saying boils down to this: privacy allows for secrets, and some secrets are bad. I get that, I really do. I hope that you understand that the converse is: having no secrets means no privacy and some secrets are good.

      "Government and business are usually slow-moving and pragmatic. Those who wield power are generally aware of it's limits. Rather I fear more the idealist who would impose his absolutist values on everyone."

      Government and business are slow moving? How fast did the DMCA get thrown into place? Look at the PATRIOT Act. McCarthy certainly didn't take his time putting together a "list". Hoover was able to get along with business and keep things moving along quite nicely, actually.

      No, as our society becomes more and more dependent on on-line communications, I strongly believe that if we don't preserve the same level of privacy as we had in the physical word that our freedoms will be drastically eroded. The Net is a powerful tool, and by resorting to such emotional, hyperbolic arguments, you are allowing those who would misuse it to take several steps forward.

      "I distrust so easy and careless a distinction between the "real and "online" worlds. In the end, there can be only one. You attack an enemy where he is active and vulnerable, you are not obliged to provide him with a safe haven anywhere."

      Well, at least in the US you ARE required to provide a large number of safe havens. Attorney/client communications, information gained under duress or without a warrant, and any number of other means of gaining information are not allowed. Keep in mind that if you have a warrant, you can put a keyboard and monitor relay on someone's machine while they're at work, or you can place a miniature camera in their home to watch what they're doing. The reason you need to be able to evesdrop on on-line communications is so that you don't have to know who your target is. Otherwise, you already have the means at your disposal to gather evidence. On this matter, US law is quite clear. We consider it a severe violation of the rights of the individual to violate the privacy of large groups in order to learn of any criminal activity. If you know that a group is doing something criminal as a group (and not that some member might be doing something wrong independently), THEN you can go after the group. That's not what we're discussing though.

      "The child might beg to differ, when images of her rape are distributed over the net."

      And there you have a crime, one which can be delt with by obtaining a warrant and going after the individuals involved. Problem solved. If you don't know that that crime as occurred, and just want a way to be sure it hasnt... sorry, not possible.

      What you're asking for is a way to be sure that bits that move over the Net aren't "bad bits", and without severe encroachments on the freedoms we hold dear, you cannot have that. I'm sorry, really. I'm very sorry that we can't just turn over the keys to our lives to the authorities and trust that the right thing will happen. Woefully, the people who take public office are just human beings, and some of them do things just as henious as what you're discussing, if not more so.

    21. Re:the problem with Freenet by hesiod · · Score: 1

      > I retain this freedom everywhere it seems but in Freenet.

      What? You DO have that freedom. Don't run a Freenet node and you're safe.

      Whatever happened to "I disagree with what you say but will defend to the death your right to say it?" Evidently you don't believe in free speech quite as fervently as others do: to the point of guaranteeing someone's right to free speech that they personally disagree with. BTW, before you make any assumptions, that statement is regarding the KKK, not pornography, but the answer is roughly the same.

    22. Re:the problem with Freenet by hesiod · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, courts (in the U.S. at least, have no knowledge of others) are very limited in their philosophy expertise. The only "critical thinking" they know how to do is interpreting laws, not judging their fairness or the philosophical reachings of them. Hell, as far as they are concerned, the law of the US is the laws of nature and until the laws change, everyone on earth must follow those arbitrary rules.

      Yes, they have "issues" realizing that other countries are supposed to have sovereignty and different views, God forbid. I mean that literally. They command their god to forbid acknowledging different cultures. Because Christianity worked so well for some of them, it MUST be the optimum solution.

    23. Re:the problem with Freenet by sjames · · Score: 1

      for me is not the speeds, or the difficulty in implementing it... it's the child porn.

      Consider, every core router out there has probably carried child porn at some time. Do you suggest we switch the internet off? I'm sure phones have been used for planning all manner of crimes including child porn. Guess we'd better switch those off too. Shall we ban cameras of all kinds?

      Very few people want child abuse to exist at all. If we jail everybody at birth, we can 100% wipe it out (and every other crime).

      It is simply not reasonable to eliminate communications, freedom, or other common aspects of modern society even to eliminate child porn. Instead, we'll just need to vigorously pursue the people who produce it. Perhaps we could divert the money we now spend in the war on (some) drugs to fight something the majority are truly against.

    24. Re:the problem with Freenet by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      Whatever happened to "I disagree with what you say but will defend to the death your right to say it?"

      "Defending your right to say it" doesn't mean "I'll let you stand on my front lawn and say it."

    25. Re:the problem with Freenet by hesiod · · Score: 1

      Yes, actually, it does (trespassing laws notwithstanding). It means that they can stand anywhere and say whatever they want (again, notwithstanding certain free speech abridging laws and "protection" laws).

    26. Re:the problem with Freenet by dolphinling · · Score: 1

      I hear all the posters and academics argue about "free speech means tolerating speech you don't like"...

      ...but free speech != exploitation of the innocent.

      Let me first say that I completely agree with the second part of that. Child pornography, while one could argue that it's "speech" of a sort, is not Free Speech of the kind that is and should be protected.

      However, I think that the first part needs to be revised. Free speech means more than just tolerating speech you don't like, it also means giving up some of the ways we've traditionally had of getting rid of criminals. Now, this isn't to say that free speech means tolerating child porn, just that if you want it, it will be harder to get rid of child porn.

      For me, free speech is worth that cost--I imagine a world without free speech, and I see things much worse; even the chance to solidify free speech that is already had is worth the cost, as I look around and see it precariously balanced, some days growing stronger, many growing weaker. I understand the horrors of child porn (not as clearly as some, of course, but vaugely), but--as important as it is to get rid of it--it's less important than getting and keeping free speech.

      I run freenet because of that.

      --
      There are 11 types of people in the world: those who can count in binary, and those who can't.
  60. Re:not cost effective to track and sue for RIAA et by SirTalon42 · · Score: 1

    They could go after them just as much as they could go after a proxy server for copyright infringement.

  61. EFF makes me happy-GooD Lawyers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    "The EFF is a light in a dark wilderness. "

    Does that mean we like lawyers now?

  62. Tor's hidden service is the really cool thing by javab0y · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Tor supports something called a "hidden service" which allows you to serve something, such as a web site, ftp, or dare I say, a bittorent link.

