Jump to content

Talk:Tor (network)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 94.222.99.19 (talk) at 19:39, 15 February 2014 (→‎Edit requests during protection: Does anyone like this?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Wikileaks seeded from tor?

In Jacob Applebaum's talk this Saturday at The Next Hope in New York, he flatly denies this. http://www.reddit.com/r/netsec/comments/cqx2p/emmanuel_goldstein_and_jacob_applebaum_talking_at/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.60.97.69 (talk) 05:46, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Etiquette and Illegal uses sections

Is there any source for "The Tor project attempts to ensure that websites that wish to set different access policies for users visiting through Tor can do so."? I would like to see to what degree the Tor Project has tried to ensure that. Is the statement "The Tor network can be used for purposes that are illegal in some jurisdictions" necessary at all? The same can be said for just about anything (the Internet, guns, radar detectors)85.207.121.59 (talk) 15:59, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.torproject.org/faq-abuse.html.en#Bans - they provide a script to get the list of exit relays and a DNS-based service to compare an IP against the list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CyberRax (talk • contribs) 15:45, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing about Tor is illegal. Every client service attempts to provide privacy. Tor just is more successful. 68.188.25.170 (talk) 05:56, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This edit is obviously a bad idea. For the majority of our readers these links are useless (as they aren't using Tor), which means they fail #7 in WP:ELNO. Furthermore, they appear to be the kind of things which would be removed anyway even if they were accessible - a forum, a search engine et cetera. These should go again. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:15, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for opening this up to discussion. Agree with you on the forums and other individual sites, they are less than relevant to the article and should be removed. Disagree with you on removing directory links and help links. They are useful because they give readers a starting point in accessing and/or setting up Tor hidden services, which is what this article is all about. Removing them simply because "they need special software to view them" is not taking into account the relevance of the article in the first place. The "special software" (or Tor) is what the article is about. I think this is one of the rare exceptions where a few useful hidden services links should be permitted. See "Links to be considered #3", where directories are encouraged. Also, see the Rich Media exception, where such content is acceptable in some circumstances, but only if clearly indicated what software is needed to view the content. It doesn't mention Tor, but I believe this requirement sets a good example that the Tor article can follow. I will not revert any more edits and let others voice their opinions on this issue. Thanks. 70.217.233.134 (talk) 01:23, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This has already been discussed at length about a year ago (see archive 2). Result was to keep the links and I cannot see how this should have changed in the last months. Regarding the special software needed to use them consider http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anaglyph_image article. Of course you should not have anaglyph images in usual articles because they are useless for 99% of the users. But in the very anaglyh article you can expect people interested in the subject who are far more likely to own 3D glasses than visitors of any other article and to those the pictures explain the subject in a way nothing else could. AV —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gfnhmkfl fgfmh (talk • contribs) 17:55, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see no such discussion in the archives. Anyway, I've removed the links again. This article has enough problems without explicitly advocating certain tor links. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:12, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Few days ago I have reattached the links, now again they are being removed. What is point? Of course referring to child pornography, which is present in tor (just like in every other network, including internet), but even there it is not liked on most of active sites. Tor network was created to allow omitting restrictions for posting materials not liked by government (as like classified documents or other things that normally wouldn't pass censorship filters) or to pass limitations of ISP (some of them are cutting off IRC traffic). Probably good idea would be to link to these services through clean internet gateway, at least to Hidden Wiki 153.19.217.54 (talk) 01:58, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Be positive: Article talk pages should be used to discuss ways to improve an article; not to criticize, pick apart, or vent about the current status of an article or its subject." We should strive to find some common ground and negotiate a cease fire. The edit I made a while back didn't conflict with #7 in WP:ELNO, the link was world visible and offers a "bounce page" indicating that the user is leaving the internet and venturing onto shaky ground. I believe that all the links from this edit should be re-instated, those that still function that is, as "onion.to" addresses like this one. Even if the tor address has links to porn sites, it's not the page being linked to. If you check my link you'll find that any sited linked from the hidden service is now two links deep and not one. I hope you'll agree that links of links these days are just filled with porn and trying to enforce such high social standards is a losing battle, you are welcome to fight. I believe this should satisfy every qualm about adding tor links into Wikipedia, that is unless you are just against the usage of tor it's self, links into Wikipedia articles. 97.116.45.245 (talk) 03:03, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Proposed guidelines. 1. The link must have a valid DNS delegation from IANA/ISC root name-servers, example onion.to (Tonga). Sites that are blocked by specific countries/organizations/networks/ect for any reason are exempt from #7 in WP:ELNO, we are not the US Army let's not try and police the world. 2. The link in Wikipedia must not contain links to sites that you would not otherwise be able to list in Wikipedia because of content censorship. This does not include links of links, even if Wikipedia's guidelines "reenforce" this guideline and this may not include sites not linkable for other reasons too be decided. Guideline #2 is not meant to work on-top of or extend any rules or guide lines Wikipedia has, only to meet or exceed them. 3. The bounce page at onion.to and others like it will thus "wash" links in the referenced material on the hidden site, particularity if the site offers a warning to travelers. Specifically allowing site indexes to be referenced as long as they are otherwise appropriate. 4. If Wikipedia wishes, they can do anything they want, but are also able to further warn and/or intercept links to these 'few' services that comply with guideline #1, but this guideline further states that no attempt can or should be made to interfere with these efforts and posters are obviously encouraged to not only comply but also assist Wikipedia in these efforts. 97.116.45.245 (talk) 03:03, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hidden service links are in the Japanese and Macedonian Wikipedia version of this article. There may be others as I haven't searched. 94.222.76.104 (talk) 08:51, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Repeated information

