The German Problem with Tor(worldofmatthew.com)
worldofmatthew.com
The German Problem with Tor
https://worldofmatthew.com/post/tor-german-avoid/
108 comments
"In reality, the German government has a double standard when it comes to the right to privacy. They will fully support that right if it's company's violating your privacy (especially, if they are American because protectionism) but in contrast, the German will give itself as many powers as it can to spy on its own citizens and those abroad." This.
That's only double standards if one considers states and companies as being in the same position.
A state and a company have vastly different goals. A state should care for its citizens, this includes protections against threats to public safety (terror, organized crime) and surveillance is a tool in the box for that. A company on the other hand, would have no issues fleecing people and abusing their power for profit if they only could. States are the entities actually powerful enough to keep companies in check and I'm pretty happy when they do that.
I admit that this is a, I guess, pretty european view of things (i.e. govs are good, since they keep greedy companies in check), while the american view might rather be that govs are bad because they get into the way of companies (which are considered good).
A state and a company have vastly different goals. A state should care for its citizens, this includes protections against threats to public safety (terror, organized crime) and surveillance is a tool in the box for that. A company on the other hand, would have no issues fleecing people and abusing their power for profit if they only could. States are the entities actually powerful enough to keep companies in check and I'm pretty happy when they do that.
I admit that this is a, I guess, pretty european view of things (i.e. govs are good, since they keep greedy companies in check), while the american view might rather be that govs are bad because they get into the way of companies (which are considered good).
In many places in the world, the government is corrupt and there is no transparency.
I’d be surprised if people trust their governments in Poland, Bulgaria etc.
Government officials have more power to abuse people than companies. At least Germany has an established constitutional court that can still resist the politicians to some degree.
I think the american view is that governments are bad because they can be used to establish tyranny. Every citizen’s right to be judged by their own peers, their right to carry firearms and freedom of speech are the things that allow people to fight against corrupt governments.
This is my view being someone living in Turkey. I am even afraid of posting this comment.
Maybe this generation in Europe trusts their government and thinks that its good. But I bet people having experienced autocratic regimes can never trust their government.
I’d be surprised if people trust their governments in Poland, Bulgaria etc.
Government officials have more power to abuse people than companies. At least Germany has an established constitutional court that can still resist the politicians to some degree.
I think the american view is that governments are bad because they can be used to establish tyranny. Every citizen’s right to be judged by their own peers, their right to carry firearms and freedom of speech are the things that allow people to fight against corrupt governments.
This is my view being someone living in Turkey. I am even afraid of posting this comment.
Maybe this generation in Europe trusts their government and thinks that its good. But I bet people having experienced autocratic regimes can never trust their government.
> I’d be surprised if people trust their governments in Poland, Bulgaria etc.
> But I bet people having experienced autocratic regimes can never trust their government.
If there is a lack of trust within the Polish public toward the state, then it stems in large part from a history of oppressive foreign or foreign-controlled governments over the course of the last 200 years. Of course, prior to that, the Polish republican tradition generally took a somewhat skeptical view of government and government power, introducing a system of checks and balances that ultimately tipped in favor of the nobility via the Sejm. But recent attitudes are IMO influenced by a kind of habit of viewing government as a foreign intruder dominated by foreign interests (which, frankly, continues to this day in the form of competing German, American, and Russian influence often represented by competing parties). The end of the Cold War did not, of course, lead to the expulsion of the entrenched interests and power networks formed during the years of the Soviet-dominated People's Republic which also contributes to the antipathies Poles have toward government.
If there is a lack of trust within the Polish public toward the state, then it stems in large part from a history of oppressive foreign or foreign-controlled governments over the course of the last 200 years. Of course, prior to that, the Polish republican tradition generally took a somewhat skeptical view of government and government power, introducing a system of checks and balances that ultimately tipped in favor of the nobility via the Sejm. But recent attitudes are IMO influenced by a kind of habit of viewing government as a foreign intruder dominated by foreign interests (which, frankly, continues to this day in the form of competing German, American, and Russian influence often represented by competing parties). The end of the Cold War did not, of course, lead to the expulsion of the entrenched interests and power networks formed during the years of the Soviet-dominated People's Republic which also contributes to the antipathies Poles have toward government.
Rulings of the constitutional court have almost no real life consequences. If there is a negative ruling the parliament is given ample time before the unconstitutional law must be replaced. If there is any replacement within that time, the same law, formulated differently, is passed.
That's not true at all. The rulings of the German Constitutional Court are extremely important (at the very least compared to almost all other Constitutional Courts in the world) and have very real consequences. Just one example: The recent PSPP Judgement had the potential to end the Euro. It didn't but if the Court had ruled in a slightly different way (which would have been within it's Constitutional Powers) the Bundesbank wouldn't have followed the orders of the ECB anymore which would have had unbelievable consequences for the Eurozone.
The fact that the Court tries not to do something like that is because it is also a political actor searching for stability.
The fact that the Court tries not to do something like that is because it is also a political actor searching for stability.
> The fact that the Court tries not to do something like that is because it is also a political actor searching for stability.
This sounds to me like someone saying that the Queen of England has the power to dissolve parliament - and just doesn't for political concerns. (Those political concerns being that if she ever exercises that power, it'll be removed)
At some point you have to recognize that if you can only use power in ways that don't interfere with another governmental body, that power might not really exist.
This sounds to me like someone saying that the Queen of England has the power to dissolve parliament - and just doesn't for political concerns. (Those political concerns being that if she ever exercises that power, it'll be removed)
At some point you have to recognize that if you can only use power in ways that don't interfere with another governmental body, that power might not really exist.
I can see where you're coming from but this analogy does not hold up. The German Constitutional Court (GCC) does exercise its powers, but it tries not to break anything, therefore it gives the responsible actors some time to change the law/their behavior. Maybe another example: The Court decided that the (specific calculation of the) German property tax was unconstitutional. But if they just declared the whole tax void, this would have been an enormous problem for the state financing. Therefore they decided that the Government had roughly one year to set up a new system that would follow the constitutional requirements as laid out by the Court. This is what the government has done and now the requirements are fulfilled.
You originally posted a response to this.
> Rulings of the constitutional court have almost no real life consequences. If there is a negative ruling the parliament is given ample time before the unconstitutional law must be replaced. If there is any replacement within that time, the same law, formulated differently, is passed.
To say that the court does have power. But your example is an example of exactly what the OP was saying happens!
