- From: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>
- Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2012 19:00:18 -0800
- To: Aleecia M. McDonald <aleecia@aleecia.com>
- Cc: "public-tracking@w3.org Group WG" <public-tracking@w3.org>
On Feb 27, 2012, at 6:30 PM, Aleecia M. McDonald wrote: > On Feb 27, 2012, at 4:02 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote: > >> On Feb 27, 2012, at 3:35 PM, Karl Dubost wrote: >>> Le 27 févr. 2012 à 17:56, Roy T. Fielding a écrit : >>>> So, yes, privacy does suffer on the Internet. If it were not for the >>>> extreme risks of unlawful behavior, >>> >>> There are no extreme risks. FUD. >> >> Karl, my friend hosted a TOR node until the FBI knocked down his door >> and confiscated all of his computers during the investigation of a child >> pornography ring. If you don't know what risks are associated with >> anonymizing services, then please don't presume to teach industry about >> privacy. > > You have one unlucky friend. My understanding is there was exactly one US confiscation of TOR servers, ever. When the FBI knocked, metaphorically, at Carnegie Mellon's door, just saying "It's a TOR server" was all they needed. Didn't even need to explain TOR. I am told the Pittsburgh FBI are unusually clued. Same incident, yes, though it didn't play out that way. That sounds like the CMU PR version. ;-) Unfortunately, I don't have a public link to his description, nor do I want to publish his name. > Yet I fear I'm not seeing your point. How is kiddie porn linked to DNT? Are you imagining someone would enable DNT but not TOR? I'm not getting the relevance to your anecdote. That's because Karl quoted me out of context. I was talking about why companies don't provide a market in anonymization services that would allow people on the Internet to buy using the equivalent of cash. Liability risks is why. It has nothing to do with DNT, nor is it FUD. ....Roy
Received on Tuesday, 28 February 2012 03:00:41 UTC