nanog mailing list archives
Re: tor
From: Aaron Porter <atporter () gmail com>
Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 08:37:58 -0700
On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 8:50 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian<ops.lists () gmail com> wrote:
Running what's effectively an anonymous open proxy is not a bright idea, even if there's security bundled on.. John Gilmore found that out after Verio disconnected his perpetual open relay for example .. and TOR is just as nutty a concept. Nothing less that I'd expect from the EFF, frankly speaking - but clued people (and you are clued, for sure) shouldnt be running it.
Would you feel better if instead of "Tor" it was called "Crowds" and instead of those rapscallions at the EFF it was a nice respectable AT&T Research project from Avi Ruben? I bet I still have my "Anonymity Loves Company" shirt somewhere... Anonymous speech is a vital concept if you expect Free speech. http://avirubin.com/crowds.pdf
Current thread:
- Re: tor, (continued)
- Re: tor Jack Bates (Jun 25)
- RE: [SPAM-HEADER] - Re: tor - Email has different SMTP TO: and MIME TO: fields in the email addresses Rod Beck (Jun 25)
- Re: tor Jamon Camisso (Jun 24)
- RE: tor Steve Pirk (Jun 24)
- Re: tor nancyp (Jun 25)
- Message not available
- Re: common carier nancyp (Jun 25)
- Re: tor Randy Bush (Jun 25)
- Re: tor Charles Wyble (Jun 24)