jbentham

4 ms·

1.
by jbentham 5y ago
What you are assuming is possible is a logical contradiction. To be able to recognise two persons as being the same is in fact the definition of de-anonymisation. Please check your math.
2.
by jbentham 5y ago
Are you actually suggesting that SO/SE are blocking Tor because they intend to track all of their users by their IP addresses (or browser metadata), using national security as a justification? I still do not understand how blocking Tor
3.
by jbentham 5y ago
Is this actually true? I've often used Tor to access Google Docs and Google Maps and to my knowledge have never had a problem. In fact, I'm not even presented with Captchas.
4.
by jbentham 5y ago
Actually, there is no evidence that Tor is any shadier than the rest of the Internet, especially given that most attacks and vandalism originate from botnets and other compromised systems, not Tor. Akamai published an analysis that affirms
5.
by jbentham 5y ago
If it is not to block spam, or vandalism, or denial-of-service attacks, then what is the purpose of this new policy? To your other point, how can one establish a 'reputable account' if it is not even possible to access the site in
6.
by jbentham 5y ago
If by 'accountability' you mean the ability for site ops to unilaterally de-anonymise Tor users, then no; Tor users will never agree to that. If SE executives are really concerned about spam and vandalism by anonymous actors, then
7.
by jbentham 5y ago
If by 'accountability' you mean the ability for site ops to unilaterally de-anonymise Tor users, then no; Tor users will never agree to that. If SE executives are really concerned about spam and vandalism by anonymous actors, then