There seems to be some info that are repeated word for word between the starting paragraph and the first section. I think it should be cleaned up202.53.199.72 (talk) 05:53, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There has been a lot of work on this article during the past year. I want to tidy up, prune and reorganize. I'll be bold. 213.29.115.6 (talk) 22:32, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One of the things the article lead is supposed to do is summarize the article, so there will be some repetition. The way it is now is the first paragraph very briefly describes Tor, why it exists, and something that makes it notable. The second paragraph very briefly talks about how it works. The third paragraph touches on a "weakness." The only reason I haven't moved that information out of the lead is because a large part of this article is about "weaknesses" (too much, in my opinion). I think the Operation section should go into a bit more detail on some aspects, and other parts should be removed. For example, I would like a section about directory authorities and consensus, and descriptions of bootstrapping and circuit creation. To me, the problem of repeated information is in other articles related to Tor. I'll work on making those articles more consistent. 188.103.63.90 (talk) 11:43, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Page Error

Don't know why, but this Tor page seems to be over extended beyond the content. Not seen this error on any other page, just this one. Its as if someone has done a lot of newlines at the bottom of the page but cannot see any evidence of this. Perhaps someone should take a look. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.195.24.119 (talk) 22:20, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why are there links to tor sites that have links to cp tor sites? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.249.209.29 (talk) 11:16, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How long is a TOR circuit?

Is it always 3 nodes long? 85.65.104.254 (talk) 17:03, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See [1] (and WP:FORUM). Haakon (talk) 17:23, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I understand that wikipedia isn't a forum, but it is designed to explain concepts, and if the article doesn't answer my question, this is the most reasonable place to ask. (Also making the article clearer)
Another question - on step 1 in the overview, when TOR asks for the list of relay nodes, does it get the entire list, or just a reasonably sized subset of it? (If it is the latter, what size is it? If the former - can it handle millions of relay nodes?) 85.65.104.254 (talk) 22:09, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure; you should ask the Tor developers. Talk pages are only for collaborating on improving articles. Haakon (talk) 22:24, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
From what I remember running a server, there are only a few hundred or thousand usable servers at any time. (TOR isn't that big!) The simplest - and securest! - approach is to simply download them all. Such a list would be less than a megabyte, which is trivial. If and when TOR ever is fortunate enough to have so many relay nodes, they can segment the list then (but IMO, YAGNI). --Gwern (contribs) 22:36 20 March 2010 (GMT)