> Rulings of the constitutional court have almost no real life consequences. If there is a negative ruling the parliament is given ample time before the unconstitutional law must be replaced. If there is any replacement within that time, the same law, formulated differently, is passed.
To say that the court does have power. But your example is an example of exactly what the OP was saying happens!
Yes you are correct, that is an example except for this part
>If there is any replacement within that time, the same law, formulated differently, is passed
Which is not accurate. Actually the new laws are substantially different, in the case of the ground tax this is also very obvious.
>If there is any replacement within that time, the same law, formulated differently, is passed
Which is not accurate. Actually the new laws are substantially different, in the case of the ground tax this is also very obvious.
Did they replace a property tax with a tax paid on property?
The process is long and yes, sometimes parliament iterates on laws to bring them into compliance with the constitution (and sometimes those changes get struck down again) but it's patently false to claim that the constitutional court doesn't have consequences. (real life is tough a claim to argue against - what is a real life consequence?)
Some consequential decision that come to my mind (without judging whether these were good or bad decision): - they derived the right to privacy (Informationelle Selbstbestimmung) based on other rights. This is now firmly established in the judicial process. - They struck down the law allowing the government to shoot down hijacked planes (no replacement) - Secret paternity test are illegal and hold no value as evidence - mass deployment of automatic number-plate recognition is illegal - they set the barrier for voting machines so high it's de facto impossible to use them - they've struck down the data mention laws multiple times since 2007. The government keeps trying but to this day there's no law in force - struck down the law requiring a cross in every classroom
And these are just the bigger ones that made the press. There are a huge amount of cases that narrow down and define things like when apartments can be searched, when people can be wiretapped, what are the rights and responsilties of people living in a civil partnerships (before marriage for everyone was enacted), when and when not it's allowed to use the armed forces abroad and what restrictions on the right to assemble are allowed.
The reason you might have this impression are three-fold: - sometimes a law that is unconstitutional can be made constitutional by adding some exceptions. For example a surveillance law might only be unconstitutional because it didn't have adequate measures to protect priests, therapists, lawyers and other professions with certain privileges. The law is then often revised and passes muster. - some ruling a purely procedural. The decision itself is valid but either it didn't come to be in a valid way (e.g. proper parlimentary procedure wasn't maintained) or it exceeded authority (the government acted but it would have to be a law). These are often easily fixed by going through the process again or turning a decree into a law - Lastly, the constitution might just be changed. The Constitutional Court doesn't have any higher authority than the parliament. If the parliament, following proper procedure, changes the constitution a lot of things are possible. This does require a big majority in both parliaments. Note there are some basic principles that can't be changed but they're quite limited.
Some consequential decision that come to my mind (without judging whether these were good or bad decision): - they derived the right to privacy (Informationelle Selbstbestimmung) based on other rights. This is now firmly established in the judicial process. - They struck down the law allowing the government to shoot down hijacked planes (no replacement) - Secret paternity test are illegal and hold no value as evidence - mass deployment of automatic number-plate recognition is illegal - they set the barrier for voting machines so high it's de facto impossible to use them - they've struck down the data mention laws multiple times since 2007. The government keeps trying but to this day there's no law in force - struck down the law requiring a cross in every classroom
And these are just the bigger ones that made the press. There are a huge amount of cases that narrow down and define things like when apartments can be searched, when people can be wiretapped, what are the rights and responsilties of people living in a civil partnerships (before marriage for everyone was enacted), when and when not it's allowed to use the armed forces abroad and what restrictions on the right to assemble are allowed.
The reason you might have this impression are three-fold: - sometimes a law that is unconstitutional can be made constitutional by adding some exceptions. For example a surveillance law might only be unconstitutional because it didn't have adequate measures to protect priests, therapists, lawyers and other professions with certain privileges. The law is then often revised and passes muster. - some ruling a purely procedural. The decision itself is valid but either it didn't come to be in a valid way (e.g. proper parlimentary procedure wasn't maintained) or it exceeded authority (the government acted but it would have to be a law). These are often easily fixed by going through the process again or turning a decree into a law - Lastly, the constitution might just be changed. The Constitutional Court doesn't have any higher authority than the parliament. If the parliament, following proper procedure, changes the constitution a lot of things are possible. This does require a big majority in both parliaments. Note there are some basic principles that can't be changed but they're quite limited.
> Maybe this generation in Europe trusts their government and thinks that its good.
Which is strange, since there are people alive today who's relatives were executed in camps by the democratically elected government of Germany. People who think that democratic government is somehow a panacea against tyranny are constantly being proven wrong by history. The modern example is Venezuela and the fact that Maduro's predecessor, Chávez was elected by the majority of the population.
Which is strange, since there are people alive today who's relatives were executed in camps by the democratically elected government of Germany. People who think that democratic government is somehow a panacea against tyranny are constantly being proven wrong by history. The modern example is Venezuela and the fact that Maduro's predecessor, Chávez was elected by the majority of the population.
You can be certain that nobody in Germany has forgotten the Third Reich. The German constitution is a direct response to the experience of the collapse of the Weimar Republic and has been very carefully designed to avoid the same sorts of mistakes. There are consitutionally guaranteed, inviolable rights and principles that can never ever, legally, be changed ("Ewigkeitsklausel"). Nazi Germany can't ever happen again in any sort of legal way, nor whatever happened in Venezuela.
No system is flawless and if shit really hits the fan and somebody makes a coup, who knows what may happen, but the German system is probably the most stable in the world, so I think some amount of trust in it is not misplaced.
And the European, or at least Western European, perspective is that governments are elected and certainly more representative than any large companies that are incentivised only to maximise profit above everything, so having an oligopoly of companies dictating the rules of society is seen as a problem. This is a perspective I largely agree with.
(NB: I'm not saying you should fully trust the government, I certainly don't always do that, but I do trust that the system generally works to keep the government in check.)
No system is flawless and if shit really hits the fan and somebody makes a coup, who knows what may happen, but the German system is probably the most stable in the world, so I think some amount of trust in it is not misplaced.
And the European, or at least Western European, perspective is that governments are elected and certainly more representative than any large companies that are incentivised only to maximise profit above everything, so having an oligopoly of companies dictating the rules of society is seen as a problem. This is a perspective I largely agree with.
(NB: I'm not saying you should fully trust the government, I certainly don't always do that, but I do trust that the system generally works to keep the government in check.)
It's complicated. I doubt that the right to bare firearms is effective deterrent against the abuse of power by the US federal government. It does enable use of force. I don't know any other country with the right to bare firearms protected by its constitution. Switzerland does have regulation in this regard.
