PDA

View Full Version : Global Internet Censorship



Gremlinzzz
January 3rd, 2011, 02:17 AM
I believe the battle is already lost!
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/12/2010-trend-watch-update-global-internet-censorship

3602
January 3rd, 2011, 02:34 AM
From a guy who actually came from China PRC, I tell you that E-censorship over there is pretty serious. For one the state (police) monitors almost all web traffic, and you can't get pr0n unless you know some ways around.

ki4jgt
January 3rd, 2011, 02:45 AM
Do Tor work over there?

Lucradia
January 3rd, 2011, 02:50 AM
I'm guessing Tor does work, but you get cited, and pay a hefty fine for every second of use ;)

ki4jgt
January 3rd, 2011, 03:02 AM
I'm guessing Tor does work, but you get cited, and pay a hefty fine for every second of use ;)

So what happened to these undetectable things people were using?

MonolithImmortal
January 3rd, 2011, 04:07 AM
I find it disheartening, and somewhat unnerving that the DHS feels that copyright infringement is a matter of national security.

theraje
January 3rd, 2011, 04:17 AM
I find it disheartening, and somewhat unnerving that the DHS feels that copyright infringement is a matter of national security.

This isn't about copyright infringement or even national security. It is about wrapping an iron fist around the freedom of sharing information. It's all about control.

Of course, that's just my (paranoid, maybe) opinion.

marl30
January 3rd, 2011, 05:04 AM
I know it's only a matter of time. It has always been a part of their global plan to gain full control over every single human being on the planet. It's far more than just cracking down piracy.

KiwiNZ
January 3rd, 2011, 05:40 AM
The internet should subject to the same restrictions as the Print Media, Film and Television, Video etc etc .

Across border checks being subject to the same border controls as the above.

ki4jgt
January 3rd, 2011, 06:14 AM
I know it's only a matter of time. It has always been a part of their global plan to gain full control over every single human being on the planet. It's far more than just cracking down piracy.

I don't think this is true. We came to the USA to get away from those types of things. It might be now, but it wasn't then.

Jay Car
January 3rd, 2011, 06:18 AM
The internet should subject to the same restrictions as the Print Media, Film and Television, Video etc etc .

Across border checks being subject to the same border controls as the above.

KiwiNZ, I'm stunned. You don't really believe that, do you? If you do, please explain why.

My question is truly not intended to be hostile in any way. I was just so astounded to read your comment I had to ask why.

handy
January 3rd, 2011, 06:29 AM
Superficially it looks as though the media corps are behind this. Who is behind the media corps & what they truly want may be very different than what it gets sold to the general public as - child protection & the protection of IP.

Both of which are faulty propositions, as paedophiles would know how to get around any problems that these types of government tactics throw at them.

& anyone who thinks that all of the illegally copied media on the net = lost sales is a fool.

KiwiNZ
January 3rd, 2011, 06:34 AM
KiwiNZ, I'm stunned. You don't really believe that, do you? If you do, please explain why.

My question is truly not intended to be hostile in any way. I was just so astounded to read your comment I had to ask why.

Why should material that is objectionable and not permitted under print or movie censorship legislation be allowed on the Internet , EG Child pornography

The answer, it shouldn't

handy
January 3rd, 2011, 06:45 AM
Why should material that is objectionable and not permitted under print or movie censorship legislation be allowed on the Internet , EG Child pornography

The answer, it shouldn't

How does taking down the very rarely found site change such a truly complex situation?

It won't have any effect on the child pornographers other than making them even harder to find as they become increasingly more stealthy.

As previously mentioned, I consider the "looking after the children & our IP" justifications to internet censorship to be nothing more than a smokescreen chosen as it is the most easily sold to the general public. The truth of the matter I think is that the boys & girls at the top are looking to gain control of the internet so that they can continue to have the maximum amount of control on the way people think. (For our own good of course.)

There would be no need except that the old communication mediums are being made redundant by the internet.

samjh
January 3rd, 2011, 06:56 AM
Why should material that is objectionable and not permitted under print or movie censorship legislation be allowed on the Internet , EG Child pornography

The answer, it shouldn't

The nature of information that can be transmitted on the Internet is different from the information that can be transmitted via print or film media.

For example, no one writes letters to relatives or business associates via newspaper or VHS cassettes, or DVD/Blueray disks. No one organises activities with friends for New Year's Eve via printed magazines. And no newspaper allows readers to comment on articles real-time via print media. The Internet allows people to do those very things, and much more without even peeking into illegal activities.

Newspapers, magazines, movies, etc., are passive media. The Internet - in general - is not. The Internet is substantially a medium for real-time interactive communication and information exchange, and should be treated in a similar manner to phone calls and faxes, not newspapers or magazines.

Should law enforcement authorities have the ability to cease emails or intercept Internet-related transmission with a legal warrant? Yes (already possible for phone and fax transmissions). Should a government be able to ban websites from a secret blacklist on its own whim (as the Australian government plans to do)? No.

ki4jgt
January 3rd, 2011, 06:57 AM
How does taking down the very rarely found site change such a truly complex situation?

It won't have any effect on the child pornographers other than making them even harder to find as they become increasingly more stealthy.