Autoconfirmed Status on Wikipedia

Why do people editing through a Tor server have more strict requirements that their account has to meet before they are autoconfirmed? For example, it is normally 4 days and 10 edits, but with the Tor server, it is 90 days and 100 edits. Keyboard mouse (talk) 00:15, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This question should be asked on a page for discussing Wikipedia access levels, not for discussing Tor.71.109.146.207 (talk) 16:51, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No real anonymity; Tor may merely limit anonymity and provide easily breakable encryption?

A question that falls under "Legality / Security" : Is there no real anonymity due to ISP-side stream viewing? Could not one person reconstruct the one missing piece?

Your question isn't coherent enough to answer. --Gwern (contribs) 20:07 20 June 2010 (GMT)
If you are referring to someone comparing the inflow and outflowing data streams of a given node -- well obviously a fixed bit pattern can be followed throughout any network EXCEPT

(a) there is normally a practical limit for most ISPs to "tap" such data flows at each node due to lack of local neighborhood router processing power (b) more importantly the inflowing and outflowing data bit paterns are not fixed but are changed at each node by interleaving with other data flows of other virtual circuits and by encryption changes for each leg of the journey. That is the bit pattern coming into a node has one encryption but is differently encrypted before outflow. (c) Thus tracking data is not easy for an ISP unless only one user dataflow exists between every node of a virtual circuit. Certain TOR overhead communications make this extremely unlikely.

Additionally, TOR traffic management aims to ensure certain minimal traffic to mixed and split of different dataflows at each node in active use. However, just as most encryption can be cracked, TOR is not immune to being cracked if a massive enough effort is placed across all nodes of a given virtual circuit. On the other hand, just one node outside the snooper's complete visibility and analysis can throw into doubt the whole proof of sender to receiver. Given various international legal issues for surveillance, gaining access to monitor all nodes tends to be difficult unless the virtual connection exists for a very long time within change to nodes in use.99.76.4.123 (talk) 16:16, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion for the Article