You would think the Germans of all people would know better than to view the state with this kind of naivety.
I don’t think the state is dangerous because it gets in the way of profit (though it can do that) but because it can directly oppress its people in all kinds of violent ways. The mitigating factor is supposed to be that people can hold their government accountable, but allow the government to snoop on everyone’s private communications and they’ll take care of that.
I don’t think the state is dangerous because it gets in the way of profit (though it can do that) but because it can directly oppress its people in all kinds of violent ways. The mitigating factor is supposed to be that people can hold their government accountable, but allow the government to snoop on everyone’s private communications and they’ll take care of that.
I can't really bring myself to agree with this view of the world. To me it sounds like saying that parents are dangerous because they can mistreat children or that employers are dangerous because they can oppress employees.
Obviously those are true statements, but they are also horrible first approximations. Parents are supposed to be caregivers, employers are supposed to be source of opportunities, and governments are supposed to protect and safeguard the state and its people.
To me this looks like a self fulfilling prophecy, if you treat parents as primarily evil oppressors you are in part forcing them in that position, same with governments. Some parents and some governments are evil and should be treated as such, but having an a priori predisposition that they will become evil seems inefficient
Obviously those are true statements, but they are also horrible first approximations. Parents are supposed to be caregivers, employers are supposed to be source of opportunities, and governments are supposed to protect and safeguard the state and its people.
To me this looks like a self fulfilling prophecy, if you treat parents as primarily evil oppressors you are in part forcing them in that position, same with governments. Some parents and some governments are evil and should be treated as such, but having an a priori predisposition that they will become evil seems inefficient
Employers will be good to you if you have bargaining power, but employees who have none are often mistreated. That is why we need a competing source of power (the government!) to regulate employers. The government, like an employer, needs to be checked by something if it isn’t going to grow abusive.
Parents are somewhat different in that they tend to actually know and love their children. But even then we don’t give parents unchecked rights over their kids.
Parents are somewhat different in that they tend to actually know and love their children. But even then we don’t give parents unchecked rights over their kids.
I completely agree, what I wanted to say is that in all those cases relationship work better when the basic nature of the connection is trust, not distrust. In a sense societies puts limitation on the power of governments/employers/parents so that they can be safely trusted even more (specifically so that those deserving of trust are allowed to have it), not because they are inherently untrustworthy.
>Parents are supposed to be caregivers, employers are supposed to be source of opportunities, and governments are supposed to protect and safeguard the state and its people.
This is a bizarrely naive worldview. In democratic countries the government's role is to implement a system of governance decided on by the people. The whole idea behind having a system of "checks and balances" is to prevent the government from unilaterally deciding what constitutes "safety and protection" and what measures it deems necessary to do so. Every despotic regime in history has claimed to be "protecting and safeguarding the state and its people" while stifling the freedom of its people. Ceding rights and freedoms to the government because you perceive them as benevolent overseers with pure motives is incredibly dangerous and absurd to anyone with any knowledge of history.
This is a bizarrely naive worldview. In democratic countries the government's role is to implement a system of governance decided on by the people. The whole idea behind having a system of "checks and balances" is to prevent the government from unilaterally deciding what constitutes "safety and protection" and what measures it deems necessary to do so. Every despotic regime in history has claimed to be "protecting and safeguarding the state and its people" while stifling the freedom of its people. Ceding rights and freedoms to the government because you perceive them as benevolent overseers with pure motives is incredibly dangerous and absurd to anyone with any knowledge of history.
I never said this, what I said is that is that societal figures of power exist with a benevolent purpose and should not be perceived as evil.
The system of checks and balances on the power of the state can be seen in two lights: 1) as a way to prevent tyrannies from arising or 2) as a way to let the good actors freely act within well defined boundaries.
I simply believe the second point of view to be much more fruitful and stable.
The system of checks and balances on the power of the state can be seen in two lights: 1) as a way to prevent tyrannies from arising or 2) as a way to let the good actors freely act within well defined boundaries.
I simply believe the second point of view to be much more fruitful and stable.
>I never said this, what I said is that is that societal figures of power exist with a benevolent purpose
Societal figures of power exist with a necessary purpose - there is nothing benevolent about them.
Societal figures of power exist with a necessary purpose - there is nothing benevolent about them.
There is a significant difference in the relationship between parent-to-child and The State-to-Citizen. Children mature and achieve autonomy from parental control and can escape violence if present.
When am I ever allowed my autonomy from The State? According to its laws I am always subject to its rule regardless of my vote, intentions, ethics, personal values, or will. My only defense is the system itself and I have been given good evidence to not trust its outcomes or intentions regardless of how it is advertised.
When am I ever allowed my autonomy from The State? According to its laws I am always subject to its rule regardless of my vote, intentions, ethics, personal values, or will. My only defense is the system itself and I have been given good evidence to not trust its outcomes or intentions regardless of how it is advertised.
There are many different answer depending on the situation. For once you can leave the state. You can take a boat and live off fishing in the middle of the pacific ocean.
If what you are saying is that you want to secede your person from the state then you are as free from your state as other states are free from each other influences.
> My only defense is the system itself and I have been given good evidence to not trust its outcomes or intentions regardless of how it is advertised.
This is essentially the prisoner's dilemma; my philosophical stance is that the only way to improve the world is by mutual trust, even if that means being betrayed.
If what you are saying is that you want to secede your person from the state then you are as free from your state as other states are free from each other influences.
> My only defense is the system itself and I have been given good evidence to not trust its outcomes or intentions regardless of how it is advertised.
This is essentially the prisoner's dilemma; my philosophical stance is that the only way to improve the world is by mutual trust, even if that means being betrayed.
Yes, it's based on binary thinking. Can governments be trusted (yes/no)? But we can't correct for this by taking the opposite stance because that's also binary thinking.
We should be able to say that some institution are useful and necessary, and also that we need to guard against corruption and abuse, looking at the possible threats and how to mitigate them.
It also helps to make distinctions between different governments and different employers.
We should be able to say that some institution are useful and necessary, and also that we need to guard against corruption and abuse, looking at the possible threats and how to mitigate them.
It also helps to make distinctions between different governments and different employers.
Here is the fundamental flaw with the parent analogy:
Both the government and the citizens are adults. Don't treat me like a child. Government is not supposed to keep us safe from ourselves but protect our god given freedoms.
In the US the government is of the people, by the people, for the people.
The other argument that people in government are smarter is laughable, at best.
Government is a necessary evil, but it needs to be limited.