As previously mentioned, I consider the "looking after the children & our IP" justifications to internet censorship to be nothing more than a smokescreen chosen as it is the most easily sold to the general public. The truth of the matter I think is that the boys & girls at the top are looking to gain control of the internet so that they can continue to have the maximum amount of control on the way people think. (For our own good of course.)

There would be no need except that the old communication mediums are being made redundant by the internet.

I know I've already propossed this, but why don't we just create an open free net then. I mean I know it'll be small communities at first, but if that's the way it'll have to be then that's how it'll have to be. I know that everyone is expecting it to be global, but you guys really are forgetting how we used to live. (Global didn't even exist until recently) I'm sorry, but that's the way it's gonna have to be. Local communities creating their own intranets and then they link together b/c if Obama gets his kill switch, no one will want to use the internet any more.

***EDIT: Unless they have to or unless they don't care, which will be the general population, but the people in the know are going to avoid it altogether.

theraje
January 3rd, 2011, 07:15 AM
I'm sorry, but that's the way it's gonna have to be. Local communities creating their own intranets and then they link together b/c if Obama gets his kill switch, no one will want to use the internet any more.

I'm not worried about anyone's "kill" switch for the Internet. I'd be far more worried about the powers that be monitoring activities that are arbitrarily deemed a threat to them and their interests.

In World War II, the United States interned Japanese, German, and Italian citizens for merely being Japanese, German, or Italian. When it becomes a crime to voice an opinion that doesn't align properly with the opinions of the one lucky enough to be proclaimed the Second Coming, we're screwed six days a week plus Sunday.

ki4jgt
January 3rd, 2011, 07:39 AM
I'm not worried about anyone's "kill" switch for the Internet. I'd be far more worried about the powers that be monitoring activities that are arbitrarily deemed a threat to them and their interests.

In World War II, the United States interned Japanese, German, and Italian citizens for merely being Japanese, German, or Italian. When it becomes a crime to voice an opinion that doesn't align properly with the opinions of the one lucky enough to be proclaimed the Second Coming, we're screwed six days a week plus Sunday.

Maybe we are, but if we don't do something, then we won't get anything in return. TJ once said. Those who sacrifice freedom for security shall have none and deserve neither. I personally believe you're supposed to live by the laws of the land, and until it becomes illegal to build an independent Internet of the one currently made. I shall attempt to do so. Should people be able to be traced on the Internet, yes, people use the Internet for some pretty sick stuff. Should peoples communications be able to be intercepted on the Internet, not without proper cause. This is my belief and my hope for the USA.

Jay Car
January 3rd, 2011, 07:46 AM
Why should material that is objectionable and not permitted under print or movie censorship legislation be allowed on the Internet , EG Child pornography

The answer, it shouldn't

Well, I guess I didn't understand that you were only talking about child pornography. Which is certainly something that should not be tolerated, and I understand now what your comment was about.

However, it seems to me that the actual people who abuse children should be physically tracked down, arrested and charged accordingly. Merely censoring the Internet, or blocking websites does not seem likely to lessen the physical danger and harm done to children.

The words "material that is objectionable and not permitted" can have a rather broad meaning. They remind me of an incident at my youngest son's school back in the late 70s (he was 8 or 9 yrs old at the time). Some parents had decided that the Tom Sawyer books were racist (objectionable) and they wanted them taken out of the district's school libraries (no longer to be permitted).

My response was to take my son to the book store and buy the books for him to read. Then we talked about the context of the times the books were written in, and why those parents felt the books were inappropriate. I let him read, and encouraged him think about the idea of censorship in relation to those books. He still remembers that incident and says he's proud of the way I handled it. It helped him to learn how to use, and trust, his own judgement.

I get my dislike of censorship from my dad, who came home from WWII greatly damaged, he said it was worth the pain though, and impressed on all of his children the importance of the freedoms we had. It came at great cost.

He told many sad stories of people who had endured such things as book burnings and censorship (for the "good" of all, they said at the time), and border checks (and arrests), and many other, far worse, things. My dad never wanted us to forget.

He certainly was not defending child porn, but he also would not have thought that censoring entire populations would be an appropriate way to defeat child porn.

And yes, this issue is something I feel strongly about. The money spent by corporations, and governments, trying to squelch our freedoms would be much better spent on actually tracking down and arresting those despicable persons who do harm to innocents.

One has to wonder, did the authorities not do that before the Internet existed? If so, why can't they do that now?

Anyway, thank you for answering my question, short as your answer was, I still know you meant well.

I also know I've written too much in reply...sorry for that...but I honestly see no reason for the Internet to have borders or border checks. It just seems like the wrong way to go about "protecting" anyone, much less children.

Lucradia
January 3rd, 2011, 07:57 AM
The internet should subject to the same restrictions as the Print Media, Film and Television, Video etc etc .

Across border checks being subject to the same border controls as the above.

As well as in-person transactions of discussion, etc.

After all, you wouldn't start bullying a person in-person, would you? ;)

KiwiNZ
January 3rd, 2011, 08:10 AM
As well as in-person transactions of discussion, etc.

After all, you wouldn't start bullying a person in-person, would you? ;)

If these are illegal then they are subject to the sanctions prescribed by the applicable law.

earthpigg
January 3rd, 2011, 08:19 AM
The internet should subject to the same restrictions as the Print Media, Film and Television, Video etc etc .