I have a question regarding how to control the IP address of Firefox using the TorButton add-on, and came here hoping to find information. A link to a "How to Use" might be useful for future visitors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonny Quick (talk • contribs) 03:02, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This needs to be done to protect Wikipedia legally. It is very likely a violating of Floridan law. We can put it back when and if we have consensus to do so. Ismouton (talk) 19:00, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what's going on here, but someone restored the link, and I removed it again. For one thing, apparently the link is not viewable unless you jump through some hoops with your browser, so per WP:EL the link is not allowed. For another, its to a wiki, and links to wikis are discouraged as they subject to changing completely with no notice. Finally, an editor above has contented that the link contains illegal material. I don't know if that's true, but I think we have to be careful about this. I'm not so much worried about the link being illegal as I am with the possibility that including the link could bring the Wikipedia into disrepute. Is this link so important to the article that we need to risk this? Please discuss before restoring the link, thanks. Herostratus (talk) 15:21, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The link's requirement of Tor was already decided; see comments in a section above. About illegal material, you may want to check all of the Tor links as the majority of them, in some manner, probably lead to illegal material. If Ismouton isn't up to the task of actually determining which links are *definitely* violating Florida law, the links should stay. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.23.246.56 (talk) 20:45, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the links are illegal. Where is the Wikipedia server located anyway? You should not be removing them unless they violate the state in which the servers are located. Also, as for the hidden wiki link, there isn't anything on their home page at least. You shouldn't find anything illegal unless you're looking for it. 173.76.33.115 (talk) 00:27, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but it can't be "decided" to ignore policy. I am not inclined to split hairs over what or what is not the law or what the location of the servers are for legal purposes. Our standards are higher than that, and we do not advertise the Wikipedia as "The encyclopedia, that, technically, it is not illegal to use." If the link is objectionable or would tend to put the Wikipedia into disrepute we should not include it, absent an extremely compelling reason. Are they objectionable or would they tend to put the Wikipedia into disrepute? I don't know, because I can't view them. That alone is, to my mind, a very good reason not to include a link. If the link cannot be checked by a typical Wikipedia editor or admin, it should not used, and very especially so if claims about unsuitability have been made. Herostratus (talk) 03:42, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
if you do not know what the links contain, how can you even say there is a decision to ignore policy? the inability for you to view the links without Tor installed has already decided to NOT be against policy. having Tor links in an article about Tor is relevant to the article. you might need to then come up with valid reasoning why the hidden wiki link must go, and then apply the same reasoning to the other links that may or may not contain illegal material. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.23.246.56 (talk) 18:51, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I just commented at the Village Pump at more length, so I'll try to find some brevity here - simply the words "The Hidden Wiki", placed into the best-known Web search, bring one to the disputed link (and viewable http:). Does law or Wikipedia policy prohibit that? I doubt it. I think that as long as the actual target page doesn't contain legally prohibited material, that WP:EL should not be interpreted as banning it. If Wikipedia or the poster is responsible for everything that they link to, and everything those link to, and so on, then how can any link be legal? Wnt (talk) 00:27, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The "policy" I refer to is the policy not to include links that most users can't access. Although granted I see that this is a guideline rather than a policy. OK. Enough with the law stuff already. I am not a lawyer, you are not a lawyer, neither of us knows what a judge would say. (And I don't wanna find out,) But nevermind that. Please explain why this particular link is so important to understanding Tor. OK? If you can convince me that the link will significantly increase the encyclopedic value of the article, I will consider dropping my objection. Herostratus (talk) 04:36, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
it's a Tor resource containing many of the services Tor offers with links to how to configure Tor with use of things like email or how to SSH with Tor. it also contains many links for people new to Tor to navigate it. though it should be pointed out that it's no different than any other Tor link listed regarding your objection. i'm more confused why you bring objection to one out of nine total Tor links that were available. and honestly, your opinion on a topic already discussed has no relevance. if you do not think hidden wiki should be there for the reason you cite, then remove all the Tor links under the section "Known Hidden Tor services," but then you'll likely get those changes reverted because it was already decided it's relevant to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.23.246.56 (talk) 16:59, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Wikipedia needs to just shutdown if the test for content is simply that the topic has illegal associations somewhere in the world. Religious and political censorship and laws cover a majority of scientific and social issues. However, a better test is that Wikipedia does try to limit its scope such that articles exclude specific HOW-TO cookbook to actions with illegal being excluded along with most legal topics. Also keep in mind that most component material with illegal uses also has legal uses as well -- often in greater preponderance; i.e. encryption is more often used legally in society than illegally if not by a given individual.
However, I note that given a useful Wikipedia, it should be possible to piece together most the HOW-TO for many subjects by following several articles, given that outlining general processes may be a proper part of discussing a topic and that missing specifics should have their own subordinate article, i.e. various processes for smelting iron are generic but following up to Coke, slag, etc should gradually enlighten the reader. Thus Wikipedia is aiming to spread knowledge only under the limitation of direct liability and deniability -- rather than the absurd lengths of politically correct, absolute absence of content that could be linked together by a bright mind to do harm. 99.76.4.123 (talk) 16:42, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An editor just added this screed to the entry for the Hidden Wiki website (I think it's the same one talked of above): "This website also contains links to child pornography websites in its section Hard Candy. There are wiki pages dealing with setting up your own child pornography website, and on kidnapping children. The kidnapping page also gives tips on getting rid of the body." I removed the screed, but is there anything to this? Is he just making this up, or what? If he's not, I'd have to say that a link to this website is a bit over the top, so I removed it pending clarification. Herostratus (talk) 18:21, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