Both the government and the citizens are adults. Don't treat me like a child. Government is not supposed to keep us safe from ourselves but protect our god given freedoms.
In the US the government is of the people, by the people, for the people.
The other argument that people in government are smarter is laughable, at best.
Government is a necessary evil, but it needs to be limited.
> Government is a necessary evil
Everything is a necessary evil, if you want to see it that way.
> Government is not supposed to keep us safe from ourselves but protect our god given freedoms.
A lot of the job of the state is to keep us safe from other individuals and other states. History proved that one of the best way to do that is to respect individual freedom in a very strong way.
Personally I am not convinced that personal freedom is an end to itself, I see it as the only stable principle that is able to fuel a civil and fair society. More freedom is good only insofar as it produces healthier societies.
I think we have quite different world views on this.
Everything is a necessary evil, if you want to see it that way.
> Government is not supposed to keep us safe from ourselves but protect our god given freedoms.
A lot of the job of the state is to keep us safe from other individuals and other states. History proved that one of the best way to do that is to respect individual freedom in a very strong way.
Personally I am not convinced that personal freedom is an end to itself, I see it as the only stable principle that is able to fuel a civil and fair society. More freedom is good only insofar as it produces healthier societies.
I think we have quite different world views on this.
the fundamental flaw in your analogy is that there is an authority above both parents and employers - the state.
Who will watch the watchmen? Once the state legislates overreach into law, who will challenge them effectively?
Who will watch the watchmen? Once the state legislates overreach into law, who will challenge them effectively?
This is only a flaw insofar as the child-protective services are effective in detecting abuse and the state is a monolithic entity.
My point is that trying to guarantee recursive watchmen does not work. It almost invites looking at that structure as a puzzle to be solved, as a game to played.
A power balance based on mutual trust and mutual responsibility is more susceptible to individual overreach, but also more stable in identifying them.
My point is that trying to guarantee recursive watchmen does not work. It almost invites looking at that structure as a puzzle to be solved, as a game to played.
A power balance based on mutual trust and mutual responsibility is more susceptible to individual overreach, but also more stable in identifying them.
[deleted]
No, we do not. Problem is we have a lot of people that are a bit too critical and think everyone is out there to get them. In a most reactionary manner to those, we now have large groups that want to strengthen the state. In some cases that is justified as states loose out against companies when it comes to influence. But certainly a bad idea if you want it to control information.
A stereotype is that there is no gray in Germany and I start to believe there is some truth to that.
A stereotype is that there is no gray in Germany and I start to believe there is some truth to that.
> A company on the other hand, would have no issues fleecing people and abusing their power for profit if they only could.
Governments often abuse their power. They have absolutely no problem with that either. It's precisely because they do this that total population surveillance should be impossible rather than a standard government tool.
Abuse of surveillance powers could manifest in any number of ways. For example:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LOVEINT
The only way to prevent abuse of power is to take the power away.
Governments often abuse their power. They have absolutely no problem with that either. It's precisely because they do this that total population surveillance should be impossible rather than a standard government tool.
Abuse of surveillance powers could manifest in any number of ways. For example:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LOVEINT
The only way to prevent abuse of power is to take the power away.
> Governments often abuse their power. They have absolutely no problem with that either.
The way I think about it is this. Governments and companies are both organizations made up of people. Governments have additional powers (for instance, military force, police power, etc.) over companies. The checks and balances for gov't abuse of power depend on the type i.e. representative democracy, republic, etc. And the checks and balances for company abuse of power are however the markets are configured.
There are different incentives at an organizational and people level both in gov't and companies. But in general, I tend to think its easier to prevent "company abuse" of power b/c ultimately they have to deliver a product which people can choose to buy or not - in this sense we all have a direct democracy with companies, unlike Gov't.
For instance, if I choose to not buy any more Google products, then however small and insignificant it may be Google is going to notice my change of preference on the bottom line of financial statements just as will the other company whom I deem better aligned to my preferences.
This type of direct control is currently not possible with governmental institutions unfortunately.
The way I think about it is this. Governments and companies are both organizations made up of people. Governments have additional powers (for instance, military force, police power, etc.) over companies. The checks and balances for gov't abuse of power depend on the type i.e. representative democracy, republic, etc. And the checks and balances for company abuse of power are however the markets are configured.
There are different incentives at an organizational and people level both in gov't and companies. But in general, I tend to think its easier to prevent "company abuse" of power b/c ultimately they have to deliver a product which people can choose to buy or not - in this sense we all have a direct democracy with companies, unlike Gov't.
For instance, if I choose to not buy any more Google products, then however small and insignificant it may be Google is going to notice my change of preference on the bottom line of financial statements just as will the other company whom I deem better aligned to my preferences.
This type of direct control is currently not possible with governmental institutions unfortunately.
The difference is often referred to as 'voice vs. exit'. You have a 'voice' (your say/vote) with the government, but no right to 'exit'. In contrast, with a private party, you only have a right not to transact with them (exit), but no right to tell them what to do (voice).
Your desired scope of government usually reflects how much you believe in exit and voice. For practical purposes, this usually translates to how efficient you think competition is, and how effective you think democracy is.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exit,_Voice,_and_Loyalty
Your desired scope of government usually reflects how much you believe in exit and voice. For practical purposes, this usually translates to how efficient you think competition is, and how effective you think democracy is.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exit,_Voice,_and_Loyalty
Very interesting. Thanks for the link :)
> I admit that this is a, I guess, pretty european view of things (i.e. govs are good, since they keep greedy companies in check), while the american view might rather be that govs are bad because they get into the way of companies (which are considered good).
Here's another way of looking at it: Germany is adopting an incredibly hypocritical position on privacy. It's so hypocritical it's nearly identical to the American government's position that many here on HN rightly decry.
Here's another way of looking at it: Germany is adopting an incredibly hypocritical position on privacy. It's so hypocritical it's nearly identical to the American government's position that many here on HN rightly decry.
I don't think it is a fair point to say that the American view that govs are bad because they get into the way of companies.
The view is more along the lines of they are corruptible and frequently serve the interest of the business and political elite at the expense of the median citizen. Moreover, the government will use its power to thwart attempts at fixing the government. Therefore we should limit the power of the government.
The view is more along the lines of they are corruptible and frequently serve the interest of the business and political elite at the expense of the median citizen. Moreover, the government will use its power to thwart attempts at fixing the government. Therefore we should limit the power of the government.
I think we had enough evidence lately that the German government is corrupt and they all have their snouts in the trough, almost regardless of party. Talking about fleecing.