    The neat thing is, you can serve the service without anyone knowing your IP address. So you would share a link such as follows: http://6sxoyfb3h2nvok2d.onion/ (which is the tor hidden service wiki BTW). The Tor servers "meet in the middle", thus hiding the originating serving ip address. Read here for more on this functionality.

    This could really shut the door on XXAA type organizations looking to hunt down people for litigous purposes.

  63. Solutions are simple-Ignorance is simpler. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Law enforcement officials who decrypt the virus to reverse engineer it would be in violation of the DMCA."

    *raises finger*

    Oh, never mind. All you legal eagles are too clever.

    1. Re:Solutions are simple-Ignorance is simpler. by pclminion · · Score: 1
      Oh, never mind. All you legal eagles are too clever.

      It was speculation. If you have a reason why it wouldn't work, why not tell us?

      I know -- it's because you're an asshole.

  64. Comments by ZorbaTHut · · Score: 3, Informative

    Tor is great. I've been playing with it for a while - the sheer simplicity of setup makes it fantastic, and it's highly amusing to go to whatismyip.com half a dozen times and get different IPs.

    Once I get the firewall box I want set up I plan to make one port link directly into Tor, so that anything plugged into that port is shunted 100% into the Tor network. Right now you've sort of got to trust that your program really is punching everything through the SOCKS proxy - not all programs are really reliable about that, plus the program can still see your IP if you're not behind a firewall.

    --
    Breaking Into the Industry - A development log about starting a game studio.
    1. Re:Comments by javab0y · · Score: 1

      If you use tsocks or one of its clones, you can have the ip stack intercept all ip traffic and route it through tor. See the tor documentation for the howto on this.

  65. mod me offtopic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    mod me down mod me down this is a test, webpage hasn't changed for the past 20 mins after disabling tor...

  66. Very good news. by towaz · · Score: 1

    Was considering starting off a project like this a week or so ago.

    Will be good to contribute to an open source project like this.

    Though when http://freedom.net/ tried this years ago they suddenly stopped it.. Was not sure if this was due to legal issues or server strain.

    --
    "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - Voltaire
  67. Whole network geting slashdotted by shimmerkid · · Score: 1

    This was cool, but now it's getting slooow. They need to add a simpler way to become a server (or force you to become one, like with Bittorrent), so that the network doesn't get crunched by too many clients. Right now the server doesn't work through NAT without some fancy footwork. This seems like perfect candidate code for eXeem (or whatever those Suprnova guys were working on was called).

  68. Padon me if I missed it... by Kjella · · Score: 3, Informative

    ...but what exactly is the incentive to actually help the TOR network? Seems to me that you can just leech as much as you want, give nothing. And each byte I download gets multiplied by as many nodes as I route through. Right now, it would appear they have a small userbase and mostly volunteer providers. What would happen if it got exposed to say, the slashdot userbase? Or people in general?

    Kjella

    --
    Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    1. Re:Padon me if I missed it... by adturner · · Score: 2, Informative

      Perhaps you should read "Should I run a client or a server?", which explains the benefits for running a server.

      http://tor.freehaven.net/cvs/tor/doc/tor-doc.htm l

      But basically, even just running a client is good since the more clients using tor (up to the capacity of the network) increases the anonymity of all users. Only time will tell if enough volunteers will run servers to keep up with demand.

    2. Re:Padon me if I missed it... by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      Clearly running middle-man servers is helpful to the network. However, somebody has to run servers that talk to the outside world. Nobody has an incentive to do that, unless they are in some kind of a legal-haven.

      Hence, the network is doomed to die once the lawsuits start getting filed.

      At least with Freenet about the only way they can target you is for simply running the software, without any way of knowing what you're hosting...

    3. Re:Padon me if I missed it... by adturner · · Score: 1

      Well all I can say is that obviously some people must have some incentive to run an exit node, otherwise there would be no exit nodes (which is provably not the case).

      Note: I run an exit node. Why? b/c:

      1) I can
      2) I like getting port scanned by IRC servers looking for open proxies when people exit and connect to IRC servers
      3) It scratches an itch

  69. Question about Tor by theantix · · Score: 3, Interesting

    As a civil libertarian I love the idea, and I would be happy to run a Tor server if I could restrict what filetypes I pass through. I'm not interesting in helping people pass kiddie porn or pirated movies through my server (which I assume would be a primary use of this), so I would want to restrict it to text and html mimetypes. I looked through the FAQ and documentation and didn't see any mention of this.

    Any developers here that can comment on if a feature similar to this is planned for a future release?

    --
    501 Not Implemented
    1. Re:Question about Tor by RPoet · · Score: 3, Insightful

      With Tor, you don't transfer files; you transfer packets. This is analogous to running a TCP/IP router on the internet, you just relay traffic for others. What Tor adds to this is that you have no way to find out what packets you relay contain or where they are ultimately headed. If you are really a civil libertarian, you won't care. If you still care, maybe you should look for another label for yourself :)

      --
      "Oppression and harassment is a small price to pay to live in the land of the free." -- Montgomery Burns.
    2. Re:Question about Tor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, that is all true, but one thing could be implemented in tor, which is filtering by the exit node. Just like currently you can say that you're not going to relay traffic to port 25 (to avoid the spam problem), future exit nodes could try to filter images obtained via http (filter on mime-type returned in http session).

      Now again, that`s not yet available, but it could (theoretically) be done. Note that this does not prevent you from possibly routing encrypted images, but at least you`re much less likely to show up as the exit node that swept the porn-server (assuming clients know about your exit policy and the users that want images pick other exit-nodes for them).

      Anyway, I`m not saying that this is the best policy, I'm merely trying to state the technical possibility.

    3. Re:Question about Tor by adturner · · Score: 1

      There are two kinds of tor servers:

      Exit routers, which connect to other services (web, irc, etc) and middlemen routers which only pass encrypted packets.

      Middlemen routers have no idea what the content of the data is since it's encrypted, hence it would be impossible to enforce that there. Exit routers can limit which IP/ports to allow connections to, but there's no application level intelligence to restrict based on mime-types or anything else like that.