there appears to be a link, out of many, on the site labeled "Hard Candy" under the "Erotica" section that states it has underage content. that's all i can tell you about that, but since all the other links also lead to hidden wiki besides the hosting site, i'll remove those as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.23.246.56 (talk) 21:42, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I thought this issue has already reached consensus before and that was to keep the links in the article. I believe the question if we should have the wiki or not listed could be open for discussion if it should be in, but removing everything just in case something it links, has a link, that has a link ... that could be illegal is not a good enough reason to exclude them here. Belorn (talk) 17:10, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But they should be excluded anyway, on the grounds that they are not accessible. See Wikipedia:External links#Links normally to be avoided, #7, "Sites that are inaccessible to a substantial number of users". This follows the principle "All information in the Wikipedia is equally available to all, to the extent reasonably possible." Wikipedia:External links is only a guideline, and the section title is "Links normally to be avoided", so there is a little wiggle room there. I think that if, and only if, the links meet these criteria, they can be considered as possibly being eligible for ignoring the guideline:
  • They directly support the article text; that is, they are about Tor and explain in more detail what Tor is, how it works, who uses it, what its social repercussions are, etc. etc. If they are just examples of Tor, this is not sufficient reason to supersede the guideline.
  • It is arguably necessary for the reader, in order to achieve the level of understanding of Tor appropriate to an encyclopedia article, to access these links.
  • A summary of the content found at these links, if put into the article, would not be satisfactory (for instance, the content is too extensive, and too much of is important, for an article of reasonable length to contain).
So, do the links meet these criteria, or some other criteria such that superseding Wikipedia:External links is called for? Simply being "interesting" or "useful" is not sufficient to supersede the guideline. Herostratus (talk) 03:56, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
First of, I dont want to repeat all that has been said before, so please read the archive (archive 2 and 3 is the most relevant). If that isnt enough as consensus, I don't mind reopen this debate again but I want to mark down that its important to review the old debate before reopening it. Now, Wikipedia:External links#Links normally to be avoided, #7 does not directly address links that require special software to view, only Sites that are inaccessible in a clear way. There are plenty of articles that correctly link (but not used as reference) where relevant software is needed to use, view or in some other way have a use of whats the article links to. Maybe the style of Wikipedia:External links# Rich media should be used to indicate the need of tor software instead of the current style (example I2P). The question of which link should be considered, should be argued on each link separate. The forum/wiki to start with are about tor and the hidden services on tor and thus could easy be argued as being directly support to the article. The same I would assume is the alternative address to the homepage of tor but since it now links to a tor developers website Im not sure if it is suited anymore to be listed. The 2 search engines, through useful, is unclear if it should be added and I would vote no. Core onion is unclear, since its clearly a introduction point to the tor's hidden network (thus in direct support), but offers very limited information (7 links, and a "welcome to .onion" sign). I do also disagree that just examples are not enough to be considered for a article, since thats one of the most common type of external links on articles addressing technical subjects which can be illustrated by an example. I don't know which policy is used to support those, but everything from optical illusion to browser game includes links where examples are provided and I don't think WP would benefit if those articles would not have them. Now I would pref if we only linked to the wiki, since its the most direct form of being in "directly support" of the article, but since people are raising concerns over it I guess a middle ground solution might be needed? Belorn (talk) 10:28, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is it me or are you missing the point? The hidden wiki provides links to highly illegal websites, featuring disturbing pictures and videos of child exploitation. There are also several other pages and links dealing with other illegal activities. As an honourable institutions wikipedia should not help facilitate access to such content. The issues discussed above should not be relevant when face with these facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.229.229.215 (talk) 11:05, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So does Google! Why did the "some information is bad" people win this year? How do we overrule them? I'm a security researcher who uses this page all the time in the course of my job. Now I have to look at old revisions to get information I use on a weekly basis. Damn it people, this little internet censorship tiff is wasting the time of real people with real work to do! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.237.72.9 (talk) 17:17, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We don't link to google search results either. If you use those links regularly add to your favorites, not to a enyclopedia article (referring to the tor download page + 2 check pages now). Yoenit (talk) 18:24, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Patent

