[tor-talk] anonabox : the Tor hardware router

[Mirimir]

On 11/12/2014 01:13 PM, Shawn Nock wrote:
> If all users use Tor only for sensitive communications, then state
> level adversaries can round up all users of Tor and the provided
> anonymity is of little use.

That's true. But there is a sense in which Tor should be used
selectively: It's counterproductive to use Tor when identity and
geolocation are desired and/or essential. If my bank, for example, sees
Tor IPs, it might freeze my account. And that's a _good_ thing.

That's why anonabox is so dangerous, even if there were no security
holes. Guaranteed hardware-based Tor connectivity is great, for those
who know where, when and how to use it. But providing that to users who
don't understand the situation is dangerous. And doing it via WiFi,
which is virtually unsecurable, is even worse.

> Cat photos and Amazon shopping by non-subversives gives vulnerable
> users cover and is fundimental to the usefulness of Tor.

Cat photos, yes :) But Amazon shopping, maybe not so much.

> Should entities encouraging heavy routine use of Tor contribute
> relays? Absolutely.

Well, I gather that there's currently a surplus of non-exit relays and
bandwidth. So specifically they should contribute exit relays. That's
not so easy, however, and there's far too little support for it from the
Tor Project, in my (albeit limited) experience.

> On November 12, 2014 12:40:06 PM MST, Denise's Yahoo Acct
> <unixgrl70 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>> I agree!  Tor should be used selectively because of bandwidth.
>> The number of tor users is going up, which is great, but as the
>> number of users increase so does the burden on the tor net.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On Nov 12, 2014, at 1:59 PM, Andrew F
>>> <andrewfriedman101 at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Great, so now ALL traffic from a user of this product will be on 
>>> TOR?  Amazon, Facebook, looking at cute cat videos.... Have they
>>> have they set aside a few dollars of profit  to host
>> servers to
>>> match bandwidth demand?
>>> 
>>> You see my point?  Right.  Tor should be used selectively.
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> On Wednesday, November 12, 2014, grarpamp <grarpamp at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 9:27 AM, Aymeric Vitte
>> <vitteaymeric at gmail.com
>>>> <javascript:;>> wrote:
>>>>>> I was wondering when this would happen.  Any idea if this
>>>>>> is from
>> the
>>>>>> guys who put together the box or just some random dude?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> If they want to make a good image for themselves, I'm not
>>>>>> sure
>> that just
>>>>>> copy/pasting their text from Indigogo onto this mailing
>>>>>> list is
>> the best
>>>>>> way to go about it...
>>>>> 
>>>>> I don't think there is any "hazard" in what they are doing,
>>>>> but
>> probably
>>>>> they don't feel they sould expose themselves to this list
>>>>> since
>> they
>>>> explain
>>>>> that they are already very well connected to the Tor
>>>>> community:
>>>>> 
>>>>> "He also volunteers for the Tor support forum the Tor Stack
>> Exchange,
>>>> and is
>>>>> an admin for the official Tor project discussion page on
>>>>> LinkedIn."
>>>>> 
>>>>> Still amazed that some blogers are recommending this,
>>>>> apparently
>> they
>>>>> promise to send them a box.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Seriously when will these guys be stopped? They have lied
>>>>> enough,
>> the Tor
>>>>> project should say something (or are you really connected to
>>>>> them
>> as they
>>>>> claim?)
>>>> 
>>>> https://web.archive.org/web/20140516233302/http://augustgermar.com/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 
There appears to be a few tech support lines for this product
>>>> and any official-admin-ness issues. -- tor-talk mailing list -
>>>> tor-talk at lists.torproject.org <javascript:;> To unsubscribe or
>>>> change other settings go to 
>>>> https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk
>>> -- tor-talk mailing list - tor-talk at lists.torproject.org To
>>> unsubscribe or change other settings go to 
>>> https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk
>