    4. Re:Question about Tor by theantix · · Score: 1

      If you are really a civil libertarian, you won't care. If you still care, maybe you should look for another label for yourself :)

      Just because I care about civil liberties doesn't mean I have to personally assist people who are doing repugnant things. I can support the right for people to share movies without wanting to personally pay for the bandwidth to allow them to do this. I am however interested in donating a bit of bandwidth and an IP address for people transmitting banned ideas.

      Let's drop the vaugaries and use a specific example. I think Chinese people should be able to download porn, but their government restricts their access for whatever reason. While I support this right, I don't want to personally fund bringing porn to China. Donating bandwidth on my server is a real cost to me, and I would like to be able to help out Chinese dissidents (and others) trying to read and disseminate information that their government is trying to censor.

      Can you see how I find both forms of censorship negative, but I only want to donate to assist the spread of ideas and not pornography? More importatly, it's pretty certain that this will be used by pedophiles to trade kiddie porn, and I don't find that to be a civil liberties issue and instead find it to be a child abuse issue.

      From your answer, it seems like Tor does not fit my defintions of what I am willing to donate to. That's fine, I hope the project is a success, I just won't be part of it for my own reasons stated above.

      --
      501 Not Implemented
    5. Re:Question about Tor by SparklingClearWit · · Score: 1
      Just because I care about civil liberties doesn't mean I have to personally assist people who are doing repugnant things. I can support the right for people to share movies without wanting to personally pay for the bandwidth to allow them to do this. I am however interested in donating a bit of bandwidth and an IP address for people transmitting banned ideas.

      Actually, if you are a TRUE "civil libertarian", you shouldn't care. As Voltaire said, and I paraphrase here, "I may not like what you say, but I'll support unto my death your right to say it." Ideally, in a truly anonymous system, you DON'T KNOW what traffic is routing through your system. Just as your neighbor can't hear your conversations at the dinner table, you can't hear his.

      Kiddie Porn has become the favorite whipping boy (no pun intended) to block adoption of 'anonymizing' services. That, and the 'terra-ists' "they" keep screaming about.

      Anything that helps with truly free speech and the transfer of new and radical ideas help to keep new ideas flowing. Your comments are strange - you want people to share (supposedly) copyrighted movies without fear of punishment, but you don't expect them to pay for the bandwidth - which is essentially the underlying delivery method which lets them share the movies. I assume your second line should read "I am, however, NOT interested in donating ... banned ideas." Whose ideas? Who banned them? Your second paragraph is an excellent example:

      think Chinese people should be able to download porn, but their government restricts their access for whatever reason. While I support this right, I don't want to personally fund bringing porn to China. Donating bandwidth on my server is a real cost to me, and I would like to be able to help out Chinese dissidents (and others) trying to read and disseminate information that their government is trying to censor.

      Uh, what? So you'll leave the 'burden' of bringing Approved-By-You Porn to China, but don't want to pay for it? OK, fine. but ... why is it up to YOU to decide that it's OK for China to have porn? It seems to be ok for you to decide kiddie porn is bad (and I'm not debating THAT particular point), but why do YOU get to dictate what is and isn't right?

    6. Re:Question about Tor by RealBorg · · Score: 1

      The intellectual property mafia is bullying our legislators to force us into anonymizing sharing platforms. If some people abuse these platform for child pornography or terrorism intelligence I call this collateral damage and blame the legislator that forced us to use this technology in the first place.

    7. Re:Question about Tor by idlemachine · · Score: 1
      I'm not interesting in helping people pass kiddie porn or pirated movies through my server (which I assume would be a primary use of this)

      Why? Seriously...what makes it obvious to you that despite the fact you don't want to peddle kiddy porn, that clearly the majority of people do?

      Has villifying the imaginary 'other' become so habitual for you that you can't possibly imagine that anyone other than you would want their personal freedom?

      How lonely a person are you?

    8. Re:Question about Tor by Sloppy · · Score: 1
      If you are really a civil libertarian, you won't care. If you still care, maybe you should look for another label for yourself :)
      I don't think that's fair. It's one thing to defend someone else's right to speech (even if you disagree with it) but it's a totally different thing to participate in their act of speaking.

      For example, I'd support the repeal of any laws that prohibit Nazis from spewing their crap. I think they have the right to make asses of themselves. But if a Nazi told me, "Hey Sloppy, do me a favor... tell that inferior genetic specimen over there that there is no place for him in the coming New Order," he would get a blank stare from me at best.

      --
      As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
    9. Re:Question about Tor by theantix · · Score: 1

      Why? Seriously...what makes it obvious to you that despite the fact you don't want to peddle kiddy porn, that clearly the majority of people do?

      I don't think a majority of people want to peddle kiddie porn, I think only a very tiny minority of people do. I do think that the tiny minority of people who are pedophiles would be natural users of this service, because they are eager to escape detection by law enforcement authorities.

      Has villifying the imaginary 'other' become so habitual for you that you can't possibly imagine that anyone other than you would want their personal freedom?

      How lonely a person are you?


      Oh, and fuck you too, asswipe. I have said repeatedly that I would love to be able to help out people trying to pass banned ideas, but I'm not willing to assist child abusers in the process. If you want to help them out, that's your fucking business but my donations do _not_ go to projects that will be used to hurt children.

      --
      501 Not Implemented
  70. Re:Yay! Piracy! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Copyrighted binaries do not count as expression / speech?

    I guess child pornography only counts as free speech, and everyone can be against that I guess.

  71. Re:pros and cons by ddimas · · Score: 1

    Your post is irrational.
    Evil people will always exist and they will misuse whatever technology is available.
    Evil people are not stupid.
    By refusing to advance your technology you insure the victory of those who wish to destroy you.
    Perhaps you should reconsider.

  72. Solutions are simple-Ignorance is simpler-II by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "It was speculation. If you have a reason why it wouldn't work, why not tell us?

    I know -- it's because you're an asshole. "

    1) I'd rather be an asshole, than take the fall because I thought the law was a bunch of patsys.

    2) There's no point in explaining "why not". No one listens anyway.

    1. Re:Solutions are simple-Ignorance is simpler-II by pclminion · · Score: 1
      1) I'd rather be an asshole, than take the fall because I thought the law was a bunch of patsys.

      Jeez man, take some comprehension classes. My point was that if the DMCA can be used to interfere with law enforcement, then the DMCA is fucked up -- NOT that I've discovered some cool new way for virus writers to cover their asses. Jesus.