Is this relevant at all? Wammes Waggel (talk) 20:58, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Probely not given this [| this claim], but its unsourced and IANAL.193.11.177.82 (talk) 21:31, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but have known that both FBI and SLAC are located in the country of CNET, whose version of Ricco VPN was for some time a virustotal positive. Can I block servers in Tor by country? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.74.216.127 (talk) 15:45, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Being weary of playing monkey-in-the-middle with trolls, I'm going to ask the the HiddenWiki link be blacklisted. Discussion here: Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard#Link to HiddenWiki at Tor (anonymity network). Herostratus (talk) 18:46, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, because it was trolls, rather than people with several valid points that you all chose not to listen to or try and reach a reasonable consensus with, and now we've taken this to a ban discussion without even bringing in more than the four editors who decided this was an issue (again). I hope you're proud, and if the blanket .onion ban gets passed (by the same few editors who have made no effort to call in a larger group), I sincerely hope you never need to avoid scrutiny... amf. 61.228.243.72 (talk) 12:19, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The arguments for banning the Hidden Wiki made it clear that the person taking issue had no knowledge of the subject at all and had never even seen what he was protesting. Yet the admins thought that the arguments were so good (no fact checking necessary) that they banned all .onion addresses? 188.102.15.198 (talk) 16:33, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, they only banned the Hidden Wiki and used WP:IAR to bypass the normal procedures. But anyway, lets put this behind us and focus on making the article better.Belorn (talk) 02:25, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Encryption

What encryption scheme does Tor use?

First of all sorry for my bad English. Tor uses two layer Encryption Scheme. First layer (A-B , B-C, C-D) is in TLS Second layer is inside TLS connection (A-B, A-C , A-D) and it is 128 bit AES

Abuse

Hi, not article worthy but still worth mention - I work at a PC repair shop - Looks like Tor is being abused for more than kiddy porn and terrorist guides, the people creating bots (for zombie pc nets) and fake antivirus trojans (a virus that pretends to be an antivirus tool that refuses to fix your pc until credit card details supplied) are now exploiting the tor network as well, I repaired a virus infection on an education department laptop computer today, and it was running a virii called BDS/Gbot.bge which I tracked connecting to the tor network via customer.worldstream.nl:8001 (PS the Tor network scares the hell out of me!) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.123.90.144 (talk) 04:50, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Knee-jerk reactions are even scarier to me. That's how we got the USA PATRIOT Act. I have heard (but cannot verify) that 70% of all clearnet websites host porn. Does that mean I bury my head in the sand and stay off the Internet because "people do bad things out there"? No. I take the time to learn about the threats, risks, potential damage, potential benefits, etc. Then I make a decision about what works for me.

After studying a bit of history, I am far more concerned about what NSA and company are doing to the Bill of Rights, than I am about a random black hat installing malware on someone's computer to expand his botnet. If you are really concerned about either or both of these, consider using Whonix, a Linux distro that embraces Tor (makes Tor "easy") and substantially decreases the risk of getting pwned. Tor is one tool we can use to help us fight the surveillance state. From my perspective, the more people use Tor, the safer the Internet will be for everybody.

I am disappointed that the tone of this entire article is so focused on the bad things people do with Tor. Compare this with the tone of Gun. Whatever positive or negative emotional reaction you may have when you hear that word, you have to admit that the article is quite neutral. We can do much better than we have with this article.

-- Terrel Shumway

Oops. That was a knee-jerk reaction. Upon reading more carefully, I see that the overall tone is about right. The Legal Aspects section, however needs work: It does not address any legal aspects of using Tor, e.g. which jurisdictions allow or disallow it and why. Rather it describes some controversy over the legal and illegal activities that some people have done while using Tor. I'm going to rename the section "Controversy" and split it into two paragraphs and try to present a balanced view. If someone wants to create a new Legal Aspects section, that would be wonderful. Terrel Shumway (talk) 15:37, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Criticism#Avoid_sections_and_articles_focusing_on_criticisms_or_controversies. I would make significant changes to the content in this section and reorganize it. Anything important that doesn't have a place in the article could be in one section, renamed to something like "Potential for Abuse." However, I am personally leaning toward little in this section being important to the article. 92.78.112.48 (talk) 12:28, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Mikelsons - notable?