Corruption is relative. Something can be more corrupt than something else.
Saying whether something is corrupt isn't helpful because most things are corrupt to a certain extent.=
Please feel free to provide the evidence you are referring to, thank you
he's probably talking about the wirecard scandal, where the german SEC equivalent didn't bother investigating wirecard despite the warnings, and instead went after journalists and short sellers.
see: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23869480 There's also some discussion about german corruption in the comments as well.
see: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23869480 There's also some discussion about german corruption in the comments as well.
Wirecard, Gazprom, McKinsey scandals. Not gonna name names.
I think most Americans agree with a more middle of the road approach: that both companies and govt can be evil and shouldn't be given too much power. Most disagree on where the lines should be drawn with both entities, but the root contention is that power can corrupt anyone, from a profit-seeking CEO to a power-seeking politician, and so the leash on power should be short and the barriers around it should be tall.
The idea that Facebook and other companies have so much data is often a bi-partisan point of concern, likewise the dramatic govt surveillance power of the Patriot Act is a pretty bi-partisan concern on the civilian level (as opposed to politicians, who are inclined to tow institutional lines even in disagreement with the current constituent sentiment.
The idea that Facebook and other companies have so much data is often a bi-partisan point of concern, likewise the dramatic govt surveillance power of the Patriot Act is a pretty bi-partisan concern on the civilian level (as opposed to politicians, who are inclined to tow institutional lines even in disagreement with the current constituent sentiment.
The state is responsible for more death than any other group/ all other groups combined.
But is it not also responsible for saving more than any other group?
When you start a problem killing hundreds and save tens, do you think we should focus on the tens?
I think they meant how somewhat organising instead of anarchy saves lives.
This bold claim requires proofs.
We have no counterfactual than anarchy in a developed country would cost lives.
We can see that the government "organization" of covid tests, messing up their official tests while forbidding private alternatives, costed lives.
We have no counterfactual than anarchy in a developed country would cost lives.
We can see that the government "organization" of covid tests, messing up their official tests while forbidding private alternatives, costed lives.
Humans congregate and organise, it's basically what makes us human.
A state has coercive power over you, a company doesn't.
From my point of view, the government can do (and does) 100 more damage to me than any single company could do.
A company can sell my personal data if I'm not careful. The state can send me to jail for saying things they don't like or doing things they don't like, even when those things don't do any harm to other people (e.g. using LSD). The state also steals a big portion of people's money, usually for no good reason.
From my point of view, the government can do (and does) 100 more damage to me than any single company could do.
A company can sell my personal data if I'm not careful. The state can send me to jail for saying things they don't like or doing things they don't like, even when those things don't do any harm to other people (e.g. using LSD). The state also steals a big portion of people's money, usually for no good reason.
The problem starts if the state wants to save money and skills in intelligence to work around common challenges of anonymous services. The real criminals attacking the constitution often can invest time and money into unbreakable anonymization, such things mostly hinder easy access to privacy by the normal citizen like me.
The german government has really a long record of distrusting anonymization starting with ISDN mixes and denouncing their users. But also little things like one time credit cards seem to be restricted only because it would take an extra step to link the data in a real criminal case.
And regarding data protection: it was big on paper in germany for a long time but only because nearly nobody was actually sued. Now everyone shits their pants here about the GDPR because you at least there are fines ( the rules did not change much). At the same time even with the GDPR we only trusted other german corps with data as corrupt or leaky they may be and not other Europeans.
I agree with the OP that there are double standards here. But mostly it is just a history great theoretical ethics combined with technical incompetence and the deep national feeling of moral superiority...
The german government has really a long record of distrusting anonymization starting with ISDN mixes and denouncing their users. But also little things like one time credit cards seem to be restricted only because it would take an extra step to link the data in a real criminal case.
And regarding data protection: it was big on paper in germany for a long time but only because nearly nobody was actually sued. Now everyone shits their pants here about the GDPR because you at least there are fines ( the rules did not change much). At the same time even with the GDPR we only trusted other german corps with data as corrupt or leaky they may be and not other Europeans.
I agree with the OP that there are double standards here. But mostly it is just a history great theoretical ethics combined with technical incompetence and the deep national feeling of moral superiority...
They're both orgs run by people. If the leadership is corrupt, there's not much of a difference.
This is actually really ironic.
When the government wants to charge you for the "non-tax" obligatory TV fee they get your data automatically from your local citizens' office. You cannot protect your data from that.
But when you want to claim unemployment, suddenly you need to physically pass printed pages of paper between different offices because they cannot exchange data due to data protection rules.
These sort of idiosyncrasies are a commonplace in the Federal Republic.
When the government wants to charge you for the "non-tax" obligatory TV fee they get your data automatically from your local citizens' office. You cannot protect your data from that.
But when you want to claim unemployment, suddenly you need to physically pass printed pages of paper between different offices because they cannot exchange data due to data protection rules.
These sort of idiosyncrasies are a commonplace in the Federal Republic.
Recently the German constitutional court ruled the government can't spy on foreigners outside Germany, as they enjoy constitutional protections: https://www.dw.com/en/german-intelligence-cant-spy-on-foreig...
Of course, in a democratic country where the judicial system is separated from the legislative powers one should wait for the law (or the lawsuit) to know how it is enforced in reality.
Of course, in a democratic country where the judicial system is separated from the legislative powers one should wait for the law (or the lawsuit) to know how it is enforced in reality.
>one should wait for the law (or the lawsuit) to know how it is enforced in reality.
Of course, as we discovered that the NSA was gamboling, if you're doing it in secret, and the secret that you're doing it is protected by law, then if you do something illegal, it won't be legal to take you to court...
Of course, as we discovered that the NSA was gamboling, if you're doing it in secret, and the secret that you're doing it is protected by law, then if you do something illegal, it won't be legal to take you to court...
This assumption (i. e. that everything bad is done anyway, only in secret) is a truism. People who buy into this sort of cynicism will rely on the non-existence of evidence as evidence of their theory of all-powerful government able to suppress all evidence.
The idea is also destructive for any effort to improve matters: if everything and everyone is corrupt, there's no point in trying to hold anyone to account. And if those in power continually get hit with the wildest accusations people can think of, they will at some point abandon the idea of trying to do a good job and/or being honest because there are no incentives whatsoever when the discourse is dominated by narratives that are no longer in any way tied to their actual behaviour.