    2. Re:Solutions are simple-Ignorance is simpler-II by philovivero · · Score: 1
      My point was that if the DMCA can be used to interfere with law enforcement
      DMCA can't interfere with law enforcement. Law enforcement doesn't follow the same laws as the rest of us do. They can speed to catch you. They can shoot an unarmed citizen. They can break and enter.

      They can certainly do things the DMCA says a person can't do. Because they're law enforcement.

      This is why you should never trust law enforcement. Because they don't have to follow the same rules as the rest of us. (That isn't to say they aren't useful, only that by default, you shouldn't trust them)
  73. You can still look at network traffic by Kjella · · Score: 1

    You can still look at network traffic and analyze where and when packets are sent and recieved. In a plain network it will be quite obvious where they go, where they "enter" and "exit" the network. There are many countermeasures, like padding/splitting packets to fixed sizes, fake traffic, bucket fallover (mixmaster networks), blending local traffic in where there'd normally be fake traffic etc., but it is far from automatic, nor is it trivial. However, you need to crawl before you can run. These are all fairly sophisticated attacks.

    Kjella

    --
    Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
  74. Re:the problem with Freenet is there is no problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't think any illegal porn is a problem for Freenet. It is too difficult to set up, for one thing... I don't like what people on alcohol do, either. You should know that Alcohol is a big factor in child abuse and household violence - But would bringing back Prohibition be a good thing? Now software piracy- that's something that tech saavy people who are aware of Freenet might want and be tempted by.

  75. of course it is by Agret · · Score: 1

    it lets you download off normal HTTP sites

    --
    Have you metaroderated recently?
  76. Re:pros and cons by mslinux · · Score: 1

    You miss the point entirely. This is designed to hide your location. AIM is not designed to do that. This is like saying, "Register the gun to 5000 people so when someone commits a crime with it they can't be tracked down."

    And you know as well as I do that 90% or more of the people who elect to install this software will do so for illegal reasons.

  77. Can Tor make me an accessory to a felony by winkydink · · Score: 1

    without my knowledge? Sounds like it from a discussion above.

    --

    "I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey

  78. Re:YRO = PIRACY by sfjoe · · Score: 2, Funny

    I swear to God that nearly every article filed under YRO is about some new hip flavor of software that will, inevitably, be used to unlawfully distribute intellectual property.

    One man's pirate is another man's freedom fighter.

    --
    It's simple: I demand prosecution for torture.
  79. Nice program by Laebshade · · Score: 1

    Overall it's a cool app, and has it's purposes, but for everyday surfing it is god-awful slow (since it goes through proxies). And yes, I have RFTA and used the program. No, I'm not new here.

  80. Anonymity Promotes Human Rights: China by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I applaud EFF's support of Tor. It provides a means for free communication from China. Anonymity helps to assure (but not guarantee) the safety of a Tibetan lad tortured and raped by the Chinese as he uses Tor or Tor-like technologies to relay the story of his plight. In this way, we in the West can learn the extent of the suffering of the Tibetan people.

  81. Meh by UnCivil+Liberty · · Score: 1

    I'm disappointed with the EFF, in my opinion the money would have been better spent defending princple in the legal system, not in Java.

    --
    Distributed proteome folding @ WorldCommunityGrid.org
    Team Slashdot - Members:#1 Run Time:#1 Points:#1 Results:#1
    1. Re:Meh by RPoet · · Score: 1

      Tor is written in C.

      --
      "Oppression and harassment is a small price to pay to live in the land of the free." -- Montgomery Burns.
    2. Re:Meh by UnCivil+Liberty · · Score: 1

      My mistake, replace C for Java and the ultimate message is still the same.

      --
      Distributed proteome folding @ WorldCommunityGrid.org
      Team Slashdot - Members:#1 Run Time:#1 Points:#1 Results:#1
    3. Re:Meh by lachlan76 · · Score: 1

      Provided that you live in the US. This kind of thing helps everyone.

  82. Re:not cost effective to track and sue for RIAA et by AstroDrabb · · Score: 1
    Right now, there are hundreds or even thousands of file sharers being sued (or being threatened, or getting letters etc). That threat serves as a real deterrent.
    Actully, if you just look at the number, it is not a real deterrent. Say there is 20 million people on Kazaa (not counting the millions of others on other P2P. The **AA has sued a few thousand. Lets make it an even 10,000 to make the numbers easy to work with. ((10,000 / 20,000,00) * 100) = 0.05%. You have a 0.05% (500th of a percent) chance of being sued! Not very much of a deterrent. You have a higher chance of being bitten by a shark in the Atlantic Ocean down here in Sunny Florida while on vacation then being sued by the **AA.

    I'll take a bet you get bit by a shark over being sued by the **AA any day. : P

    --
    If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land,
    it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. -James Madison
  83. Fuck you by theantix · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    You have systematically misrepresented everything I have said. Asshole.

    As Voltaire said, and I paraphrase here, "I may not like what you say, but I'll support unto my death your right to say it." Ideally, in a truly anonymous system, you DON'T KNOW what traffic is routing through your system. Just as your neighbor can't hear your conversations at the dinner table, you can't hear his.

    Do you not know the difference between ideas and kiddie porn? I am dedicated to supporting the free transmission of _ideas_, including the repugnant idea that you should be able to distribute kiddie porn. But I am not in favour of facilitating child abuse, and that seems to be a logical primary use for this Tor system as the people involved in that are increasingly desperate to avoid detection.

    Don't you get it? I am not interested in trying to control the flow of ideas, no matter how repugnant they are. That is spefically what I want to aid, and I would be willing to donate my bandwidth to support that. But a system to help pedophiles get more porn, I am not willing to donate to. It's not that complicated.

    Your comments are strange - you want people to share (supposedly) copyrighted movies without fear of punishment, but you don't expect them to pay for the bandwidth

    I think that people should be allowed to share movies via P2P, but *I* don't want to donate my money or bandwidth do *their* sharing.

    but why do YOU get to dictate what is and isn't right?

    I get to dictate nothing. I refuse to donate my bandwidth to support child pornography, but would be more than happy to donate bandwidth to support the dissemination of banned ideas. It's my fucking donation, so I can decide if I want to donate it or not. If this project doesn't suit what I am willing to support, I am not dictating to them... I'm simply not going to help them because they don't meet my terms.