Across border checks being subject to the same border controls as the above.

This may surprise some, but I actually agree entirely.

It goes both ways, though:

If in-person bullying is not illegal, for example, than "cyber bullying" should not be illegal.

If lying about my identity at the local pub is allowed by law, then lying about my identity at the online pub ought also be allowed. (neither is the same as lying about ones identity when applying for a loan.)

If participating an illegal protest that non-violently denies customers entry to the local Bank of America branch for an hour is a misdemeanor, then the recent ddos operations should be regarded exactly the same.

If copying a movie onto a VHS cassette and giving it to a friend doesn't warrant a $20,000 fine, then it shouldn't warrant that fine if the chosen format is .avi/.torrent instead of VHS.

What way you, my Kiwi friend?

Lucradia
January 3rd, 2011, 08:28 AM
If in-person bullying is not illegal, for example, than "cyber bullying" should not be illegal.

Indirect homicide isn't illegal? News to me.

earthpigg
January 3rd, 2011, 08:31 AM
Indirect homicide isn't illegal? News to me.

If one is, both ought to be.

If one isn't, the other shouldn't.

Take your pick either way, I'd just like a bit of consistency. :P

It's the lack of consistency that bothers me.

If an illegal protest in person isn't called "terrorism", why do journalists (and others) call an online illegal protest "cyber terrorism"?

If xeroxing a poem for a friend out of a copyrighted poetry book I have isn't called "Piracy" and punished for $20,000 per violation, why is that the case if done online? Either way, I have attacked zero ships at sea, plundered nothing, and taken no (ahem) booty.

Lucradia
January 3rd, 2011, 08:36 AM
Attacking sites to bring them down is technically cyber warfare, not terrorism.

theraje
January 3rd, 2011, 11:34 AM
Maybe we are, but if we don't do something, then we won't get anything in return. TJ once said. Those who sacrifice freedom for security shall have none and deserve neither. I personally believe you're supposed to live by the laws of the land, and until it becomes illegal to build an independent Internet of the one currently made. I shall attempt to do so. Should people be able to be traced on the Internet, yes, people use the Internet for some pretty sick stuff. Should peoples communications be able to be intercepted on the Internet, not without proper cause. This is my belief and my hope for the USA.

Agree completely. I wasn't trying to suggest ignoring the law of the land, but rather that our government(s) are eating away at our freedom in the name of "justice".

Power is a drug. Once you give some to an idiot, they'll do anything and everything to get more, with no regard for the well-being of others (and in many cases, oneself).

Spice Weasel
January 3rd, 2011, 12:52 PM
Attacking sites to bring them down is technically cyber warfare, not terrorism.

Isn't "cyber crime" still crime? If so, "cyber warfare" is warfare. Use of terror tactics to threaten individuals is terrorism. Doing this for a cause ("national security", "child protection") is terrorism.

disabledaccount
January 3rd, 2011, 01:36 PM
Without free internet we will have only tv news.

Children pornography or "piracy" are just pretext for taking complete control of what people thinks, knows and says. History of communistic Russia, East Germany, Poland, China, North Korea gives enough examples.

Quadunit404
January 3rd, 2011, 06:34 PM
I'm far from a fan of Richard Stallman, but for once, I actually agree with him (http://www.defectivebydesign.org/wikileaks)... sort of.

Lucradia
January 3rd, 2011, 06:41 PM
Without a "free" internet we will have only tv news.

Fixed for you. The United States doesn't have free-to-use Internet. Least, not that I know of, other than public places such as Libraries.

KiwiNZ
January 3rd, 2011, 06:59 PM
This concept that the Internet is some mystical above the Law entity is at best laughable , a concept of fantasy. Of course it is subject to law and so it should.

There is a multitude of examples"cyber" lawlessness that makes it clear the self regulation is not possible and the judicial regulation is required and appropriate.

Jay Car
January 3rd, 2011, 07:47 PM
This concept that the Internet is some mystical above the Law entity is at best laughable , a concept of fantasy. Of course it is subject to law and so it should.

There is a multitude of examples"cyber" lawlessness that makes it clear the self regulation is not possible and the judicial regulation is required and appropriate.

I don't think anyone's saying the Internet should be above the law. In fact, I'm not even sure what that means, because the Internet is just another means of communication, nothing more. No mysteriousness involved.

Maybe I'd understand better if you could clarify what you mean by regulation. Who do you believe should be regulated? The ISPs, or the customers who use their services? Both, maybe?

By regulation, do you mean spying on everyone just in case someone might not "self-regulate" properly? Who would be appointed as these regulators?

Do you think ISPs should be spying on all of their customers just in case someone might write or say, or video, or share something that might be construed as "lawless"? Who, exactly should be responsible for making that distinction?

What does "judicial regulation" even mean? Are you saying that more laws are needed to add greater control over people because they can't be trusted to "self regulate" to some mysterious set of standards?

Maybe we are not discussing the same things. But your answers just seem rather vague and slightly pretentious.