The idea is also destructive for any effort to improve matters: if everything and everyone is corrupt, there's no point in trying to hold anyone to account. And if those in power continually get hit with the wildest accusations people can think of, they will at some point abandon the idea of trying to do a good job and/or being honest because there are no incentives whatsoever when the discourse is dominated by narratives that are no longer in any way tied to their actual behaviour.
Assumption? I was describing a historical anecdote.
>if everything and everyone is corrupt, there's no point in trying to hold anyone to account.
What's your plan for holding anyone to account without limiting secrecy? Seriously, there are zero ways to have accountability to the public without the public knowing what they're judging. The authority knowing the facts is the absolute most basic element of decision-making, and it precedes all other organizational or procedural designs.
>if those in power continually get hit with the wildest accusations people can think of,
No accusation was made. I am merely pointing out that there is no system of accountability. Zero accountability plus human nature plus power always leads to the same thing - and although we don't know the details, we can be sure there's some kind of mold growing under the counter so to speak.
>if everything and everyone is corrupt, there's no point in trying to hold anyone to account.
What's your plan for holding anyone to account without limiting secrecy? Seriously, there are zero ways to have accountability to the public without the public knowing what they're judging. The authority knowing the facts is the absolute most basic element of decision-making, and it precedes all other organizational or procedural designs.
>if those in power continually get hit with the wildest accusations people can think of,
No accusation was made. I am merely pointing out that there is no system of accountability. Zero accountability plus human nature plus power always leads to the same thing - and although we don't know the details, we can be sure there's some kind of mold growing under the counter so to speak.
Isn't that government by default?
We carve out privacy exceptions for law enforcement in given situations where otherwise we would expect them to be respected.
We carve out privacy exceptions for law enforcement in given situations where otherwise we would expect them to be respected.
Germany doesn't "give itself as many powers as it can". Just recently, the courts affirmed that even foreigners have a right to privacy that intelligence agencies have to respect.
Privacy regulation in Europe is the mot stringent anywhere, and contrary to popular myth it applies to governments just as it does to corporations and citizens.
Conservatives have been clamoring for metadata retention requirements afor communication companies for about a decade or so, but all of their ideas failed either in parliament or in the courts.
Video surveillance is illegal by default, and is only done in sensitive areas such as airports. Even as a private citizen, you can get fined for installing a camera that points at public spaces. Some landlord was even fined for installing a fake camera in the public staircase, because the possiblity of surveillance was considered harmful.
Privacy regulation in Europe is the mot stringent anywhere, and contrary to popular myth it applies to governments just as it does to corporations and citizens.
Conservatives have been clamoring for metadata retention requirements afor communication companies for about a decade or so, but all of their ideas failed either in parliament or in the courts.
Video surveillance is illegal by default, and is only done in sensitive areas such as airports. Even as a private citizen, you can get fined for installing a camera that points at public spaces. Some landlord was even fined for installing a fake camera in the public staircase, because the possiblity of surveillance was considered harmful.
That is the definition of government, a power monopoly, to avoid chaos. To obtain legitimacy to exercise that monopoly, we vote every couple of years. To avoid abuse, we split the power in three independent parts: legislative, executive, and judicial.
Not sure what you would prefer?
Not sure what you would prefer?
Keep in mind that government IT jobs in Germany are almost comically underpaid. People competent enough to perform timing correlation attacks usually choose the >2x salary industry jobs. The running gag was that this is the greatest protection for citizens privacy.
Unfortunately, an unintended consequence is that the government looks to shady companies like Gamma to do its job. This leads to FinFisher, which is normally used by the most contemptible dictatorships against their dissidents, to be used against German law enforcement. It also creates incentives not to prosecute Gamma for helping to violate human rights all over the world by helping to throw bloggers into torture jails.
Unfortunately, an unintended consequence is that the government looks to shady companies like Gamma to do its job. This leads to FinFisher, which is normally used by the most contemptible dictatorships against their dissidents, to be used against German law enforcement. It also creates incentives not to prosecute Gamma for helping to violate human rights all over the world by helping to throw bloggers into torture jails.
> to be used against German law enforcement.
Against, or by? I'm not trying to nitpick, just make sense of this. You imply that the German government hired Gamma to gain access to FinFisher, and then talk about it being used against German law enforcement. This seems internally inconsistent.
Against, or by? I'm not trying to nitpick, just make sense of this. You imply that the German government hired Gamma to gain access to FinFisher, and then talk about it being used against German law enforcement. This seems internally inconsistent.
"By"
I'd suspect a writing/editing mistake here. But nobody is spying on our law enforcement. In fact, they seem to be so confident that anytime someone does look into their affairs for whatever reason, unconstitutional attitudes and practices just show up all over the place.
I'd suspect a writing/editing mistake here. But nobody is spying on our law enforcement. In fact, they seem to be so confident that anytime someone does look into their affairs for whatever reason, unconstitutional attitudes and practices just show up all over the place.
I meant “by”, sorry for the confusion.
While I don't want to defend the german state, i think it should be mentioned that germany does have a pretty active pro-privacy movement. The chaos-computer club is big, with local chapters in nearly every city, very well connected and closely follows any movement from our government (and industry). While the german state itself may want as much control as possible, its attempts are always attacked by those groups.
These aren't attacks, just protests that are sometimes big enough to be mentioned in mainstream media to then be summarily dimissed by politicians, sometimes in very condescending tones or even derogatory language. The actual impact on the lawmaking process is negligible. Politicians have figured out that ignoring protests of privacy advocates is "safe", that is, it won't affect their reelection.
Suing against the legislation in the constitutional court is somewhat more effective, but it takes somewhere between 5 to 10 years to obtain a ruling againt a law that must be in effect before the process can even start.
Suing against the legislation in the constitutional court is somewhat more effective, but it takes somewhere between 5 to 10 years to obtain a ruling againt a law that must be in effect before the process can even start.
If those attacks are completely negligable, was it the progressiveness and open mindedness of politicians that brought us to this point in history in terms of civil rights etc?
It was Hitler and Stalin. The Federal Republic of Germany was set up to have a constitution with very strong protections of individual freedom and democracy in response to the highjacking of the Weimar Republic constitution by the NSDAP. That state then evolved into a counterexample to German Democratic Republic while slowly gaining more and more independence from the Allied oversight that was put in place initially. There is a strong framework of rights and freedoms into the constitution as a legacy of these formation years. The main power that keeps that in place is the constitutional court with its long history of landmark decisions and a general tendency to overturn the steady trickle of new legislation that seeks to limit personal rights, mostly in the guise of better prosecution of crimes. For example, the right to control the use of one's own data is a result of ruling of that court. No lawmaker would have come up with that.
