Re: Interoperating with p2p traffic
Hi, Matt Thorne wrote:
If an anonymizing service based on Tor were integrated into some p2p project or if a fork of Tor were to devote itself to serving p2p, then that should only be encouraged by the current Tor community if 1. It didn't take away any current tor servers or tor resources. 2. It used another name and was clearly its own standalone effort. The reason for 1 is obvious. If the point is to make Tor more usable, then we shouldn't support a migration of its resources elsewhere. The reason for 2 should also be obvious. Tor is a neutral technology that allows privacy. Some people use their privacy for uses we want to support; others for uses we wish they wouldn't engage in. But, if something were called "Tor" and were devoted to p2p traffic then it would taint the whole Tor project. Don't get me wrong. p2p also has legitimate uses. But in the current climate anything remotely associated with file-sharing is assumed to be illegal. Let's not let that shadow be cast upon Tor. It has enough reputational problems already. Also, Tor is open source. If someone wants to take the code and change it to use their own farm of servers exclusively for p2p traffic then there's nothing the Tor community can do to stop them. I'm not suggesting we should try to stop them. Rather, I'm suggesting we insist that if someone does do that, then they should not call it "Tor" or anything confusingly similar. Brian ----- End forwarded message ----- -- Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE [demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type application/pgp-signature which had a name of signature.asc]
participants (1)
-
Brian C