    --
    501 Not Implemented
    1. Re:Fuck you by SparklingClearWit · · Score: 1
      Nice comeback. I appreciate your good cheer and fellowship during the Christmas season.

      You keep contradicting yourself, actually - you want to spread ideas, but won't support it. Actually, these are the same ideals the Internet *used* to be founded on.

      And, yeah, bucko, I *do* "get it" -- I'm not advocating kiddie porn. Fool.

      What defines a banned idea, to use your useless phrase? You can't ban an idea. You can limit its distribution. So again, what DEFINES an "banned idea"? Falun Gong? Snuff Films? Speech against a government that a segment finds oppressive? You're starting on the same slope as the regular Internet.

      Anyway - have a Merry Christmas, and I hope your New Year finds you less confrontational!

  84. Re: Cars = Murder by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    I swear to God that every automobile produced in a plant is some hip flavor of human body crushing device that will undoubtably be used to kill children.

  85. i think we're conflating moral and legal arguments by Trepidity · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The grandparent seemed to be insinuating that it's immoral to care only about being associated with child porn, by caring only about being associated with it, not about carrying it at all. The reply was pointing out that if you think it's immoral to carry information blindly, then being a postman is immoral.

  86. Re:Yay! Piracy! by ArcticCelt · · Score: 1
    Sharing directly the binaries... Bad idea.

    Sharing the torrent links that nobody wants to deal with anymore...

    Maybe the perfect medium!

    --

    Yahh, hiii haaaaa! -Major Kong, from Dr. Strangelove
  87. Re:not cost effective to track and sue for RIAA et by adpowers · · Score: 1

    I don't know. Aren't most being settled for $2000 right now? As long they don't spend more than $2000 for each settlement, then they can continue. They aren't doing this for money, they are trying to strike fear in people. As long as they break even or better, then will continue indefinitely.

  88. Re:not cost effective to track and sue for RIAA et by Zwaxy · · Score: 1

    0.05% (500th of a percent)

    0.05% is a 20th of a percent, not a 500th.

  89. Finally! The Promises of ZKS/Freedom Delivered! by Orasis · · Score: 1

    While the tone of this post suggests that Tor is in some way inferior to Freenet, this couldn't be further from the truth. Tor works TODAY and allows you to proxy any SOCKS-compatible application (damn-near every networked app) through the anonymizing network, this includes SSH, e-mail, web browsing, etc.

    Freenet on the other hand is built for transporting bulk data in an anonymous fashion and is thus probably better suited to P2P file sharing - it will be impossible to ever tunnel SSH over Freenet.

  90. Re:Anonymity Promotes Human Rights: China by westlake · · Score: 1
    Anonymity helps to assure (but not guarantee) the safety of a Tibetan lad tortured and raped by the Chinese as he uses Tor or Tor-like technologies to relay the story of his plight. In this way, we in the West can learn the extent of the suffering of the Tibetan people.

    This assumes your Tibetan lad has secure access to the Internet. If all traffic is monitored at the border, the volume of traffic is light, and can be easily traced to it's point of origin, I don't see how you maintain anonymity,

  91. Re:Yay! Piracy! by Jonathan+the+Nerd · · Score: 1

    The Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that pornography is protected speech. So, yes, the network will be used for "protected speech".

    --
    Disclaimer: The opinions expressed are not necessarily my own, as I've not yet had my medication today.
  92. Paypal by panxerox · · Score: 1

    This program is way awsome but beware if you use this to access your paypal account and paypal sees your ip as coming from outside the US your account will be closed and you will lose your money.

    --
    "It's so convenient to have a system where everyone is a criminal" - A. Hitler
    1. Re:Paypal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right, because PayPal is above the law and can anyone's money they want to without due process.

  93. Tor Quickstart on Gentoo by justrob · · Score: 1

    This HOWTO will have you browsing the web anonymously in a few minutes. (No jokes about "Not unless you have to emerge X and Firefox first!")

    It also explains how to get Gaim and other SOCKS enabled network clients to use tor.

  94. Re:not cost effective to track and sue for RIAA et by westlake · · Score: 1
    The trade associations don't have to sue millions, they only have to settle with up-loaders with significant bandwidth, large file libraries, and the most marketable titles. Bonus points if you shut down P2P at a big-ten college or university.

    Sharks are opportunists not statisticians.
    Show them a wound and they will strike without mercy. Never give a sucker an even break.

  95. Re:not cost effective to track and sue for RIAA et by AstroDrabb · · Score: 1

    Hey, why did you have to point that out? : ) Aren't we all allowed to make mistakes? I just finished my crak-pipe right before that post!

    --
    If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land,
    it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. -James Madison
  96. Not what I thought by sycomonkey · · Score: 1

    I saw the name and I thought it had to do with Bittorrent. I saw freenet and my heart skipped. I thought someone had my idea and did something about it. Alas, no.

    My idea, is a marriage of IRC and Freenet, mostly text-based, but completely distributed and anonymous. You could have channels to meet, discuss, and list torrents and moderate them a la suprnova. The moderation would prevent Kazaa like travesties like getting a virus instead of what you wanted. You could shut down individual trackers still, of course, but the torrent distribution system would be impossible to shut down. And since it's mostly text based, it would be much faster than Freenet, I hope. And not in Java.

    But, I don't know how to program. So I can't make it. Someday someone else will have the same idea, I hope.

    --
    --The universe will not be altered by forum threads, even those which are very wry. --Tycho Brahe (Penny Arcade)
  97. common carrier? by westlake · · Score: 1
    If common carrier status doesn't provide a moral defense, then we in the technology field all very evil people

    Tell me how an individual can raise the "common carrier" defense if illegal traffic is being routed through or hosted on his system? I don't think it can be done.

    should WalMart close its doors, because it sells food to anybody, even the bad guys?

    WalMart is pretty much free to close it's doors to anyone it choses, so long as it does not discriminate on the basis of race, sex or religion, physical or mental handicap. If your behavior is suspect, an inconvenience or danger to other patrons, or to the store's image and reputation, you will be quietly but efficiently shown the way out.

    every time someone mentions Freenet on Slashdot, you write an essay equating it with child pornography, then you are...promoting the distribution of child porn on Freenet - you encourage pedophiles..to see what disgusting filth Freenet has to offer, while scaring away the many people who would otherwise use Freenet for legal and moral purposes.

