9 ms·

The Tor project took a political stance a few years ago for no discernible reason at all. To me, Tor is a software project that runs a network that allows user

by vadfa 5y ago

The Tor project took a political stance a few years ago for no discernible reason at all. To me, Tor is a software project that runs a network that allows users to be anonymous. Period. That anonimity can be used for good or evil, and everybody has a different sense of good or evil. Rebranding the project as a way to spread western liberal values is, in my opinion, overstepping the boundaries of what a software project should be. (One can see an analogy between this change and the changes Mozilla took with their software. Unfortunately, there's no "better alternative" to Tor like there is to Firefox)

ben_w 5y ago
I think Tor has to demonstrate that such values are what the project protects in order to stop it being blocked[0] as a tool for criminals. [0] And/or the developers arrested: I’m so not a lawyer that I wouldn’t know even if I tried to read the actual statutes if that response was even possible in the USA
raxxorrax 5y ago
I dislike some of the things we heard from the project and the drama surrounding some parts of the community. But I also don't believe this statement is overly political. If it were, western liberal values are indeed superior to any alternatives having a different perspective on this. Granted, such a project was founded in a country with such values, so why not live by it?
austincheney 5y ago
Worse, by taking this position Tor has no idea what privacy is. Privacy is not anonymity. Anonymity is the right to remain hidden independently of your communications. Privacy is the right to prevent disclosure. If third parties can access your correspondence you have no privacy regardless of your anonymity. If anybody can assert your identity you have no anonymity regardless of your correspondence, if any. The inability to separately define these terms sacrifices them both.
- anonypla 5y ago
  My take is: Privacy is when people know who you are but not what you are doing. Anonymity is when people know what you are doing but not who you are (some people will argue this is pseudonymity but I disagree with them in a practical context). Basically Batman is "anonymous" and Bruce Wayne is "private".
  - LocalH 5y ago
    There is also a difference between truly anonymous (where no connecting identity is established between different events) and what I'll call a form of pseudonymity (where an identity is constructed, with or without a known connection to one or more real identities, and that identity builds its own reputation). I do not consider Batman "anonymous" unless he does something without revealing that it was Batman who did it. Batman is pseudonymous, simply because "he" is a known identity, whoever may ever be behind it at any given time.
- funklute 5y ago
  > Tor has no idea what privacy is This is unnecessarily inflammatory, and just makes it sound like "Tor doesn't see things as I do and therefore they are dumb". Practically speaking, the question of privacy largely disappears if you are anonymous. The two terms are not orthogonal, even if they are also not identical.
  - beardyw 5y ago
    I think the point being made is that Tor is using the word privacy here where anonymity would be, in their case, much more correct. My view is that privacy gives them a better emotive spin (as witnessed elsewhere here). "Anonymity is a human right" is much more likely to be questioned.
  - austincheney 5y ago
    I would say the terms are mutually exclusive only because there is no expectation of privacy where a party is anonymous. This is reinforced against online communications in a very practical application by presence of digital certificates.
aiilns 5y ago
To me this sounds completely bizarre. Why should a software project be apolitical and without values? Tools like Tor or a web browser are not equivalent to a screwdriver or a knife. Google chrome is the way it is because Google does value money and power above people's privacy. The Macbook is not easily repairable because of Apple's values. Tools do not exist in a vacuum, everything we do is political whether we like it it not. That's what political means, it amazes me how the meaning has been altered, especially in the US.
- vadfa 5y ago
  >Tools like Tor or a web browser are not equivalent to a screwdriver or a knife. Only that they are. Tor is a software project that allows you to stay anonymous. You can use it to buy drugs, you can use it to whistleblow, you can use it to post intimate pictures of someone online, you can use it to circumvent the censorship of your government, you can use it to troll in forums. It's just a tool like a pen. Is a pen a political tool because you can use it to write the Mein Kampf? >Tools do not exist in a vacuum, everything we do is political whether we like it it not. It's precisely this attitude that is ruining the discourse in the west.
  - notafraudster 5y ago
    A pen maker is just as entitled (and socially obligated, in my opinion) to reflect on the uses of his tool as a software developer is, just as all tool makers are. Some tools are exclusively used for ill, some primarily used for ill, some dual-use, some designed for good and sometimes used for ill, some overwhelmingly good with occasional abuses. Opiates are a tool, and the moral calculus of being involved in their industrial production differs from the production of pens. Guns are a tool, and the moral calculus of being involved in their industrial production differs from the production of pens. Some things are designed for apolitical reasons, and yet a politics emerges around their use. The Tiki Torch guys didn't build their product to be political, and yet when they saw their product used in political images in Charlottesville, they felt the need to restate their values, and acknowledged that their product had become enmeshed in politics. That's how things work. Even the parent comment doesn't draw the distinction fully enough. Knives overwhelmingly serve a prosocial purpose, humans have an almost infinite need to cut objects, especially as it relates to food production. But the use of knives in the context of interpersonal violence does merit reflection, product updates, and an expression of values. I think knife companies should and likely do reflect on the full set of uses of knives. None of this prescribes an answer to any given question, I am not the kind of person who thinks that someone should be forced to declare a particular thing. But your insistence that the process of the question itself is "ruining discourse in the west" is not a very thoughtful take. If the makers of Tor have considered the myriad ways in which their tools are used and want to support some ways, disavow others, and design for or against others, I think that's great, and hardly ruining anything.
medo-bear 5y ago
can you explain why you think right to privacy and anonymity is a western liberal idea ? especially so since so many western liberal governments are adopting very harsh laws against privacy and anonymity i would argue that it is simply a fundamental idea but sadly still a radical one, regardless on which part of the world you find yourself on EDIT: by 'fundamental' i mean simply in the sense that the sentence, 'it is none of your business what i am thinking about', is fundamenal
- mellavora 5y ago
  It is a western liberal idea because it is clearly laid out in the founding philosophical texts which were written in the west (thus western) and which provide the theoretical definition for the term 'liberal society'. Examples include Hobbes, Locke ( all persons are endowed with natural rights to life, liberty, and property), the US' founding fathers writings and debates, the French national motto of Liberté, égalité, fraternité, ... You are correct that many/all western liberal governments are adopting very harsh laws contrary to these principles. This does indeed call into question if these are still liberal democracies/republics. It is the sad state of man that very few social structures are able to adhere to the principles on which they are founded.
  - medo-bear 5y ago
    > It is a western liberal idea because it is clearly laid out in the founding philosophical texts which were written in the west i completely agree with this. however i think that today the phrase 'western liberal' is taken to mean as policies coming from brussels/washington, instead of ideas coming from the enlightenment period it is also hard to divide judicial adoption of 'right to privacy' according to geography and political systems. for example, australia does not legally recognize the 'right to privacy' while russia does [0]. also curiously, as somewhat of an aside point, i just tried to find data retention laws in russia and this is best i could come up with: "The Law on Personal Data simply provides that personal data should not be kept/processed for a longer period than is necessary for the purpose for which it is processed (unless longer processing and, in particular, retention periods are mandated by Russian law or by agreement of the data subject)."[1] Of course this opens up the possibility for government mandated retenition, but do these laws exist? i would find it very surprising if they do not. does anyone here know? i am talking about written laws, not corruption or rule-of-law factors [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_privacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_privacy [1] https://www.dataguidance.com/notes/russia-data-protection-overview https://www.dataguidance.com/notes/russia-data-protection-ov...
rpmisms 5y ago
Tor is a tool that enables privacy. It makes sense that its creators would believe in privacy. Would you expect a gun manufacturer to be apolitical, or would you expect them to support the right to self-defense?