Now, I should probably do my own bit of self regulation and stay out of the Community Cafe discussions. This one's wreaking havoc with my blood pressure. :)

Gremlinzzz
January 3rd, 2011, 07:59 PM
Sneakernets
Sneakernet is a term used to describe the transfer of electronic information, especially computer files, by physically carrying data on storage media from one place to another. A sneakernet can move data regardless of network restrictions simply by not using the network at all.:p
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship

Gremlinzzz
January 3rd, 2011, 08:12 PM
I don't think anyone's saying the Internet should be above the law. In fact, I'm not even sure what that means, because the Internet is just another means of communication, nothing more. No mysteriousness involved.

Maybe I'd understand better if you could clarify what you mean by regulation. Who do you believe should be regulated? The ISPs, or the customers who use their services? Both, maybe?

By regulation, do you mean spying on everyone just in case someone might not "self-regulate" properly? Who would be appointed as these regulators?

Do you think ISPs should be spying on all of their customers just in case someone might write or say, or video, or share something that might be construed as "lawless"? Who, exactly should be responsible for making that distinction?

What does "judicial regulation" even mean? Are you saying that more laws are needed to add greater control over people because they can't be trusted to "self regulate" to some mysterious set of standards?

Maybe we are not discussing the same things. But your answers just seem rather vague and slightly pretentious.

Now, I should probably do my own bit of self regulation and stay out of the Community Cafe discussions. This one's wreaking havoc with my blood pressure. :)

I agree with you stay in discussion

Ahava591
January 3rd, 2011, 08:58 PM
Attacking sites to bring them down is technically cyber warfare, not terrorism.
Since when are intimidation and threats designed and willingly implemented to force a person or persons to behave in a specific manner prescribed by the ones intimidating and threatening not included in the definition of terrorism?
Never mind the fact that said intimidation and threats are also designed and willingly implemented to punish a person or persons for whatever flavor-of-the-week transgression against freedom and democracy and blahblahblah they've allegedly committed.

earthpigg
January 3rd, 2011, 09:41 PM
This concept that the Internet is some mystical above the Law entity is at best laughable , a concept of fantasy. Of course it is subject to law and so it should.

There is a multitude of examples"cyber" lawlessness that makes it clear the self regulation is not possible and the judicial regulation is required and appropriate.

agreed.

however we can, and should, say it thusly:


This concept that anything can be some mystical above the Law entity is at best laughable , a concept of fantasy. Of course it is subject to law and so it should.

There is a multitude of examples of general lawlessness that makes it clear the self regulation is not possible and the judicial regulation is required and appropriate.

handy
January 3rd, 2011, 09:49 PM
This concept that the Internet is some mystical above the Law entity is at best laughable , a concept of fantasy. Of course it is subject to law and so it should.

The "law" is often questionable for multiple reasons, including the motivations of those that make the laws; the lack of a true & proper understanding of a situation; the effects of lobby groups funded by ultra-wealthy powerful minorities with vested interests...



There is a multitude of examples"cyber" lawlessness that makes it clear the self regulation is not possible and the judicial regulation is required and appropriate.

Those that effectively commit true cyber crime, are beyond the effects of internet censorship. They are the people that we don't hear about that are robbing financial institutions & the ones that we rarely hear about that are involved in various types of espionage.

I say again, internet censorship will have NO effect on these types of crime.

What is happening with the internet censorship that is being imposed on various populations around the globe, is that it is being sold as a most beneficial move for the health & protection of the people.

Interestingly the majority of the people DON'T want it! The child protection organisations & the majority of church organisations in Oz have said it is useless for protecting the children.

The ISPs in Oz have said that a blacklist will be a useless, expensive & cumbersome system. It is well known that school children & the criminals will be able to easily side step the system.

As fast as a site is closed it will spring up on a new domain.

The only entities that benefit from this kind of censorship are the mega-corps that run our governments (which is the only reason why this censorship is happening in the first place), they are in the process of positioning themselves for the dawning new age of internet based everything, where they can continue to manipulate the minds of the people as best they can (& they are so good at it) in the interests of maintaining their power, wealth & influence on the largest amount of people as possible.

You can imagine how hard it is to say no to the likes of Rupert Murdoch, & the others that can make & break governments & their members reputations if they set their mind to it.

jennybrew
January 3rd, 2011, 09:58 PM
Clearly some posters here are a little confused about how different jurisdictions operate.
In particular, references to "the law" are just plain wrong.
There just isnt a single legal jurisdiction in which "the law" operates. So any well meaning shouts that something should be against " the law " or cant be outside "the law " are plain wrong and ill informed.
"The law" doesnt exist.
In addition, when it comes down to censorship or control it isnt for one country / state to exert contorl over other states because different places in the world have different ideas of what is right and what is wrong.

What gives US or British policy makers the right to censor what other places in the world might regard as legitimate or even desirable ? Answer ..nothing does.

On the other hand if we live in a state which allows the right of freedom of information we should all safeguard that right by acting responsibly. Rights and responsibility go hand in hand.

Lets just not try to impose our own ideas about ethics onto other people in the world by means of censorship.

Remember folks that internet thingy is global ..not just American or British.

handy
January 3rd, 2011, 10:13 PM
This subject is NOT truly about ethics.

It is about the masters of much of the worlds media industries (& then some) positioning themselves to maintain & expand their influence on people's minds into the future.