    This argument strikes me as altogether too clever and certainly presents a remarkably discouraging portrait of the Slashdot reader as easily frightened, voyeuristic, pedophilic. I think it must remain within bounds to ask whether Freenet's absolutist position on free speech ultimately cripples the network.

    1. Re:common carrier? by hesiod · · Score: 1

      > This argument strikes me as altogether too clever and certainly presents a remarkably discouraging portrait of the Slashdot reader as easily frightened, voyeuristic, pedophilic.

      This argument strikes me as a clever way of calling anyone who agrees with him a paedophile. A smooth, subtle ad-hominem, IMO. So you have never looked at an accident on the side of the road, or anything gruesome -- otherwise you are just sensationalizing grotesque photos that desensitize peoples' thoughts on death, making them more careless and dangerous. See, I can make shit up too. What if their families were to see photos of their dad's car accident in the paper? THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!! Ban photos from newspapers. And magazines. Ban anything which might make us feel remotely uncomfortable.

      As for voyeuristic... Uh... that's pretty much what ALL porn is. That's the point. Watching people have sex. Unless you are extremely egotistical, a porn star, or otherwise "talented," watching yourself have sex is a rather humbling and/or awkward experience. So yeah, watching others have sex (who know how to make it look good for a camera) is voyeuristic.

      And you say "easily frightened," but you are spreading that fear yourself by making sure everyone who reads this thread equates Freenet with paedophiles. It would be hard for you to argue otherwise because "think of the children," even though you dismissed it as ancillary to your point, was pretty much your only argument presented. That and "anonimity is bad because people can do things without being policed by (a) biased organization(s)." Okay, I added my own bias to it, but it's essentially the same. JUST LIKE YOU ADDED YOUR OWN BIAS TO YOUR INTERPRETATION. Neither one means what we claim it's supposed to mean.

    2. Re:common carrier? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      How can an individual raise the common carrier defense? Simple. Suppose you run a Freenet node, and someone accuses you of hosting illegal files. Ask them to prove it. Assuming the cryptography holds, they cannot. They can't ask you to remove all or part of your cache, because they can't point to any any part of it and say "that's illegal." About the only thing they can prove, and only then by downloading illegal files and noticing parts of them come from your IP adress (commiting crimes just to make you their accomplice), is that illegal content was routed through your computer. But you cannot be expected to stop this, because you have absolutely no way of knowing what you're serving, so you clearly can't selectively refuse to serve illegal content - just as the post office, which doesn't read your mail, can't be expected to filter terrorist communications, or be held accountable when they fail to do so. It is in this sense that an individual can raise the "common carrier" defense.

      Now, it's possible that this defense wouldn't hold. If that were the case, each opereator of a Freenet node could be held equally responsible for anything that happens on the network, because they can't prove they didn't contributed to it. However, for the defense not to hold, the goverment would essentially have to say "You are not allowed to transmit information unless you can vouch for its legality." This would effectively require all ISPs to monitor all communications they facilitate, including absolutely banning any form of encryption, and would also raise significant First Ammendment issues.

  98. Re:Right... (more from Chris @ EFF) by innerFire · · Score: 1

    Hi there again. There are some more misconceptions about the law and the technology that hopefully I can clear up.

    First, I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice. Additionally, the EFF lawyers are preparing a Tor Legal FAQ that might help answer this type of question as well. Keep an eye on the http://tor.eff.org site for updates. (The Legal FAQ will also not be legal advice, but purely informational.)

    Okay. First, if you want to help the Tor project/network but don't want to handle unencrypted content or be the exit node that talks to endpoints, then don't run an exit node. Set your ExitPolicy to "reject *:*".

    Second, a Tor operator, whether the server is in exit or middleman or mode, has no prior knowledge of the content that might pass through the server. Nor should you capture traffic (with e.g. tcpdump) -- doing so might be a violation of U.S. wiretap laws.

    Third, all proxy services, anonymizing and other, are subject to the same issues. Note that Anonymizer.com, AOL, FreeNet, Tor, any given Squid proxy, all have the same content issues. So far, no operators of such services have been sued for providing those services.

    Finally, other posters have stated that ISPs have "common carrier" status and thus are not liable for carrying potentially unlawful content. ISPs enjoy no special common carrier immunities for bits they carry, and have no special defenses against this potential liability that shouldn't also apply to a Tor operator (in the U.S).

  99. DMCA doesn't block the cops by tepples · · Score: 1

    My point is that if the DMCA hampers the execution of law enforcement, then the DMCA is a fucked up law.

    It doesn't. The DMCA, 17 USC 1201, contains an exemption for any circumvention performed as part of legit law enforcement:

    (e) Law Enforcement, Intelligence, and Other Government Activities. - This section does not prohibit any lawfully authorized investigative, protective, information security, or intelligence activity of an officer, agent, or employee of the United States, a State, or a political subdivision of a State, or a person acting pursuant to a contract with the United States, a State, or a political subdivision of a State. For purposes of this subsection, the term "information security" means activities carried out in order to identify and address the vulnerabilities of a government computer, computer system, or computer network.
  100. Re:Yay! Piracy! by joeljkp · · Score: 1

    Are you sure about that? In Miller v. California, the Court said that obscenity is not protected speech, and defined it as such:

    This much has been categorically settled by the Court, that obscene material is unprotected by the First Amendment.

    [...]

    (a) whether "the average person, applying contemporary community standards" would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest, Kois v. Wisconsin, supra, at 230, quoting Roth v. United States, supra, at 489;

    (b) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law; and

    (c) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.


    Since I doubt that much of the pornography one would find on such a service would meet the above tests, it would generally be unprotected speech and subject to restriction by the states. Although the question of states' authority over online transmissions is another matter entirely...

    --
    WeRelate.org - wiki-based genealogy
  101. can you copyright the virus? by westlake · · Score: 1
    Since the author of the virus actually is the owner of the copyright on the viral code, then the encryption should qualify as a copyright protection device under the DMCA. Law enforcement officials who decrypt the virus to reverse engineer it would be in violation of the DMCA

    Let's begin with the most basic question, can you copyright the virus?

    I suspect the argument would meet with the same hostility you would face if you argued for copyright protection of an encrypted blackmail letter, ransom note, forged commercial paper, etc.