by vadfa 5y ago

ben_w 5y ago

I think Tor has to demonstrate that such values are what the project protects in order to stop it being blocked[0] as a tool for criminals. [0] And/or the developers arrested: I’m so not a lawyer that I wouldn’t know even if I tried to read the actual statutes if that response was even possible in the USA

raxxorrax 5y ago

I dislike some of the things we heard from the project and the drama surrounding some parts of the community. But I also don't believe this statement is overly political. If it were, western liberal values are indeed superior to any alternatives having a different perspective on this. Granted, such a project was founded in a country with such values, so why not live by it?

austincheney 5y ago

Worse, by taking this position Tor has no idea what privacy is. Privacy is not anonymity. Anonymity is the right to remain hidden independently of your communications. Privacy is the right to prevent disclosure. If third parties can access your correspondence you have no privacy regardless of your anonymity. If anybody can assert your identity you have no anonymity regardless of your correspondence, if any. The inability to separately define these terms sacrifices them both.

anonypla 5y ago
My take is: Privacy is when people know who you are but not what you are doing. Anonymity is when people know what you are doing but not who you are (some people will argue this is pseudonymity but I disagree with them in a practical context). Basically Batman is "anonymous" and Bruce Wayne is "private".
- LocalH 5y ago
  There is also a difference between truly anonymous (where no connecting identity is established between different events) and what I'll call a form of pseudonymity (where an identity is constructed, with or without a known connection to one or more real identities, and that identity builds its own reputation). I do not consider Batman "anonymous" unless he does something without revealing that it was Batman who did it. Batman is pseudonymous, simply because "he" is a known identity, whoever may ever be behind it at any given time.
funklute 5y ago
> Tor has no idea what privacy is This is unnecessarily inflammatory, and just makes it sound like "Tor doesn't see things as I do and therefore they are dumb". Practically speaking, the question of privacy largely disappears if you are anonymous. The two terms are not orthogonal, even if they are also not identical.
- beardyw 5y ago
  I think the point being made is that Tor is using the word privacy here where anonymity would be, in their case, much more correct. My view is that privacy gives them a better emotive spin (as witnessed elsewhere here). "Anonymity is a human right" is much more likely to be questioned.
- austincheney 5y ago
  I would say the terms are mutually exclusive only because there is no expectation of privacy where a party is anonymous. This is reinforced against online communications in a very practical application by presence of digital certificates.

