tga_d

18 ms·

151.
by tga_d 5y ago
I suspect they are exaggerating, or that the claims were misunderstood. Yes, the FBI can find criminals who use Tor, but with extremely few notable exceptions from many years ago now, that isn't done by breaking any of Tor's prote
152.
by tga_d 5y ago
There have been studies that show this isn't true -- any particular session from a Tor exit relay is about as likely to be malicious as a session from a random IP, and the most popular sites accessed are things like Amazon and Facebook
153.
by tga_d 5y ago
You're being unnecessarily confrontational. You're also incorrect: there are already utility providers that have started pricing based on load (my provider bases rates on season, day of the week, and time of day, updated annually,
154.
by tga_d 5y ago
Well, the source is The Interecpt, based on leaked internal data, which I trust a lot more than stat aggregators like Alexa. If you're the CTO then you could just answer the question: how many accounts (or unique IPs, if multiple acc
155.
by tga_d 5y ago
Do you have a source for that? My impression is that Gab is significantly smaller than the Fediverse (Wikipedia says ~100,000 active users).
156.
by tga_d 5y ago
Secretly colluding in backroom deals to intentionally hamstring privacy protections seems pretty unambiguously... bad? Can you explain how anything Microsoft or Apple has done has worse implications for society?
157.
by tga_d 5y ago
By default Tor doesn't make any attempt to disguise the fact it's Tor traffic. Bridges are unlisted relays, which should work for IP blocking, while Plugable Transports are made to evade censorship-focused traffic analysis (i.e.,
158.
by tga_d 5y ago
This makes no sense. Onion services don't hide the source, they hide the destination -- a destination that, in this threat model, you run. If the client connecting wants to hide their source, they can use Tor, a VPN, an existing botnet
159.
by tga_d 5y ago
The point being made is that the "for free" part of that sentence doesn't actually exist in the GPL. You can modify GPL code, then charge for access if you want (which, IIUC, Red Hat does). You just have to give it to whoever
160.
by tga_d 6y ago
I haven't looked closely at DoH, but based on my knowledge of plugable transports and website fingerprinting attacks, the answer is: probably, but with just a little effort on the client side, detection could be made pretty expensive -
161.
by tga_d 6y ago
I think it would only be interpreted that way if you don't know what LWN is?
162.
by tga_d 6y ago
Sure, but that's an unrelated phenomenon to the security implications being discussed. The argument against auto-updates is "it's running code without my permission or ability to audit first"; putting a recency requireme
163.
by tga_d 6y ago
The "proprietary Google code" is a library with a well defined API, you can see what it has access to. I agree that Signal should take it out, but it's not an especially big deal from a security perspective. The auto update f
164.
by tga_d 6y ago
>scientists who study Earth's climate call themselves meteorologists This is just incorrect. Meteorologists don't study Earth's climate, they study weather. Meteorologists don't use ice cores or tree rings for their r
165.
by tga_d 6y ago
While I agree with the point you're making, I'd like to point out the tone of your wording. It's not cruel or anything, but there are some pretty easy changes to it that could have made it an explanation instead of an argumen
166.
by tga_d 6y ago
>Do you seriously believe that donations can cover 1 billion of users on Signal? Yes. >I don't. Okay, any particular reason? The storage and processing costs are small, you're basically just paying for enough hosting to rout
167.
by tga_d 6y ago
Telegram is a product from a for-profit company. Again, Signal is a 501c3 non-profit. It gets its funding from the same sort of places as Wikipedia, the Tor Project, the Internet Archive, etc.: the donation link you're commenting on.
168.
by tga_d 6y ago
It's a 501c3, I don't think you can buy those. In any case, it's open source, and there are several forks floating around (though Signal does typically dissuade people from using them, because it conflicts with their strategy
169.
by tga_d 6y ago
They did, but it's currently down: https://twitter.com/signalapp/status/1343990404669124608
170.
by tga_d 6y ago
Please do not conflate cynicism with depression, or try to diagnose people with medical conditions over the internet.
171.
by tga_d 6y ago
Then please, enlighten me as to what exactly is stopping anyone from calling these people disgraceful until it ends up in court, particularly considering the fact that the video isn't especially ambiguous as to what happened. In fact,
172.
by tga_d 6y ago
Are you under the impression that unless something is both illegal, and produced enough evidence to be convicted in court, it cannot be disgraceful? There's no possibility of a world where the police do disgraceful things legally, let
173.
by tga_d 6y ago
As I point out in my other comment, that comment doesn't seem especially well reasoned or sourced, but I for one wouldn't have downvoted if not for the language. I could have agreed 100% with what they were saying and I would stil
174.
by tga_d 6y ago
>Anti-trust laws (and the concepts that are based upon) do not apply to free services Do you have a source for this? I feel like Microsoft would have liked to have known that, back when they lost an antitrust case around a freely provide
175.
by tga_d 6y ago
That is not what the parable of the Samaritan was implying, nor the context of it. Samaritans were and are an ethnic group that historically has had friction with other Semitic groups (notably, Jews). They were not in any way "Nazis
176.
by tga_d 6y ago
Yeah, it happens: https://blog.torproject.org/bad-exit-relays-may-june-2020 One reason why it's not devastating to the network as a whole is that the process for getting your relays to make up such a large fraction of
177.
by tga_d 6y ago
No, those attacks still work. Traffic correlation and timing attacks don't actually interact with Tor at all; while a Tor exit relay is a good spot to be in for one (if you're targeting streams that use it), all you need is two va
178.
by tga_d 7y ago
>But I just think the marked lanes and sharrows are a good enough compromise for the serious commuters and the casuals. There have been several studies that show sharrows don't actually help, and in some cases even hinder, bike safe
179.
by tga_d 9y ago
it's been a webextension for a while now, the only reason it has been listed as otherwise by Mozilla is because of the update wrapper https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/issues/2576#issue-22541793... http
180.
by tga_d 10y ago
My impressions from the research community have been that the consensus is 1. Using Tor is more private (and possibly more secure) than a VPN or nothing at all, 2. Tor will not protect you from a targeted attack by a well-funded, state-leve

More ›