They are motivated by the fact that the internet is dramatically eroding the old forms of communication media & will eventually all but supplant them.

Those who control the minds of the people control those people's worlds.

Rasa1111
January 3rd, 2011, 10:21 PM
yeah, welcome to the new world (order). lol

It is about control, and only about control.
"they" don't really care about anything they pretend to be concerned with.

Their only concerns are the chains around the ankles of The People,
and keeping them there, and bound tight.
Nothing else.

Bring on The Revolution..
"they" won't be able to handle it..
and goodness will prevail.

Anti-fascists Unite! lol
<3

earthpigg
January 3rd, 2011, 10:29 PM
watch out Rasa, you are going to get the thread closed.

bodhi.zazen
January 3rd, 2011, 11:45 PM
So what happened to these undetectable things people were using?

Most of these tools are not as undetectable as people believe they are and people are overly reliant on them without understanding how networking and "the internet" works.

If you start with the assumption that all activity on "the internet" is public and that it can be monitored by any number of third parties at any time you will be much better off then assuming you are untraceable or somehow invisible simply because you installed TOR or use a third party proxy server.

There are many weak links in the chain and the internet protocols were not designed with privacy in mind.

https is a step in the right direction, but even then there are limits on how much "privacy" https buys you.

cgroza
January 3rd, 2011, 11:49 PM
The internet should subject to the same restrictions as the Print Media, Film and Television, Video etc etc .

Across border checks being subject to the same border controls as the above.

If KiwiNZ said it, it's True!

ki4jgt
January 3rd, 2011, 11:56 PM
Most of these tolls are not as undetectable as people believe they are and people are overly reliant on them without understanding how networking and "the internet" works.

If you start with the assumption that all activity on "the internet" is public and that it can be monitored by any number of third parties at any time you will be much better off then assuming you are untraceable or somehow invisible simply because you installed TOR or use a third party proxy server.

There are many weak links in the chain and the internet protocols were not designed with privacy in mind.

https is a step in the right direction, but even then there are limits on how much "privacy" https buys you.

I know that. But I was wondering how the people knew which IPs were tor related. I know that all network traffic is simply shouted out for everyone on the network to hear, but how do they fine you if it's encrypted.

bodhi.zazen
January 4th, 2011, 12:18 AM
I know that. But I was wondering how the people knew which IPs were tor related. I know that all network traffic is simply shouted out for everyone on the network to hear, but how do they fine you if it's encrypted.

Because the network protocol itself is not encrypted, only the information in the packets.

If your TCP/IP packets, the (apahce) headers, were encrypted, how would you communicate to a server ? Apache currently has no mechanism for such encryption.

How would a packet returning to your computer find it's way ? Try spoofing your IP with nmap, you will never receive a reply to the spoofed packets.

That is to say nothing of cookies, flash, etc.

Last, all traffic goes through your IP provider and your router.

So many weak points in the chain.

http://whattheinternetknowsaboutyou.com/

Then there is so called (passive) OS fingerprinting.

https://panopticlick.eff.org/

http://www.ouah.org/incosfingerp.htm

The thing with that is, the more you try to hide, the more you stand out as even the absence of information is information (as is mis-matched information). Read the PDF.

As I said, "the internet" as we know it is simply based on publicity, not privacy, and you are not as "invisible" as you think you are, tor or otherwise.

Edit: A better question is , what made you think you had privacy or that you were invisible or undetectable in the first place ?

ki4jgt
January 4th, 2011, 12:25 AM
Because the network protocol itself is not encrypted, only the information in the packets.

If your TCP/IP packets, the (apahce) headers, were encrypted, how would you communicate to a server ? Apache currently has no mechanism for such encryption.

How would a packet returning to your computer find it's way ? Try spoofing your IP with nmap, you will never receive a reply to the spoofed packets.

That is to say nothing of cookies, flash, etc.

Last, all traffic goes through your IP provider and your router.

So many weak points in the chain.

http://whattheinternetknowsaboutyou.com/

Then there is so called (passive) OS fingerprinting.

https://panopticlick.eff.org/

http://www.ouah.org/incosfingerp.htm

The thing with that is, the more you try to hide, the more you stand out as even the absence of information is information (as is mis-matched information). Read the PDF.

As I said, "the internet" as we know it is simply based on publicity, not privacy, and you are not as "invisible" as you think you are, tor or otherwise.

That's basically what I'm asking, there is no published directory of tor servers. All the IPs are from volunteers, so how do they know that the traffic is going to a tor IP.

bodhi.zazen
January 4th, 2011, 12:34 AM
That's basically what I'm asking, there is no published directory of tor servers. All the IPs are from volunteers, so how do they know that the traffic is going to a tor IP.

I do not know how they know, I would be guessing.

There are several vulnerabilities and google searching "TOR IP addresses" is not the only method of finding a TOR ip address.

TOR is open source, so what is preventing "the government", or anyone else, from running a tor node ? Or modifying the code and then running a tor node ? Or tracking your activity outside of TOR ?

Again, sorry for the edit, but not even the TOR site claims to make you invisible, I think you are reading too much into what tor can do and too little into the limitations and other vulnerabilities (to privacy).

