On Sat, May 04, 2013 at 12:54:35PM -0700, Mike Perry wrote: | > I think this might be the right direction. The person running Tor | > knows two things: if they're worried about someone monitoring their | > network right now, and how technical they are (and their desire to tweak | > settings). | > | > The UI could thus start: | > | > "Should Tor do our best to figure out how to get connected, at risk of | > drawing attention and response if you're on a heavily-monitored | > network?" | > | > [I need to be careful, I'll configure things (Recommended) ] | > | > [ Probe the network (Riskier) ] | > | > [ I'm not sure, please help me decide] | | I like this direction. I think it can capture all of our concerns. | | Right now, "Probe the network" would just mean "Try the public network". | Later, it can mean more extensive probing (of perhaps a selected subset) | of pluggable transports. At that point, we could break it out into "My | Internet connection is not censored or filtered" and "I am censored: | Probe some common circumvention mechanisms for me (Risky)" | | That would capture Naif's request of having a one-click option that | allows people to just connect to the public network if that works for | them (which is still the lion's share of our userbase), and has an | explicit option to help people through any confusion. | | I think we're getting closer!
What else does it need?
Btw, th framework I used is the NEAT/SPRUCE approach to usable warnings, described here:
http://blogs.msdn.com/cfs-file.ashx/__key/communityserver-components-postatt...