Minister
join:2002-01-02
Fleeting | reply to Pony99CA
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.... |
|
Pony99CA
join:2004-09-05
Hollister, CA
| reply to Minister
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. |
|
grumpygeek
join:2004-12-14
Houston, TX | reply to Minister
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. |
|
Minister
join:2002-01-02
Fleeting
| reply to FAQFixer
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.... |
|
MxxCon
join:1999-11-19
Brooklyn, NY
clubs:  
| reply to FAQFixer
yes, EFF knew EXACTLY what the tool was designed to be used for.
RETARDS that use TOR for p2p are...retards
don't blame inventors of good ideas for idiots around the world.
--
[Sig removed by Administrator: Signature can not exceed 20GB] |
|
FAQFixer
Premium
join:2004-06-28
Powder Springs, GA
| 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. |
|