TOR sounds nice, but it does not patch all of the underlying privacy flaws inherent to communication over "the internet".

mips
January 4th, 2011, 08:00 AM
That's basically what I'm asking, there is no published directory of tor servers. All the IPs are from volunteers, so how do they know that the traffic is going to a tor IP.

Simple. You can still identify TOR traffic, it's not that anonymous.

http://blog.vorant.com/2005/01/detecting-tor-on-your-network.html



Detecting TOR on your network
I've written about the TOR anonymizing TCP proxy before, and in general I think it's quite a useful tool. There are a lot of situations where you might legitimately want to obfuscate your true online identity and/or prevent your ISP from keeping track of what you access over the Internet. TOR is really good for these sorts of things, and is a cool project, to boot.

There are some situations, though, in which using TOR (or any other similar service) is not appropriate. One such situation is when your Acceptable Use Policy forbids it, as is probably the case for many people using their employer's LAN. If you're a network administrator and you need to monitor TOR usage, you can try the following Snort rule I cooked up:

[I]alert tcp any any -> $HOME_NET any (msg: "TOR 1.0 Proxy Connection Attempt"; content: "TOR"; content: "<identity>"; within:30; classtype:policy-violation; resp:rst_all; sid:5000030; rev:1;)

This should alert you any time the TOR proxy attempts to create a connection to the rest of the TOR network. As written, this rule also makes use of Snort's "flexible response" feature to try to shut down the connections as they are established. This isn't entirely effective, but it seems to work about 80% of the time for me, which at least makes TOR really annoying to use. If you prefer not to take action, delete the part that says "resp:rst_all;".

POSTED BY DAVID BIANCO AT 11:13 AM

LABELS: SNORT, TOR

2 COMMENTS:

falter said...
(I found your blog post after googling for "detecting tor")

After battling with the problem of how to detect TOR, I realized that it should be fairly simple. TOR uses SSL. SSL uses signed certificates. TOR signs the certificates that are distributed with their official client releases (as far as I can tell).

Poking around in Ethereal, I found that this filter works rather well with detecting TOR's SSL negotiation :
x509sat.DirectoryString == "TOR"

From this, I was able to put together a quick little snort signature. Pardon the fact that it is horribly generic. We use ISS Realsecure, which has only a very basic implementation of Snort called "Trons" (which is "Snort" spelled backwards). It's incredibly ancient and horrible, but it works.

alert tcp $HOME_NET any -> any any (msg:"TOR_detected"; content:"|06 03 55 04 0a 13 03 54 4f 52|"; sid:9996; priority:3;)

I'd imagine that with a response, it could be rather effective.

~mike ryan (falter@gmail.com)

8/29/2005 2:40 PM

<snip>

wilee-nilee
January 4th, 2011, 08:30 AM
None of us will be able to change what ever happens in Internet control, whatever that is, abstractly really as bodhi has pointed out, with the lack of any real privacy chain.

We wont change it directly either.

I think we forget how inconsequential we really are to be honest, in a comparison to just the visible dimensions of the cosmos.

I suggest you relax and enjoy the ride, it's starting to get wild and weird.:)

ki4jgt
January 4th, 2011, 09:04 AM
None of us will be able to change what ever happens in Internet control, whatever that is, abstractly really as bodhi has pointed out, with the lack of any real privacy chain.

We wont change it directly either.

I think we forget how inconsequential we really are to be honest, in a comparison to just the visible dimensions of the cosmos.

I suggest you relax and enjoy the ride, it's starting to get wild and weird.:)

Sorry. . . but I can't believe that. :-) Every star has a name. Every river has a place it has to go. Even though the stars don't know their own names, they still continue to exist. Without the one star which is our own, we ourselves would be nothing but dust. Ultimately it's the butterfly effect all over again. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butterfly_effect

wilee-nilee
January 4th, 2011, 09:21 AM
Sorry. . . but I can't believe that. :-) Every star has a name. Every river has a place it has to go. Even though the stars don't know their own names, they still continue to exist. Without the one star which is our own, we ourselves would be nothing but dust. Ultimately it's the butterfly effect all over again. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butterfly_effect

I'm familiar with string theory's its master M Theory and quantum mechanics, as well as other studies of the cosmos, from a armchair view of course.

Carbon based life is made of the dust of exploding stars. Particles around since the beginning of the universe but not in a form to create carbon based life, until processed by this action by all the types of star collapse and explosions.

This does not we mean anything to the cosmos overall, even our local group would survive without human life or any life on earth.

Don't get me wrong I'm a fan of physics, but most of it is theoretical, but I feel probably closer to an absolute truth if that actually exist.:)

And now we return back to the actual topic, the Internet.

ki4jgt
January 4th, 2011, 09:48 AM
I'm familiar with string theory's its master M Theory and quantum mechanics, as well as other studies of the cosmos, from a armchair view of course.

Carbon based life is made of the dust of exploding stars. Particles around since the beginning of the universe but not in a form to create carbon based life, until processed by this action by all the types of star collapse and explosions.

This does not we mean anything to the cosmos overall, even our local group would survive without human life or any life on earth.

Don't get me wrong I'm a fan of physics, but most of it is theoretical, but I feel probably closer to an absolute truth if that actually exist.:)

And now we return back to the actual topic, the Internet.