aiilns 5y ago

To me this sounds completely bizarre. Why should a software project be apolitical and without values? Tools like Tor or a web browser are not equivalent to a screwdriver or a knife. Google chrome is the way it is because Google does value money and power above people's privacy. The Macbook is not easily repairable because of Apple's values. Tools do not exist in a vacuum, everything we do is political whether we like it it not. That's what political means, it amazes me how the meaning has been altered, especially in the US.

vadfa 5y ago
>Tools like Tor or a web browser are not equivalent to a screwdriver or a knife. Only that they are. Tor is a software project that allows you to stay anonymous. You can use it to buy drugs, you can use it to whistleblow, you can use it to post intimate pictures of someone online, you can use it to circumvent the censorship of your government, you can use it to troll in forums. It's just a tool like a pen. Is a pen a political tool because you can use it to write the Mein Kampf? >Tools do not exist in a vacuum, everything we do is political whether we like it it not. It's precisely this attitude that is ruining the discourse in the west.
- notafraudster 5y ago
  A pen maker is just as entitled (and socially obligated, in my opinion) to reflect on the uses of his tool as a software developer is, just as all tool makers are. Some tools are exclusively used for ill, some primarily used for ill, some dual-use, some designed for good and sometimes used for ill, some overwhelmingly good with occasional abuses. Opiates are a tool, and the moral calculus of being involved in their industrial production differs from the production of pens. Guns are a tool, and the moral calculus of being involved in their industrial production differs from the production of pens. Some things are designed for apolitical reasons, and yet a politics emerges around their use. The Tiki Torch guys didn't build their product to be political, and yet when they saw their product used in political images in Charlottesville, they felt the need to restate their values, and acknowledged that their product had become enmeshed in politics. That's how things work. Even the parent comment doesn't draw the distinction fully enough. Knives overwhelmingly serve a prosocial purpose, humans have an almost infinite need to cut objects, especially as it relates to food production. But the use of knives in the context of interpersonal violence does merit reflection, product updates, and an expression of values. I think knife companies should and likely do reflect on the full set of uses of knives. None of this prescribes an answer to any given question, I am not the kind of person who thinks that someone should be forced to declare a particular thing. But your insistence that the process of the question itself is "ruining discourse in the west" is not a very thoughtful take. If the makers of Tor have considered the myriad ways in which their tools are used and want to support some ways, disavow others, and design for or against others, I think that's great, and hardly ruining anything.

medo-bear 5y ago

can you explain why you think right to privacy and anonymity is a western liberal idea ? especially so since so many western liberal governments are adopting very harsh laws against privacy and anonymity i would argue that it is simply a fundamental idea but sadly still a radical one, regardless on which part of the world you find yourself on EDIT: by 'fundamental' i mean simply in the sense that the sentence, 'it is none of your business what i am thinking about', is fundamenal

mellavora 5y ago
It is a western liberal idea because it is clearly laid out in the founding philosophical texts which were written in the west (thus western) and which provide the theoretical definition for the term 'liberal society'. Examples include Hobbes, Locke ( all persons are endowed with natural rights to life, liberty, and property), the US' founding fathers writings and debates, the French national motto of Liberté, égalité, fraternité, ... You are correct that many/all western liberal governments are adopting very harsh laws contrary to these principles. This does indeed call into question if these are still liberal democracies/republics. It is the sad state of man that very few social structures are able to adhere to the principles on which they are founded.
- medo-bear 5y ago
  > It is a western liberal idea because it is clearly laid out in the founding philosophical texts which were written in the west i completely agree with this. however i think that today the phrase 'western liberal' is taken to mean as policies coming from brussels/washington, instead of ideas coming from the enlightenment period it is also hard to divide judicial adoption of 'right to privacy' according to geography and political systems. for example, australia does not legally recognize the 'right to privacy' while russia does [0]. also curiously, as somewhat of an aside point, i just tried to find data retention laws in russia and this is best i could come up with: "The Law on Personal Data simply provides that personal data should not be kept/processed for a longer period than is necessary for the purpose for which it is processed (unless longer processing and, in particular, retention periods are mandated by Russian law or by agreement of the data subject)."[1] Of course this opens up the possibility for government mandated retenition, but do these laws exist? i would find it very surprising if they do not. does anyone here know? i am talking about written laws, not corruption or rule-of-law factors [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_privacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_privacy [1] https://www.dataguidance.com/notes/russia-data-protection-overview https://www.dataguidance.com/notes/russia-data-protection-ov...

rpmisms 5y ago

Tor is a tool that enables privacy. It makes sense that its creators would believe in privacy. Would you expect a gun manufacturer to be apolitical, or would you expect them to support the right to self-defense?