|
|
|
|
|
by INTPenis
3971 days ago
|
|
You can definitely trust the sensational value in finding out that any project advocating freedom and data security would be exploited by a government. That's what I do, it's not perfect but I love reading source code and figuring out how things work so I know others, much smarter than me, love that too. The public cases of the US government going after Tor, for example, have all read like external attacks on the protocol design flaws to build a larger case. I would be more suspicious over placing exit nodes in libraries because I assume they're state owned in the US. Don't know since I'm not from there though. I just think it's sort of ironic because the attacks that have been performed all required possession of exit nodes. |
|
Librarians are more often rabidly pro-privacy and pro-anonymity than not. They're often very well read, well educated, and know their history.
> I just think it's sort of ironic because the attacks that have been performed all required possession of exit nodes.
Unless you have information that I do not (if you do, please link to it) control of a single exit node gives you no more power than your ISP already has over you. What attacks were you thinking of? Keep in mind that Tor explicitly does not protect against:
* An adversary that can listen to the communication between a large number of nodes in the Tor network and targeted Tor users. (Similarly, Tor cannot protect against a malicious adversary who controls a very large number (1/3? 51%? I can't remember) of the nodes in the Tor network.)
* Tampering with or recording of the data that leaves or is returned by a Tor exit node. (Again, this is an attack that anyone between you and your communication partner can launch, whether you're using Tor or not.)