[tor-talk] 2 hop mode for people that only want to use Tor for censorship circumvention to conserve bandwidth and decrease latency?

[Joe Btfsplk]

On 6/12/2016 4:32 PM, T F wrote:
> Create an Exit Node on your Own IP Adresse. Now any Traffic that is
> produced on your IP could be done from anyone else. So this could be the
> best case for you. You surf over the IP of an Tor Exit no latency no
> Traffic lost!
> Am 12.06.2016 9:56 nachm. schrieb "gdfg dfgf" <torrio888 at net.hr>:
>
I'm far from an expert, but is this the best idea, in general?
It's been said, don't run an exit node from your own house / computer / 
personal server - for safety reasons (I think).
If they / s/he created an exit node "at home" & allowed other traffic 
thru it, they could be asking for trouble when someone does illegal 
things thru their node & LEAs come knocking (maybe not even knock - do 
they have to knock at least once - these days?)

Or were you (TF) suggesting  s/he blocks all traffic thru the node 
except their own (assuming all they want is encryption)?
I don't think Tor Project would allow that, would they?  Wouldn't think 
they should - defeats the intent & "spirit" of using Tor network, 
doesn't it?

And now for everyone's pleasure, I'd like to present a Novella, "The 
Coder Did / Did Not Do It," based on the fictional character, Bake 
Jpplebaum.  Any resemblance to any person, place or thing, living or 
dead, is purely coincidental.

Seriously, have you ever noticed how "media" stories  appealing to more 
prurient interests generate far more interest & public input than 
stories about say, someone saving a child from burning building?
And if someone - anyone - is convicted of anything in the media before 
the trial begins - front page or lead story, if the person is 
exonerated, rare apologies are often buried deeply or mumbled in the 
last seconds of broadcasts?

And how (many, not all) people tend to believe the worst about most 
accused persons, regardless of the lack of or thinness of evidence, much 
less waiting for any legal process?  An interesting but not necessarily 
admirable human trait.
If the accused is a different race than ourselves, it's often worse.   
Some people see an accused's face on TV (no evidence yet) & say, "Oh 
yeah, you can tell s/he's guilty, just by looking." Wow!  Really?  I 
hope they're not on my jury of "peers" if I'm ever accused.

Everyone knows if after the 1st accuser, several people come forward 
with the sometimes uncannily same story, it must be true - right? If 
several people - adults or 5 yr old children from a day care, all say 
the same thing,  it must be true?  That's a definite... maybe & maybe 
not.  There've been *numerous cases* of "mass eye witness testimonies" 
turning out to be false, for various reasons. No secret.  Many have been 
high profile, but again, when the accused were exonerated, there was 
little fanfare.  Is Jake guilty of anything "criminal?"  DON'T know.  I 
do know that no one deserves to be tried in the Court of Public Rumors & 
Unsubstantiated Statements.  Not Bill Cosby, or rock stars or an inner 
city kid on welfare.

I especially like this quote: "Just because someone says something 
confidently doesn't mean it's true." - Elizabeth Loftus, 
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2014/10/how-reliable-eyewitness-testimony-scientists-weigh

Why would several people, gender aside, come out one after another with 
the same story, if it weren't true?  Several reasons, from what I've 
read & seen from pretty respectable, unbiased researchers & experts 
studying this phenomenon.  All of them except one, have nothing to do 
with the truth.  Sometimes seeking money, fame, notoriety, revenge, a 
chance to write a book or sell movie rights to their story, being 
coached, psychologically manipulated / power of suggestion by 
investigators or police psychologists.  Sure, the publicly accused are 
often guilty (or found so) & sometimes they're proven not guilty  by 
hard evidence - not just hung juries or because of technicalities.

One of more notable mass accuser testimony cases that turned out to be 
false testimony was Kern County, CA child abuse cases. 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kern_County_child_abuse_cases
I remember it.  Other "day care hysteria" cases followed this one. 
Apparently, some 60 small kids testified they'd been abused.  SIXTY 
WITNESSES.  36 or so people were convicted - most spent years  in 
prison, before MOST ALL were overturned.  Apparently the kids had been 
coached (according to appeal courts) & several social workers involved 
had recently attended training that included a popular book on sex abuse 
in satanic rituals.
Again, how can a lot of people giving the same testimony be wrong or 
worse, lying?  Apparently it's not that hard.

The Innocence Project http://www.innocenceproject.org/all-cases/, has 
exonerated a lot of wrongly convicted people that served time, often 
using DNA evidence.  Many others have been exonerated w/o the Project's 
help.  Many of these people were convicted on spoken or eye witness 
testimony of "absolutely positive" witnesses or air tight evidence.  Yet 
years later, DNA evidence showed someone else committed the crime.
Here's a short list of well known wrongful convictions - majority 
exonerated or released after new evidence or trial. 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wrongful_convictions_in_the_United_States

In recent years, many studies seem to show that human eyewitnesses are 
often wrong, even if they sincerely believe they are correct. Many 
convictions based on "credible" eyewitnesses have been overturned, after 
new evidence is discovered, DNA is used, others confess to the crime, 
etc.  Apparently, it's frighteningly easy to be wrongfully convicted, if 
you don't have money for a really good attorney.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/do-the-eyes-have-it/
http://www.apa.org/monitor/apr06/eyewitness.aspx
http://www.simplypsychology.org/eyewitness-testimony.html
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2014/10/how-reliable-eyewitness-testimony-scientists-weigh