Deluge Anonymizing Browser Now Includes Bittorrent

markybob writes "An open-source bittorrent client, Deluge, now provides an internal, anonymizing browser to protect its users from overzealous ISPs. The client runs on Windows, Linux and OS X. From the site: "Everyone knows that it is common practice for ISPs to do their best to either block or throttle bittorrent users. We believe that this is wrong and unethical, as there are many legal uses for bittorrent. If an ISP is throttling or blocking bittorrent traffic, you can pretty much bet that they're tracking which users visit bittorrent-related sites so that they can better block or throttle those users." Their forum has more info"

Comments

Ad-supported and whitelisted sites

[SirLurksAlot]

From their FAQ:

Why are there ads? Are you turning evil? This is free software! This is free software, however, our proxy servers (which anonymizies the browsing) costs us very real dollars. Also, if you don't use our internal browser, you'll never see an ad. In the spirit of freedom, I openly disclose that it costs around US$800 per month (with a two-month contract) for us to cover the hosting expenses, which we need to make up for somehow, or else it comes out of my personal pocket. Deluge does not have any corporate sponsorship, and I've actually put up my own money, without knowing if the ad revenue will make up for it or not. Why did I do this? Because I really believe that users need an anonymous method of getting their torrents...and I'm hoping very much that our users agree with me and that the ads make up the cost. If we don't make enough from ads, we'll begin requesting donations. If we still don't make enough, then we'll take down the proxy servers and remove Deluge's internal browser (not to mention cry for being in the hole $1600). The future of this service is in your hands.

Yeah, sorry, I tend not to tolerate ads in my browsing experience, why should I put up with them for torrent downloads? Also, I thought ad-supported p2p programs went away with KaZaa?

and...

Can we use the internal browser to surf any site? No. This is a very touchy subject, so I want to be very clear. Our proxy servers have a whitelist of bittorrent-related sites (trackers, index sites, etc), which it allows you to visit. If you try to go to a bittorrent site that's not on our whitelist, please feel free to submit that site to us and we'll add it within 24hrs. We do not discriminate against *any* bittorrent site and will add them on request. However, we want absolutely nothing to do with anonymizing the traffic of pedophiles, sick people who are trying to google on how to get away murder, or whatever else. We want to protect bittorrent and nothing more.

I think this falls under the categories of "Why should we trust your servers?" and "Whitelists suck."

I say this every time the subject of p2p apps comes up: solutions such as these simply add to the arms race between ISP and file-sharers. In the end this will solve nothing. Instead of attempting to out-tech Big Content there should be a focus on improving consumer rights.

Then again this could be an attempt to to show that ads and donations may be a way to support the distribution of content via BT.

Re:Ad-supported and whitelisted sites

[Tom9729]

Sorry, but did you even read the paragraph you cited? The guy is funding the service out of his own pocket. He needs to have some way to make back at least most of the money he's spending.

This on top of the fact that he's already dedicating his time to writing the software... Geez.

It's worth pointing out that the ads aren't showing up in the actual program. If you don't want to see them, don't use the anonymous browsing service.

Torrents are an anti-slashdotting tool

[mangu]

BitTorrent isn't exactly a firewall-friendly protocol and makes a horrible method of distribution

Let's put it another way: there are some firewall administrators who aren't BitTorrent friendly. If you work in a company that has such a firewall and you have a problem with BitTorrent, you should take it to the IT administration. Oh, wait, perhaps your problem is that the IT people in your company aren't Linux-friendly? Then download at home and bring a CD or DVD to work.

The one big advantage BitTorrent has is that it avoids slashdotting the server. Traffic doesn't concentrate, it has a much gentler effect both on the servers themselves and on the internet backbone as a whole, because you end downloading more from those peers that have more bandwidth.

Re:Legitimate use?

[burris]

I call bullshit, Tony Hoyle has no idea what he is talking about or he is just trolling.

Do you think FTP can saturate your 10 mbit link when its downloading from my FTP server sitting on a 384 kbit up DSL line?

Pay for the things you value

[EmbeddedJanitor]

One of the problems with "Free Software" are the take, take, take folk. Ultimately if you value something you should support it, either financially by direct payment or by recognising that it needs money (eg putting up with ads).

To give you those "free roads" you drive on, the government charges you taxes. To give out free services, charities accept contributions.

I doubt many of the gimme,gimme, free software takers actually develop anything substantial or contribute anything, apart from annoyance.

Perhaps with time people will mature in their outlook and freely contribute better than they do now: "Hey I like service x or software y. Here's $20 to say thanks!". This is not yet happening but perhaps it will one day.

Re:Pay for the things you value

[wrook]

Actually, the take, take, take, gimme, gimme, gimme users provide invaluable benefit to Free software producers. But to understand this, you must understand the economics of Free software development (I will assert that most people, even Free software producers have a difficult time understanding this). With Free software, you *can* make money off of distribution, but really it won't last for long. Eventually, since the cost of distribution is nearly free, someone will undercut you. Instead, you must make money (or better stated, value) out of the software itself.

This can be done in a few ways. First, you can get value from using the software you wrote. Often the value you receive more than offsets the cost of development. If the software is popular and useful, then you can also benefit from forming a consortium with other parties to do development. You each share the costs and share the benefits. People who fund development get a greater say in what gets written (i.e., they write it ;-) ). Examples of this are the Apache software and the Linux kernel.

Second, you can get value from future work on the software. If it is a popular, useful work, then often someone else will be able to receive value from funding you to do some new development. Probably the best example of this is the GCC tool set as it was developed by Cygnus software (google around for Michael Tiemann's description of how to make this work -- it's brilliant.)

Finally, you can gain value (either directly or indirectly) through advertising. Usually (as is the case with this software), the software allows you to connect with a service that gains value from advertising. The best example of this is Mozilla who make nearly $100 million a year from the google search bar in Firefox.

Now, I hope you'll excuse my tangent, I'm finally coming to the point. What all these methods of creating value have in common is that they work best (return the most value) when the software is *popular* and *useful*. Take, take, take, gimme, gimme, gimme people are essential to creating popular and useful software. First, they are often the absolute best sources for ideas. They are so internally focussed (i.e., selfish) that they have a really highly developed sense of what they want. Yes, they are annoying, but if you cut through the annoyance, you find gold. Second, these people are like rats. When one finds a good source of food *all their buddies join in*. This is indispensable for a Free software project.

Now, what I read from the posts above is that these selfish users are not happy with direct advertising on the associated service. This is incredibly useful feedback! It means that there is significant risk involved in the venture. People are not against advertising per se. Take the google search bar in Firefox. I've never heard anyone complain about it. The connection between the google advertising and the search bar is removed enough to appease the user. But I would worry, in this case, that users will not accept the advertising on the associated service.

In the end, cherish your selfish users. They are a PITA, but they are honest and they will spare no expense to tell you what they think. For software projects that don't have budgets for things like user studies, these people will pave the road to success.

Why don't they make peers into proxies?

[Anonymous Coward]

Granted, you'd have to have other, uncensored peers, but it might be nice if compatible clients were willing to proxy for each other.

Of course, it'd have to be a well-written and optional feature. Such code would probably introduce security risks if it were not properly implemented.