5 ms·

There are some interesting points here, but the article misses one very, very important constituency (from the President's point of view, at least): the intelli

There are some interesting points here, but the article misses one very, very important constituency (from the President's point of view, at least): the intelligence community. If the law remains as is and outlaws Tor, Obama will have the head of every intelligence agency in his office telling him to veto the bill or put the nation at risk. If the law is amended to allow Tor (as was attempted) and then passes, then how long before Tor becomes a household name?

kabdib 15y ago
Is Tor really that important?
- jballanc 15y ago
  The project was originally started by the Office of Naval Research. Really, it's the perfect vehicle for electronic espionage: hide your tracks as an intelligence agent on an anonymity network primarily occupied by ordinary citizens. More details here: https://www.torproject.org/about/torusers.html.en#military https://www.torproject.org/about/torusers.html.en#military
- flueedo 15y ago
  I think not only Tor, but many other encryption/anonymizing tools will face risk of being outlawed. I can imagine many situations in which the work of intelligence agencies will become more difficult. Along with that a conundrum will be created, since such tools are used by Chinese citizens to bypass their governmental firewalls, by people in the middle east to bypass similar types of blockages among others, etc.
nl 15y ago
Tor just isn't that important. It was a comparatively minor project from a minor agency where it is no longer developed. Not only that, but Tor is too closely associated with the seedier sides of the internet for any elected politician to stand up for it specifically. Thinking that the President will override a bill because of a minor thing like Tor is grasping at straws.
- scythe 15y ago
  Well, he wouldn't ever publicly say he's vetoing it to protect Tor -- that would be political suicide, due to all of the CP thereon -- but he might still veto it for that reason, and claim another, cf. Iraq War.
  - nl 15y ago
    I'm getting a bit frustrated here. Obama's not going to veto SOPA based on a (borderline) argument that it makes a tool which might be used by intelligence agencies, in some possible circumstances possibly illegal. The argument that it needs lots of non-agency uses to hide traffic is plainly nonsense. If an intelligence agent (or subversive citizen) is using it in a country where it is banned they are going to be in trouble no matter if it is illegal in the US or not. If it was a concern for US intelligence agencies (which I don't concede it is at all) then that can easily handle it themselves - they get an executive order allowing them to run exit nodes and then what they are doing is legal. Even by the borderline argument that Tor could be illegal under SOPA would only make it a problem for people running exit nodes - use by the general population. I doubt any intelligence agency would complain about being ordered to run a Tor exit node - I think they would love it. I find it bizarre that people are even talking about this, when in the same source article where this was first raised it said the following: "Browsers implementing DNSSEC will have to circumvent and bypass criminal blocking, and in the process, they will also circumvent and bypass SOPA orders." A successful injunction from the attorney general, Baker said, would shut down all shipments of a Web browser "until it's been revised to the satisfaction of his staff and their advisers in Hollywood."[1] The US federal government provided funding to develop and deploy DNSSEC[2], too, and that is also useful for dissidents overseas. It also helps secure communications for billions (if not trillions) of dollars in ecommerce transaction. If that is ignored, do you really think Tor is going to get the bill vetoed? [1] http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-57346592-281/how-sopas-circumvention-ban-could-put-a-target-on-tor/ http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-57346592-281/how-sopas-cir... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domain_Name_System_Security_Extensions#DNSSEC_deployment_initiative_by_the_U.S._federal_government http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domain_Name_System_Security_Ext...
RexRollman 15y ago
I wish you were right but I really don't think Tor would stop the bill. I personally expect that SOPA will eventually pass and then portions of it will get struck down as unconstitutional.
- uxp 15y ago
  > and then portions of it will get struck down as unconstitutional. This is still a problem. How long has it been since the PATRIOT Act was signed into law (Oct 26, 2001) and how many of it's 325 amendments and 9 additions have been repealed due to judicial decisions noting that they are against the rights granted to US citizens under the constitution or bill of rights?

kabdib 15y ago

Is Tor really that important?

jballanc 15y ago
The project was originally started by the Office of Naval Research. Really, it's the perfect vehicle for electronic espionage: hide your tracks as an intelligence agent on an anonymity network primarily occupied by ordinary citizens. More details here: https://www.torproject.org/about/torusers.html.en#military https://www.torproject.org/about/torusers.html.en#military
flueedo 15y ago
I think not only Tor, but many other encryption/anonymizing tools will face risk of being outlawed. I can imagine many situations in which the work of intelligence agencies will become more difficult. Along with that a conundrum will be created, since such tools are used by Chinese citizens to bypass their governmental firewalls, by people in the middle east to bypass similar types of blockages among others, etc.

nl 15y ago

Tor just isn't that important. It was a comparatively minor project from a minor agency where it is no longer developed. Not only that, but Tor is too closely associated with the seedier sides of the internet for any elected politician to stand up for it specifically. Thinking that the President will override a bill because of a minor thing like Tor is grasping at straws.

scythe 15y ago
Well, he wouldn't ever publicly say he's vetoing it to protect Tor -- that would be political suicide, due to all of the CP thereon -- but he might still veto it for that reason, and claim another, cf. Iraq War.
- nl 15y ago
  I'm getting a bit frustrated here. Obama's not going to veto SOPA based on a (borderline) argument that it makes a tool which might be used by intelligence agencies, in some possible circumstances possibly illegal. The argument that it needs lots of non-agency uses to hide traffic is plainly nonsense. If an intelligence agent (or subversive citizen) is using it in a country where it is banned they are going to be in trouble no matter if it is illegal in the US or not. If it was a concern for US intelligence agencies (which I don't concede it is at all) then that can easily handle it themselves - they get an executive order allowing them to run exit nodes and then what they are doing is legal. Even by the borderline argument that Tor could be illegal under SOPA would only make it a problem for people running exit nodes - use by the general population. I doubt any intelligence agency would complain about being ordered to run a Tor exit node - I think they would love it. I find it bizarre that people are even talking about this, when in the same source article where this was first raised it said the following: "Browsers implementing DNSSEC will have to circumvent and bypass criminal blocking, and in the process, they will also circumvent and bypass SOPA orders." A successful injunction from the attorney general, Baker said, would shut down all shipments of a Web browser "until it's been revised to the satisfaction of his staff and their advisers in Hollywood."[1] The US federal government provided funding to develop and deploy DNSSEC[2], too, and that is also useful for dissidents overseas. It also helps secure communications for billions (if not trillions) of dollars in ecommerce transaction. If that is ignored, do you really think Tor is going to get the bill vetoed? [1] http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-57346592-281/how-sopas-circumvention-ban-could-put-a-target-on-tor/ http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-57346592-281/how-sopas-cir... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domain_Name_System_Security_Extensions#DNSSEC_deployment_initiative_by_the_U.S._federal_government http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domain_Name_System_Security_Ext...

RexRollman 15y ago

I wish you were right but I really don't think Tor would stop the bill. I personally expect that SOPA will eventually pass and then portions of it will get struck down as unconstitutional.

uxp 15y ago
> and then portions of it will get struck down as unconstitutional. This is still a problem. How long has it been since the PATRIOT Act was signed into law (Oct 26, 2001) and how many of it's 325 amendments and 9 additions have been repealed due to judicial decisions noting that they are against the rights granted to US citizens under the constitution or bill of rights?