[tor-talk] "If you have access to certain tools, you can completely ignore Tor."

Andrew Lewman andrew at torproject.org
Tue Dec 20 04:59:14 UTC 2011

On Sun, 18 Dec 2011 21:02:37 -0600
Joe Btfsplk <joebtfsplk at gmx.com> wrote:
> Even if partly true, this is one reason I don't understand why TBB
> has default settings to allow all cookies, seeing as how its main
> goal is anonymity.  Devs are very concerned about not writing
> anything to cache, but not concerned about cookies.

There's a constant set of tradeoffs between usability and privacy. I
think we should be erring more on the side of caution. The current
design of Torbrowser is here,

3rd party cookies are not enabled by default. There's also some work on
minimal noscript changes that won't break the web for 99% of the users,

> Under current US & other nations' laws, it's possible that gov'ts
> have already forced developers of any software -  incl. Tor - to put
> in backdoors.  And in fact, say it's illegal for the devs of any
> software to outright disclose such. 

https://www.torproject.org/docs/faq.html.en#Backdoor. If we're forced
to put one in someday, we'll make it obvious and loud that it is so.
The world will be in a sad state if this comes true. A forced backdoor
in Tor will be the least of your problems.

> I don't know that it has happened w/ Tor, but it certainly has in
> other cases.  If you want true anonymity, don't use the internet,

I parse this as the 'abstinence model of Internets'. It doesn't work for
sex education, addictive substances, and it's unlikely to work for
anyone in a modern society. We need a better answer than 'all or
nothing'. We're trying to make Tor one of these better answers.

pgp 0x74ED336B

More information about the tor-talk mailing list