    In general there is no way you can give legal cover to an artifact created with criminal intent.

  102. Re:YRO = PIRACY by aminorex · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Indeed, IP "piracy" is the largest civil disobedience movement in history. Larger than the independence movement in India, and larger by far than the civil rights movement of the 1960s in the U.S. Well, it might not be as large as the war for drug freedom, but it's pretty close.

    --
    -I like my women like I like my tea: green-
  103. maybe but it was developed by the US Navy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Though with no corporation backing this project

    Right because Tor was developed for the US Navy, not a corporation and the developer has said in the past that they (the US Navy) hoped that civilian traffic would help drown out their traffic.

    But it is not "cool" (esp. here on /.) to admit that the US Govt, DoD and DoE have backed huge amounts of open source software --- ooh! maybe the guys at LLNL put a backdoor in tcpdump when they developed it to not display certain "govt spy packets" !

    I contend that the US govt has probably put out more lines of FOSS software than any other entity.

  104. Re:Derivitives are owned by the creator by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you make a derivitive file then you do own the copyright. You of course do not own the copyright to the original and are therefore limited from making copies of your derivitive. But you still own copyright to your derivitive, as soon as the copyright on the original expires, you can distribute your derivitive without issue, while others will not be able to make copies of your derivitive until your copyright expires.

    eg: Practically every Disney movie made, in particular Treasure Planet.

    So the solution is to make whatever the legal minimum changes required to classify the work as a derivitive, _then_ "protect" it. You can use the DMCA to protect the work. If they get hold of an unprotected copy however, expect your arse to be sued.

  105. Free-as-in-beer does not make it legal by westlake · · Score: 2, Informative
    b) If someone looks at child porn from Freenet, no child is harmed. Since it's on Freenet, not only has the producer not been paid, he has no way to know that anyone has even seen it. Obviously the act of producing porn can harm children, but I can't think of any reason that anonymously viewing it with Freenet would lead to any further harm. So it's pretty much a victimless crime.

    Free-as-in-beer does not make it legal. The creation, distribution, and possession of child pornography remains criminal even when no money changes hands.

    It doesn't matter if no one downloads your files, you have made the attempt to distribute through a plausible channel and that is enough to hang you.

    "Mere viewing" is not a victimless crime. This is lazy, inexcusable, sloppy, thinking.

    Put yourself in the place of the child, her guardians, her counselors, and ask if you would want still photos and videos of her rape to be broadcast over the net, to circulate for all eternity.

    You haven't considered the possibility that the child might be identifiable and still at risk. You view her anonymously but do nothing to help. Silence gives consent.

    1. Re:Free-as-in-beer does not make it legal by damiam · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Free-as-in-beer does not make it legal.

      I didn't say that. But, ethically speaking, free-as-in-beer is better than giving-money-to-child-abusers.

      Put yourself in the place of the child, her guardians, her counselors, and ask if you would want still photos and videos of her rape to be broadcast over the net

      Of course not. But this is Freenet. 99-to-1 odds the child is never going to know. As such, he/she isn't harmed by their presence.

      You haven't considered the possibility that the child might be identifiable and still at risk. You view her anonymously but do nothing to help

      What exactly would you suggest one do if they saw a child porn pic? Go running to the nearest police station? "Hi, officer, I was browsing child porn and I found this one kid. Can you locate her/him?" Not only is it quite unlikely that the kid (probably in a different country) could be identified, you'd probably wind up in jail in the process.

      I'm not claiming that distributing child porn on Freenet is ethically squeaky-clean. But I can think of a million things that would concern me more about running a Freenet node, such as the potential for illegal activities (such as terrorist plotting) that actually do tangible harm to people.

      --
      It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.
  106. Re:Anonymity Promotes Human Rights: China by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    it's point of origin

    "its".

  107. A real battle ahead. by presidenteloco · · Score: 1

    The future of P2P encrypted, onion-routing, anonymized file sharing services (of which Freenet and TOR are mere initial hints), will probably require such features as truly distributed, anonymous open-source development team (unsueable, and had to assassinate in its entirety,) using distributed, redundant, moving virtual servers to host the code of the P2P app itself. The development on no account should be centered in the US or countries strongly influenced by US legal heavyhandedness. This truly is the new frontier for freedom.

    I look at encrypted, anonymized P2P as the digital equivalent of cash, in the following sense. If cash (anonymous financial transactions, hard to spy on, hard to tax) were being invented now, it would be declared illegal by governments.

    But most of us would rather have a cash system
    available to us, wouldn't we.

    Encrypted anonymized P2P is the same thing, though it doesn't get the grandfathered legality that cash gets.

    This is going to be a battle royal, believe me.
    It wouldn't surprise me if Bush declares that P2P developers are akin to terrorists. They're agin
    us, not fur us. Well it depends on who the us is, don't it. Liberte Egalite Fraternite.

    --

    Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
  108. One good legitimate reason! by stewwy · · Score: 1

    I live in the UK, I want to buy some tunes ( somebody must sometime ;) ) in the UK I am overcharged ( because they can ), If I connect from here to a Continental website for cheaper tunes I can't buy them ( I know there are other ways around this, but this way seems nice and simple) I could with this software as they wouldn't know my true IP address. This must be legal as what they are doing is illegal under The treaty of Rome re free movement of goods and services in the EU

  109. I smell bullshit. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sometimes, government agencies would prefer it if web queries did not show up in the server's logs as coming from a .mil or .gov site.

    Yeah, right, they'd set up a bunch of .mil and .gov nodes and do onion routing between them so the bad guys wouldn't know it was coming from a .gov or .mil node...oh, wait...

    Common sense says they would just get a group of regular old DSL lines and proxy through them.

  110. Freenet is not intended for warezing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    I looked on there for music and movies and the only thing i could see was 'Kill Bill'.
    Then go back to Kazaa and BitTorrent, and let the RIAA/MPAA send you some friendly notices by way of your ISP.

    Freenet is not meant to be a music or movie clearing house, and in fact it doesn't work very well with large files. Freenet is meant to be a way to communicate anonymously. Communication generally takes small amounts of resources. You can compose your dissident newsletter, or your grocery list, or your Jihad manifesto in a few kilobytes. You can fit several entire banned books - or, say, the Diebold incriminating memos - into a megabyte. This is the sort of thing Freenet is truly about, and it works well for that purpose.

