FAQFixer
Premium
join:2004-06-28
Powder Springs, GA
| Whatever What a crock. The EFF knew EXACTLY what the tool was eventually going to be used for. They stated it was for, "whistle-blowers, political dissidents, researchers, and others concerned about exchanging information without authoritarian backlash" so they would not be liable like the Grokster case. | |
|
 |
Minister
join:2002-01-02
Fleeting
| Not true. You do know the EFF is a legit digital rights outfit, yes? P2P is clearly stated as a violation of the service.
The primary concept was to create a distribution method for researchers concerned about backlash to publish findings, not to create a distribution channel for the Metallica discography.... | |
|
 | grumpygeek
join:2004-12-14
Houston, TX | Re: Whatever The reality is actually not even that good; the "research" going on in tor consists apparently mostly of DDoS attacks, phishing, and blog-spamming.
Many hosts block any inbound IP connections from published TOR exit points. | |
|
| Pony99CA
join:2004-09-05
Hollister, CA
| said by Minister  :Not true. You do know the EFF is a legit digital rights outfit, yes? P2P is clearly stated as a violation of the service. That's kind of ironic, isn't it? The EFF is one of the biggest defenders of P2P, but they don't want it on their network. 
I think the EFF does some good work, but they end up taking a lot of really bad stances. They're kind of like the ACLU of the computer world. | |
|
| |
Minister
join:2002-01-02
Fleeting | Re: Whatever Yeah I think that's what the column hints at: Seems like they're faced with a choice here.
Either their network performance suffers, or they crack down on the very P2P file-trading they've in a round-about way been legally protecting.... | |
|
|
|
|