That is the topic which I responded to. But honestly, you believe we have no effect on the rest of the universe? We're humans. It's our job to destroy what has been to experiment with what is. To learn from who and what we are and what the things around us are. I personally haven't read up on all these theories, but I can tell you all through history there have been single individuals who have changed the entire course of it. These are the individuals which legends are created about every day. "Those who don't study history, are doomed to repeat it" So I guess there will be many more legends around in the future. Rosa Parks, Martin Luther King. It's great to look at what has happened and recognize patterns but part of the pattern is that there is no pattern in certain situations. Just because we can't control the cosmos (Now), doesn't mean we can't control our own Internet.

wilee-nilee
January 4th, 2011, 10:22 AM
That is the topic which I responded to. But honestly, you believe we have no effect on the rest of the universe? We're humans. It's our job to destroy what has been to experiment with what is. To learn from who and what we are and what the things around us are. I personally haven't read up on all these theories, but I can tell you all through history there have been single individuals who have changed the entire course of it. These are the individuals which legends are created about every day. "Those who don't study history, are doomed to repeat it" So I guess there will be many more legends around in the future. Rosa Parks, Martin Luther King. It's great to look at what has happened and recognize patterns but part of the pattern is that there is no pattern in certain situations. Just because we can't control the cosmos (Now), doesn't mean we can't control our own Internet.

These examples although nice in their appearance are part of a social norm expression. In another look at this the dominate, hegemonic, hierarchy control mechanisms write the history. I will just slip a few words in here anglo, european, and colonialism, who wrote the history in associated events with these 3 words, and how are they related to the civil rights struggle? Also where is the missing shared history of these groups inside and outside the hegemonic written history?

It is actually considered a myth that much was changed by by this movement by most scholars in this area. Just ask anybody who is part of the target group. This area of study is actually my college major so I have a bit of a closer look at the subject matter, although it is available for all who are interested, but you have to hunt it down and put aside a lot of garbage history, and bogus social norms/scripts.

This is why I feel the lack of any change caused by us just regular citizens, in ourselves or the Internet and privacy. History is cyclical nothing has changed in the human expression we just have cooler toys to wreak havoc with now.

I'm an fatalist to some extent but not an unhappy one in that just these sort of realisations, make my life easier in recognition of my real place in the order of nature in general and the universe. I am a bug on the windshield of a universe thought to be reaching close to the speed of light at its edges in expansion.

disabledaccount
January 4th, 2011, 10:36 AM
I do not know how they know, I would be guessing.

There are several vulnerabilities and google searching "TOR IP addresses" is not the only method of finding a TOR ip address.

TOR is open source, so what is preventing "the government", or anyone else, from running a tor node ? Or modifying the code and then running a tor node ? Or tracking your activity outside of TOR ?

Again, sorry for the edit, but not even the TOR site claims to make you invisible, I think you are reading too much into what tor can do and too little into the limitations and other vulnerabilities (to privacy).

TOR sounds nice, but it does not patch all of the underlying privacy flaws inherent to communication over "the internet".Linux has open source code - and that makes it more secure. TOR is extremely effective protection against tracing - even if you can monitor traffic on several (modified) TOR nodes then you still can't tell where the information is coming from and where it finally goes. And with computing power of today's home pc's it's easy to implement 4096-bit encryption or f.e. 1MByte-long keys.
But that's not the point - TOR makes huge overhead and can protect criminals. We (hopefully) don't want to go underground to be able to speek freely, aren't we?

ki4jgt
January 4th, 2011, 12:41 PM
These examples although nice in their appearance are part of a social norm expression. In another look at this the dominate, hegemonic, hierarchy control mechanisms write the history. I will just slip a few words in here anglo, european, and colonialism, who wrote the history in associated events with these 3 words, and how are they related to the civil rights struggle? Also where is the missing shared history of these groups inside and outside the hegemonic written history?

It is actually considered a myth that much was changed by by this movement by most scholars in this area. Just ask anybody who is part of the target group. This area of study is actually my college major so I have a bit of a closer look at the subject matter, although it is available for all who are interested, but you have to hunt it down and put aside a lot of garbage history, and bogus social norms/scripts.

This is why I feel the lack of any change caused by us just regular citizens, in ourselves or the Internet and privacy. History is cyclical nothing has changed in the human expression we just have cooler toys to wreak havoc with now.

I'm an fatalist to some extent but not an unhappy one in that just these sort of realisations, make my life easier in recognition of my real place in the order of nature in general and the universe. I am a bug on the windshield of a universe thought to be reaching close to the speed of light at its edges in expansion.

I'm sorry, you feel that way. You have a voice! You've expressed it very clearly here. I don't believe in anarchy (I know that's not what you are implying) and I'm not going into why I don't believe in Anarchy here, b/c that's against the rules :-), but I will say, you have a voice! Though you feel like the fly on a windshield. You will always have that voice! No one will be able to take that voice from you! You yourself, can't even remove that voice, because even after you die (It will still be speaking) If you're speaking truth with that voice, people will listen. (Even if you sound like a crazy dude shouting on the street corner) As long as you carry the truth (What ever you believe that is) with you, people will hear you! Though, it is true the things which happened, would have happened sooner or later. An action alone, triggers a reaction! What you choose for you voice to say, is the choice of you and you only. If your truth, inspires someone else, you may find someone else to share your voice with.

