[tor-talk] New Tool Keeps Censors in the Dark - mentions Tor.

[Jimmy Richardson]

On 8/6/2011 7:43 PM, Joe Btfsplk wrote:
> On 8/5/2011 4:42 PM, Martin Fick wrote:
>> --- On Fri, 8/5/11, 
>> bertagaz at ptitcanardnoir.org<bertagaz at ptitcanardnoir.org>  wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>    http://www.technologyreview.com/communications/38207/?p1=A1
>>>>>>> It's worth reading the paper:
>> I think that simply getting high profile sites to run to r
>> nodes would be more likely and less invasive to the internet
>> as a whole.  If google were to simply run a bunch of
>> bridges, or even known tor entry nodes, that would likely
>> be more reliable and be less pie in the sky.

This won't work well seeing Google is already kicked out of China. The 
censors would not hesitate to block a few high profile sites, they 
actually want this to happen so that they can replace the high profile 
sites with their own copycat sites like the Baidu search engine in 
China. This is where Telex gets it right: You have to force the censor 
to choose between full internet or no internet, a few sites just won't 
cut it.

>>
>> If you compare the advocacy it would take to get enough
>> ISPs to implement this scheme versus the advocacy to get
>> a few high profile (can't live without them) sites to run
>> tor nodes, I suspect the latter would be much easier.
>>
>> -Martin
> You lost me at "If google were to..."  Google & privacy is the 
> definition of an oxymoron.  They're way down the list of organizations 
> many users would want having any role in some anonymity endeavor.

This is not about privacy, it's about anti-censorship, and Google is a 
good resource in terms of anti-censorship.

> _______________________________________________
> tor-talk mailing list
> tor-talk at lists.torproject.org
> https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk
>