Best example IMO: for the last ~20 years, government after government has tried to push the essentially same data retention legislation. And everytime they do pass it, it gets shot down in a court. It's not even always the same people pushing it (although Merkel was chancellor for most of that time, but she never seemed to get involved directly, not her style) but at this point it's quite clear that "the government" simply wants these laws, constitutional or not.
Recommending to host an exit node in Switzerland in the context of TOR feels like reading an article of someone who thinks they are anonymous by using TOR.
Switzerland is even more privacy invasive than German laws, and that is the case since 2010 when automated connection tagging was introduced for VND and VÜPF.
Switzerland is even more privacy invasive than German laws, and that is the case since 2010 when automated connection tagging was introduced for VND and VÜPF.
I wasn't aware of that :( Which country would be best in your opinion? It seems it's becoming quite hard to find one that doesn't do this now.
Iceland is the best country for free information (leaks etc), Romania the best for potential copyrighted stuff (torrent etc)
>Switzerland is even more privacy invasive than German laws
Why even more? Germany also do's connection tagging, and additionally always thinks about to hold the transported data too (vorratsdatenspeicherung). The problem described here is that the possibility to have a entrance node and a exit node in Germany is really high, because Germany is the biggest provider in tor bandwidth.
Why even more? Germany also do's connection tagging, and additionally always thinks about to hold the transported data too (vorratsdatenspeicherung). The problem described here is that the possibility to have a entrance node and a exit node in Germany is really high, because Germany is the biggest provider in tor bandwidth.
Why all the hate for Germany specifically? Pretty much no gov out there likes TOR nodes. The fact that there are ton in Germany any seems like something that should be applauded
> The high number of high-speed relays and exits in Germany mean that it is not too uncommon to get both a German guard and exit. This gives the state an easier time if they want to target someone using traffic correlation attacks.
> That also does not take in account the planned German law that will allow authorities to redirect traffic to state-owned servers, to infect users with viruses/Trojans. This is especially a concern for third-world users of Tor who are going to mainly accessing non-HTTPS sites on a computer without the best security.
Did you read the article in its entirety?
> That also does not take in account the planned German law that will allow authorities to redirect traffic to state-owned servers, to infect users with viruses/Trojans. This is especially a concern for third-world users of Tor who are going to mainly accessing non-HTTPS sites on a computer without the best security.
Did you read the article in its entirety?
Yes I did read it
> not too uncommon to get both a German guard and exit.
The solution here is more non-German nodes not to shit on the Germans that are already hosting lots.
Maybe there is a language barrier at play here but just seems bizarre how aggressively “the German” is being singled out:
>the German will give itself as many powers as it can to spy on its own citizens and those abroad.
> not too uncommon to get both a German guard and exit.
The solution here is more non-German nodes not to shit on the Germans that are already hosting lots.
Maybe there is a language barrier at play here but just seems bizarre how aggressively “the German” is being singled out:
>the German will give itself as many powers as it can to spy on its own citizens and those abroad.
Maybe this is because of the visibility.
If your security legislation is often declared partly illegal by the Verfassungsgericht (latest [1]), you leave the impression of reaching too far by default.
If your courts do not declare (too far reaching) laws illegal, you leave the impression to have been right in your demands.
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/17/world/europe/germany-priv...
If your security legislation is often declared partly illegal by the Verfassungsgericht (latest [1]), you leave the impression of reaching too far by default.
If your courts do not declare (too far reaching) laws illegal, you leave the impression to have been right in your demands.
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/17/world/europe/germany-priv...
Is your argument that strict controls makes corruption appear more prevalent than it is in reality?
Here is a different way to think about it. You are a police officer and interrogate 100 honest people who never lie and 25 people confess their crimes and the rest are innocent. Then you interrogate 100 people who always lie (75 are innocent) and you can only prove 15 of them guilty. From the outside it looks like honest people have a higher chance to be criminals. Doing the right thing can destroy your reputation.
Here is a different way to think about it. You are a police officer and interrogate 100 honest people who never lie and 25 people confess their crimes and the rest are innocent. Then you interrogate 100 people who always lie (75 are innocent) and you can only prove 15 of them guilty. From the outside it looks like honest people have a higher chance to be criminals. Doing the right thing can destroy your reputation.
I think you could have phrased your question better:
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Please don't comment on whether someone read an article. "Did you even read the article? It mentions that" can be shortened to "The article mentions that."
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Please don't comment on whether someone read an article. "Did you even read the article? It mentions that" can be shortened to "The article mentions that."
My bad. I chose the wording I used over "Did you even read the article?" to be more polite, but perhaps I should have phrased it in a completely different way altogether. I'll keep it in mind I'm the future.
"Why all the hate for Germany specifically? Pretty much no gov out there likes TOR nodes."
It could be argued that the United States does like TOR nodes ... it was originally a US Navy research and development project and, then, in later years the US state department specifically called out TOR as a useful tool (during the "Arab Spring" protests, IIRC.)
I see that even now, in 2020, the US State Department is a financial backer of TOR.[1]
If I were running TOR nodes in the United States (as I have in the past) I would rely on that current funding as a positive defense against any legal claims against me.
(I would also not do anything stupid like run TOR nodes from my home Internet)
[1] https://www.torproject.org/about/sponsors/
It could be argued that the United States does like TOR nodes ... it was originally a US Navy research and development project and, then, in later years the US state department specifically called out TOR as a useful tool (during the "Arab Spring" protests, IIRC.)
I see that even now, in 2020, the US State Department is a financial backer of TOR.[1]
If I were running TOR nodes in the United States (as I have in the past) I would rely on that current funding as a positive defense against any legal claims against me.
(I would also not do anything stupid like run TOR nodes from my home Internet)
[1] https://www.torproject.org/about/sponsors/
Germany is an interesting case for TOR. I did some statistical analysis on TOR data (they publish a lot of data) from around when Snowden made his revelations, and many countries saw increased TOR activity while German activity went down versus the trend. I don't remember the numbers off the top of my head (have them in a PDF somewhere) but my theory is that Germany doubted the security of TOR at that time. Maybe the intermittent crackdowns on TOR in Germany are based on a mistrust of the project's security/integrity, rather than simply an effort to keep internet traffic out in the open.
Are you certain that what you saw wasn't just the result of traffic being distributed between a higher number of exit nodes? Did the absolute number of available nodes in Germany change?
https://metrics.torproject.org/
The data are a bit richer and more granular than that, albeit imperfect. Take a look for yourself.
