On 09-Nov-08 21:21, Darren New wrote:
> andrel wrote:

>> There isn't anything in there about that and that was my point. Just 


>> above) exploiting this anonymity to commit serious crimes like those 

>> consideration and taken care of in the design of the protocol too, in 
>> one of the most clean and beautiful of ways possible.' That is the 
>> only reference of misuses of the internet anonymity that I could find.
> 
> Huh. I wonder what he meant by that. :-) 

Yeah, me too.

> I certainly don't remember 
> reading anything that would imply there's any content type filtering 
> going on. Again, I think it was more along the lines of "you can deny 
> you know anything about what went through your machine" and "nobody can 
> look at your machine and tell you're forwarding stuff between two 
> terrorists."  Not that terrorsts won't be able to use it, but that it's 
> safe to set up a server of your own.

The only interesting way you could use such a technique to make your 
world a little safer might be to use it to disconnect a group of trusted 
  machines from the rest of the net. Then again, such techniques might 
not be completely new.

>> See above, anyone could provide that 'service' to youtube.
> 
> Right. But that person can then get sued if what they're doing is illegal.

That would only be illegal if using youtube implies signing an EULA that 
you won't carry the stream over to a network using a non IP-protocol. 
Which I doubt is the case.

> 
>> My 'guess' is that it would be used for anything that is not allowed 
>> in the day world and little else. 
> 
> Quite possibly, yes. On the other hand, it may help to reduce the amount 
> of what is "not allowed in the day world." :-)

Not actually, only visibly. Pr0n surfing will continue, but it won't 
show up on your stats at the ISP anymore. Bandwidth is taken anyway.

> Really, it's an interesting approach to the problem, even if it doesn't 
> solve every possible problem, and even if his claims for what it *does* 
> solve are easy to misinterpret to mean more than he actually sovles.
> 
>> I said I knew it was leaky already. The point is that I don't want any 
>> physician to regularly use a tunnel because the technology is so 
>> abundant that you don't know you are doing it. I know how to 
>> compromise the privacy of patients in our hospital, but I know what I 
>> am doing and though about it. So I won't do it. I am deliberately not 
>> using tunnels even though it could make my life a bit easier.
> 
> Yes, I suppose if you have too many layers, figuring out where leaks are 
> can be problematic.
> 
I am more concerned about people with access to privacy information and 
no knowledge of what the consequences could be. Using a tunnel is OK, 
doing it for vital information on a machine that is connected to the 
internet without adequate malware protection or firewall, is not OK.

Post a reply to this message