Grenage
January 4th, 2011, 01:00 PM
I honestly think that if you want to blame anyone for the current direction of government intervention - blame the people that turned it into, and use it as a piracy channel.

We live in a (mostly) capitalist world.

About the only people affected will be those breaking the law.

disabledaccount
January 4th, 2011, 02:44 PM
We live in a (mostly) capitalist world.

About the only people affected will be those breaking the law.

How can You think that capitalism and democracy can be maintained by using communistic methods?

Its very easy to change or interpret the law in a way that it will affect every man in the world (for their good of course) and internet gives unlimitted possibilities.

Grenage
January 4th, 2011, 02:54 PM
How can You think that capitalism and democracy can be maintained by using communistic methods?

Its very easy to change or interpret the law in a way that it will affect every man in the world (for their good of course) and internet gives unlimitted possibilities.

I don't.

Media is made for sale, the media is copied 'illegally' (breach of copyright), the media is distributed across the internet, and governments have to step in. You can bet your posterior that the majority of the people crying havoc, are the those sitting on XBMC machines containing 6TB+ of bluray rips.

I'd love the internet to be the wondrous land of rainbows, roses and love it's made out to be by some people - but it's just* an alternative medium for communicating and collaborating, not a place for irreproachable crime.

*I say just, it's still amazing.

handy
January 4th, 2011, 02:59 PM
How can You think that capitalism and democracy can be maintained by using communistic methods?

China seems to be working at setting the first example. It is still a work in progress though.

Hopefully as time goes by the Chinese people will gain more intellectual freedom & the "State" will be modified & improved due to this freedom.

So far their system has improved the living conditions of the people in general, & it is now working at improving the environmental damage that the previous poorly thought out policies have caused.

China really is one to watch; it doesn't have elections, so it can effect long term plans.

Very interesting I think.

cascade9
January 4th, 2011, 03:09 PM
I honestly think that if you want to blame anyone for the current direction of government intervention - blame the people that turned it into, and use it as a piracy channel.

We live in a (mostly) capitalist world.

About the only people affected will be those breaking the law.

Really? You have seen the list of (legal) sites that the ACMA (australian communications and media authority) put on the blocklist?


The ACMA list has already been leaked on the Wikileaks website.

This list contained a number of legal websites which also include a dentist, dog kennel, and a Queensland tour operator. Among other URLs on the list are numerous Youtube, wikipedia, fringe religous, legal straight and gay porn, and euthanasia websites.



http://www.overclockers.com.au/wiki/Australian_Internet_Filtering

That is beside all the 'quasi-legal' sites that were/are going to be blocked. Sites on things like drug into (erowid in particular).

BTW, no, I dont have 6TB+ of bluray rips. I dont have ANY bluray rips. To portray internet filtering as 'anti-piracy' is at best a misrepresentation.

Maybe you've got saner debate about filtering where you are, but here the general response from the senator in charge has been 'you support child pronography' if ANYBODY rasies any concerns at all. That is not a rational debate.

mips
January 4th, 2011, 03:22 PM
China really is one to watch; it doesn't have elections, so it can effect long term plans.


Never thought of it that way but it makes a helluva lot of sense and in this regard be seen as a plus.

disabledaccount
January 4th, 2011, 03:36 PM
Official targets are well known. Problem is, that if spying and censoring mechanisms will be implemented, they can (and for sure will) be used to filter/manipulate/steal any informations, invigilate peoples, defame political opponents.
What is worse: this wont stop piracy, and I dubt if it can lower its scale.

China plays a role - they want new technologies and investments, because their communistic market was falling - thats all. "West" companies are hapily using cheap china workers, raising unemployment level in their "home" countries. And soon Chinese will buy shares in White House ;)

Grenage
January 4th, 2011, 04:05 PM
Really? You have seen the list of (legal) sites that the ACMA (australian communications and media authority) put on the blocklist?



http://www.overclockers.com.au/wiki/Australian_Internet_Filtering

That is beside all the 'quasi-legal' sites that were/are going to be blocked. Sites on things like drug into (erowid in particular).

BTW, no, I dont have 6TB+ of bluray rips. I dont have ANY bluray rips. To portray internet filtering as 'anti-piracy' is at best a misrepresentation.

Maybe you've got saner debate about filtering where you are, but here the general response from the senator in charge has been 'you support child pronography' if ANYBODY rasies any concerns at all. That is not a rational debate.

I'm not suggesting that everyone who hates filtering is a criminal (or 'immoral'), and I don't believe that any system in operation is perfect, but I believe that it's unreasonable not to expect some intervention when there is obvious abuse of such a valuable resource.

DZ*
January 4th, 2011, 05:46 PM
Let free market operate in a corrupt socialist environment and it will bring you lead in baby toys, melamine in milk, eggs and pet food, diethylene glycol in toothpaste, and arsenic in shrimp.

KiwiNZ
January 4th, 2011, 07:24 PM
Politics warning; this thread is moving beyond this "except for politics directly related to free and open source issues". If it continues it will be closed.