    You can get MP3s OK on Freenet, but if you're after a 600+MB file, don't bother. You'd be wasting node storage anyway. Freenet users aren't in it for movies and music, there are plenty of places to get that stuff.
  111. Re:Yay! Piracy! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm sure this network will be used to share protected speech and not copyrighted binaries.

    Piracy is the way to fight back at the four letter organisations that currently are engaged in a witchhunt under the obviously false pretense that filesharing is undermining the industries (sales are way up, despite rampant filesharing). Their methods are so unacceptable and their motivation so hollow that we must fight fire with fire.

    The best way to take them out is to undermine their markets and saturate the world with free copies of everything so that the piracy really begins to cost them serious money. I'm sure a lot of labels/studios will fold as a result of this but they have only themselves and their delusions to thank.

    Afterwards, like the phonix from the ashes, a new business will arise, one that will have the lesson from this firmly in mind: Do not antagonize your customers; if they turn their backs on you, you die.

  112. Re:Yay! Piracy! by Alsee · · Score: 1

    So? Did you have any sort of point?
    Screwdrivers are get used to stab people.

    -

    --
    - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
  113. Child Porn Crusade! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful
    You have made quite a logical case there. But you have not taken it to its logical conclusion.

    The children will forever be at risk until the root and means of Child Pornography is removed.

    Ban Photography! Ban it now!

    "There is no such thing as a legal right to create, possess, or distribute child pornography."

    Such wise words deserve ACTION!

    Write your congressman! Sue Kodak, Sony, and Panasonic into the ground!! If they don't stop making the tools of child pornography then they are complicit in this scheme to expoit our children. They are the evil behind the Multi BILLION dollar enterprise that is Child Pornography.

    Look at how a phone camera corrupted these innocent 16 yr olds. If it were not for the camera insidiously installed on the boys phone, he never would have recorded his consensual 2.37 minute oral session with his girlfriend. It is clear, clear as day, Child pornograpy will exist until the blight of photography is wiped off the face of the earth.

    Some may say that Anonymous Photography is NOT child abuse; it's just photography.

    I say the child might beg to differ, when images of her rape are distributed over the net.

    Please, I beg of you, think of the Children.

  114. I can see the guy's point tho by Lifewish · · Score: 1

    A kiddie porn picture (to continue the much-overused example) does not itself constitute an idea. Neither does a copyrighted movie, on the whole. Most ideas can be transmitted in the form of plaintext. (Any counterexamples?)

    If text were distributable, Falun Gong and anti-government speech would be protected, and anyone who wanted to advocate snuff films could do so with impunity.

    Making it possible to distribute images and movies adds little to this system from the point of view of a civil libertarian. The only case where it would be useful would be things like the videos of civilians being gunned down in Iraq. The downside would be the addition of a massive load increase to the system.

    No system could be proof against transmission of kiddie porn and copyrighted videos, but I don't see any harm in trying. Certainly the attempt doesn't instantly make one not a civil libertarian. Possibly we have different views of what that means?

    --
    For the love of God, please learn to spell "ridiculous"!!!
    1. Re:I can see the guy's point tho by Alsee · · Score: 1

      Most ideas can be transmitted in the form of plaintext. (Any counterexamples?)

      Why sure! I'll just type a few examples in this plaintext slashdot reply box!

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    2. Re:I can see the guy's point tho by SparklingClearWit · · Score: 1

      Very possibly we do have different views. My (attempted) point was that even among the hue and cry for 'free speech', we immediately start putting restrictions on it. There are aspects of free speech that are definitely distateful to some, but you must take the good with the bad, I feel. Thanks for the well-spoken response.

  115. Re:Yay! Piracy! by Qzukk · · Score: 1

    You still need a real tracker. And anyone smart enough to find the torrent file on freenet is going to connect to that tracker and see everyone who's sharing that file, and if they're MPAA, they're still going to sue them all.

    --
    If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
  116. Re:Child Porn Crusade! (please mod up parent) by kiatoa · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Grr. I never have mod points when I *really* need them. The parent is right on. We should ban photography. But why stop there? Ban private meetings where people might exchange reprehensible or dangerous items. Actually I'm sure the Homeland Security is working on it. *sigh*

    --
    90% of the wealth is in 2% of the pockets. Bummer to be in the majority.
  117. I really think you don't get his point by lorcha · · Score: 1
    The difference here is supporting free speech in general vs. actually paying for someone else's free speech. Bandwidth is not free, and he shouldn't have to pay for everyone's speech in order to maintain his "civil libertarian card".

    If you support the idea of you paying for someone else's speech so much, I have some speech of my own. Could you please take out an ad in the New York Times that has my speech on it, paid for at your expense? The content of this comment would be good enough, thanks.

    That's what you're asking the other guy to do. To pay the cost for someone else to distribute his ideas. I see no reason he should have to do that. That other person can pay to have his own ideas distributed.

    --
    "Avoid employing unlucky people - throw half of the pile of CVs in the bin without reading them." -- David Brent
    1. Re:I really think you don't get his point by SparklingClearWit · · Score: 1
      Hmmm. I think perhaps I'm not making myself clear. I'm not asking anyone to pay for someone else's content. The original discourse was in relation to the transmittal of 'banned ideas' over a medium that the original poster didn't agree with.

      The point I attempted to make is that you cannot avoid some distateful uses of any private system. There will always be cruft and detritous that will need to be dealt with.

      Perhaps I didn't understand the original poster's viewpoint. I'll print it and attempt to better see his viewpoint, instead of a coarse "fuck you" like he threw at me.

      Merry Christmas!

  118. I think they'll be ok... by lorcha · · Score: 1

    as long as they don't try to start publishing science fiction books under the Tor name.

    --
    "Avoid employing unlucky people - throw half of the pile of CVs in the bin without reading them." -- David Brent
  119. Better dump OOo, then. by lorcha · · Score: 1
    --
    "Avoid employing unlucky people - throw half of the pile of CVs in the bin without reading them." -- David Brent
  120. conceptual bug by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    just got email re: usenet spam via my tor proxy thence google groups. sorry guys but no resources here to deal with this crap and no time to generate a reasonable white list so I shut it down.