3 ms·

Here's what could help - turning all users into (exit) relays. That strategy has worked for torrents very well - all downloaders are also seeders (I think it's

Here's what could help - turning all users into (exit) relays. That strategy has worked for torrents very well - all downloaders are also seeders (I think it's a similar situation). This solves multiple things: 1) makes it much harder to do traffic analysis 2) makes it almost impossible to "go after relays". Sure, they'll still try to arrest some here and there, just like they try to arrest people who torrent movies, and even with the mass copyright laws they couldn't stop piracy. There were just many more who did it, making the hunted down but a tiny percentage. 3) should make the legal defense case even stronger than it is now for relays. You can say today that "you don't know what's happening through your relay", however you still have to choose to become a relay. I think that says something. It may not be a huge case in the prosecutor's favor, but it may convince the judge to be against you in some cases. But if everyone is a relay and you can use the defense that "this is just how Tor/Firefox works", I think that would work a little better 4) should improve speed since relays can't be choked anymore 5) I'm not sure about this one, but I think it should make it much harder to DDoS Tor users/hidden services as well? I think having the way Tor works currently is a design flaw in Tor. Tor should be "fully distributed" in a way. As for the argument "but then no one will use Tor if they are forced to be relays!" - I just don't buy it. I think there may be some that will get scared in the short term, but then see Tor actually gets more secure this way in the long term, and will return. I also believe Tor will get more new users in the long term this way. EDIT: What I'm referring to is turning everyone into exit relays/nodes. My arguments remain the same. If it's not illegal for people to have an exit node in US (as Tor claims [1]), then it shouldn't be illegal for millions to do it either. In fact it could be a sort of stronger civil disobedience thing. Plus, even if it is illegal, so is piracy. That hasn't stopped millions from doing it. Just like "being gay", what's legal and what's illegal is a matter of how we shape our laws. To change those laws, first you need someone to break them and change the society in a different direction. If you didn't have anyone to break a law in a certain direction, then laws would never need to be changed. [1] - https://www.torproject.org/eff/tor-legal-faq.html.en https://www.torproject.org/eff/tor-legal-faq.html.en

stingraycharles 12y ago
The problem is that you do not make the distinction between a regular relay and an exit node. There are enough regular relays in the tor network, but people hesitate running exit nodes because of the legal liabilities: many ISPs do not want you to run a tor exit node, because of the nature of some traffic coming through the tor network (illegal marketplaces, child porn, etc -- as you can read in the article, even Mozilla doesn't want to host exit relays). If you make this the default, you're opening a can of worms legal-wise. If you make only non-exit relays the default, your whole plan defeats its purpose, because then exit nodes remain the weakest link (as they are now).
- pcthrowaway 12y ago
  I agree that it's too crazy for Mozilla to seriously consider it. But, assuming Tor did receive widespread adoption of exit nodes at this scale, the internet would have to adapt to accommodate this many people rerouting other people's traffic. ISPs would encounter the same backlash for throttling or blocking users who run exit nodes as they currently face when doing it to users running Netflix. Unfortunately, it takes mass adoption to force this kind of adaptation, and it's generally an easier fight to maintain venues of freedom than to open new ones. So we have a chicken and egg problem essentially; Mass adoption is necessary to force regulatory and infrastructural accommodation, and that accommodation is necessary to foster mass adoption.
  - Tomte 12y ago
    "The law just has to change to adapt to our new technical ways" ist a common fallacy with techies. And has been working /splendidly/ for decades now. More importantly, letting every of your users out in the rain with his legal problems until you have finally been successful in changing the law is not a recommended way to treat your users.

stingraycharles 12y ago

The problem is that you do not make the distinction between a regular relay and an exit node. There are enough regular relays in the tor network, but people hesitate running exit nodes because of the legal liabilities: many ISPs do not want you to run a tor exit node, because of the nature of some traffic coming through the tor network (illegal marketplaces, child porn, etc -- as you can read in the article, even Mozilla doesn't want to host exit relays). If you make this the default, you're opening a can of worms legal-wise. If you make only non-exit relays the default, your whole plan defeats its purpose, because then exit nodes remain the weakest link (as they are now).

pcthrowaway 12y ago
I agree that it's too crazy for Mozilla to seriously consider it. But, assuming Tor did receive widespread adoption of exit nodes at this scale, the internet would have to adapt to accommodate this many people rerouting other people's traffic. ISPs would encounter the same backlash for throttling or blocking users who run exit nodes as they currently face when doing it to users running Netflix. Unfortunately, it takes mass adoption to force this kind of adaptation, and it's generally an easier fight to maintain venues of freedom than to open new ones. So we have a chicken and egg problem essentially; Mass adoption is necessary to force regulatory and infrastructural accommodation, and that accommodation is necessary to foster mass adoption.
- Tomte 12y ago
  "The law just has to change to adapt to our new technical ways" ist a common fallacy with techies. And has been working /splendidly/ for decades now. More importantly, letting every of your users out in the rain with his legal problems until you have finally been successful in changing the law is not a recommended way to treat your users.