The data are a bit richer and more granular than that, albeit imperfect. Take a look for yourself.
> you could get a VPS from a country who hates the western spy powers like Russia or Moldova
nice try, comrade. but no
nice try, comrade. but no
* that's "comrade Major" for you.
It is actually a great and most important tip. The Moldovan government would probably not share data with anyone having jurisdiction where you live.
Maybe the Moldovan government will spy on you. It would be inconsequential if the info acquired is not interesting to an international market.
Maybe the Moldovan government will spy on you. It would be inconsequential if the info acquired is not interesting to an international market.
> The high number of high-speed relays and exits in Germany mean that it is not too uncommon to get both a German guard and exit. This gives the state an easier time if they want to target someone using traffic correlation attacks.
No, it doesn't. They'd need to control those computers, and they don't, do they? Because if they do, then "move your exit node somewhere else" won't help, because "you" are the state. And if they don't, no, I don't believe it's feasible for them to look at raw traffic (e.g. on the datacenter level) for two nodes in Germany and correlate individual data streams that may or may not be from one TOR connection.
> That also does not take in account the planned German law that will allow authorities to redirect traffic to state-owned servers, to infect users with viruses/Trojans.
They'd have to control the server though. They can't just decree that all TOR traffic must now be routed through their malicious endpoint. The laws are targeting ISPs and service providers and are for individual cases (i.e. "we know who's on the line") not for mass-infection, and will require a court order. They could do the individual surveillance with court order previously, what's new is that the provider can be forced to cooperate and proxy the traffic. It's still not applicable to TOR because it's not one large provider, and you can generally not say who's on the line.
No, it doesn't. They'd need to control those computers, and they don't, do they? Because if they do, then "move your exit node somewhere else" won't help, because "you" are the state. And if they don't, no, I don't believe it's feasible for them to look at raw traffic (e.g. on the datacenter level) for two nodes in Germany and correlate individual data streams that may or may not be from one TOR connection.
> That also does not take in account the planned German law that will allow authorities to redirect traffic to state-owned servers, to infect users with viruses/Trojans.
They'd have to control the server though. They can't just decree that all TOR traffic must now be routed through their malicious endpoint. The laws are targeting ISPs and service providers and are for individual cases (i.e. "we know who's on the line") not for mass-infection, and will require a court order. They could do the individual surveillance with court order previously, what's new is that the provider can be forced to cooperate and proxy the traffic. It's still not applicable to TOR because it's not one large provider, and you can generally not say who's on the line.
> Now you know how the Germans hate privacy, you will almost certainly be asking about alternative locations.
I don't know where this guy comes from but this has to be the most sensationalist sentence in that blog post. It's on par with "non Americans hate freedom". If Germans hated privacy, why would they be the biggest bandwidth contributors to the TOR network?
Not sure the author was using all of his brain when he wrote that blog post.
I don't know where this guy comes from but this has to be the most sensationalist sentence in that blog post. It's on par with "non Americans hate freedom". If Germans hated privacy, why would they be the biggest bandwidth contributors to the TOR network?
Not sure the author was using all of his brain when he wrote that blog post.
Devils advocate: if you hate tor you should try to contribute to the network as much as possible. The more you control it, the more you can exploit it when vulnerabilities are found.
That's the equivalent of saying if you want Microsoft to fail, buy all their products in the hope that they get too big and inefficient and therefore fail.
Sure, more control helps, but you need quite a lot and it would be prohibitively expensive at the moment (and also noticeable).
Sure, more control helps, but you need quite a lot and it would be prohibitively expensive at the moment (and also noticeable).
It's not the German government though, it's individuals and private pro-privacy organizations that provide the nodes. Among them are some that the blog post mentioned because they were targeted by law enforcement.
[deleted]
Off-topic, but what is the current state of tor onion (hidden) services? Are they easy to de-anonymize?
There are certainly plenty of black markets thriving on onion services. Some have been online and serving for quite a few years. They seem fine.
See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23818727
See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23818727
[deleted]
When you use tor you are just another coward and a thief. Or a kiddo ashamed
that he is jerking off to porn. so relax no one cares what you say in politics until you overcome your limitations. this is the right label for tor users.
[deleted]
I ran an exit node about a decade ago.
There are no freedom-fighting journalists in repressed countries using TOR.
There are only pornographers, BitTorrent users, crypto-haxxing "Z3r0cools" who use it to feel like they are doing something crypto-haxxy, and botnet command and controllers.
Countries in which TOR will be useful treat TOR users as de-facto criminals or block it altogether. Using TOR in a totalitarian state (and it is easily detectable) is worse than speaking out against the state.
Countries in which TOR is not needed are full of crypto-haxxing "Z3r0cools" who think they are actually helping someone by promoting TOR.
When you mention that TOR was an experiment-- one that failed-- to shield spies from foreign governments that crypto-haxxing Z3r0cools co-opted you get scorn.
When you point out that TOR fails in its primary purpose: non-attributable access to information or communications in totalitarian regimes you get scorn.
There is no space for criticism of TOR which makes it not a product or technology but a religion-like ideology.
There are no freedom-fighting journalists in repressed countries using TOR.
There are only pornographers, BitTorrent users, crypto-haxxing "Z3r0cools" who use it to feel like they are doing something crypto-haxxy, and botnet command and controllers.
Countries in which TOR will be useful treat TOR users as de-facto criminals or block it altogether. Using TOR in a totalitarian state (and it is easily detectable) is worse than speaking out against the state.
Countries in which TOR is not needed are full of crypto-haxxing "Z3r0cools" who think they are actually helping someone by promoting TOR.
When you mention that TOR was an experiment-- one that failed-- to shield spies from foreign governments that crypto-haxxing Z3r0cools co-opted you get scorn.
When you point out that TOR fails in its primary purpose: non-attributable access to information or communications in totalitarian regimes you get scorn.
There is no space for criticism of TOR which makes it not a product or technology but a religion-like ideology.
> When you point out that TOR fails in its primary purpose:
non-attributable access to information or communications in totalitarian regimes you get scorn.
It's my understanding that the subjects of totalitarian regimes use software such as Ultrasurf [1], and not TOR. I agree that TOR is not very useful in practice, but it seems misleading to state that without mentioning the success of the alternatives.
[1] https://ultrasurf.us/
It's my understanding that the subjects of totalitarian regimes use software such as Ultrasurf [1], and not TOR. I agree that TOR is not very useful in practice, but it seems misleading to state that without mentioning the success of the alternatives.
[1] https://ultrasurf.us/
mschuster91(1)