This guy got arrested a couple of weeks ago now, and news reports say he was hosting a number of sites on tor, containing a quarter of a million files of child pornography. This strikes me as being a heck of a lot, but I don't know that much about tor, so am wondering if it should be included or not? Was this significant (by tor standards)? If you search for his name you'll get loads of news hits, and even more if you search "Robert M". Wikiditm (talk) 17:28, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you want start an article for him or do you want to include his name in the article? I think both are a bad idea (see WP:CRIMINAL), but the find itself should probably be mentioned. Yoenit (talk) 20:16, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well I thought of adding a sentence saying that Tor was used for a substantial storage of child abuse. Looking at the page you referred me to, I think it's clear his name should be left out, but still think the activity should be mentioned. My reasoning was that this seems to have been a really big operation, and Tor doesn't seem to be that big, so this would constitute a significant piece of information to do with Tor.Wikiditm (talk) 20:48, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Remember that your source must back up any statement you add, and I am having problem finding any news article making the claim that this was a significant part of the tor usage. As a side note, they found during the investigation a total of 220 000 files, but the ones hosted by Robert Mikelsons looks to be around 10 000 of the total. I also noted that I couldn't find any article even mentioning tor if I didn't explicit searching for Robert Mikelsons +tor, which makes me slightly doubtful of the relevance between this and the project. That said, this was only the result of a 5m on google :)Belorn (talk) 03:23, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a nice english source [2], There are also dozens of dutch sources, for example [3] [4] [5] [6]. There is even an animation explaining how TOR works in relation to this case [7], which was broadcast on Dutch national television. This case should really get a separate article, so I will translate nl:Amsterdamse zedenzaak later. Yoenit (talk) 07:37, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SkypeMorph

I'm head about SkypeMorph and looked for information about it here. I'm currently reading a pdf "SkypeMorph: Protocol Obfuscation for Tor Bridges" cacr.uwaterloo.ca/techreports/2012/cacr2012-08.pdfDonhoraldo (talk) 02:16, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tor logo0.png Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Tor logo0.png, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
What should I do?

Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Tor logo0.png)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 09:52, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proof: TOR network unsecure

Just thought this would be interesting. Apparently the police and the FBI in America actively monitor TOR networks and can identify users without any difficulty:

http://phys.org/news/2012-04-police-online-narcotics-farmers.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.193.173.21 (talk) 13:43, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the article do not say they broke the TOR network. This article say investigators were able to infiltrate the narcotic selling group, and other articles strongly imply that the infiltration was done before the group moved from Hush to Tor. Belorn (talk) 15:00, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see anything in that link that says TOR was compromised in any way. All it says it that these people used TOR, not that it was used to identify the individuals. As they paid each other on PayPal and others, I'd imagine the police simply followed the money, or something to that effect. - SudoGhost 15:02, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just so. Follow the money, as they say. kencf0618 (talk) 00:33, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What does this sentence mean?

"Because the internet address of the sender and the recipient are not both in cleartext at any hop along the way at non-exit (or "middle") relays neither piece of information is in cleartext, such that anyone eavesdropping at any point along the communication channel cannot directly identify both ends. "

If you correct this sentence in the text, please also delete this paragraph in Talk. ( Martin | talk • contribs 21:08, 21 April 2012 (UTC))[reply]

It was indeed confusing. It should be written as "[b]ecause the internet address of the sender and recipient are not both in cleartext at any hop along the way (at non-exit, or "middle" relays, neither piece of information is in cleartext), anyone eavesdropping at any point along the communication channel cannot directly identify both ends." I edited the paragraph and removed the non-exit part as I think it's superfluous and makes it still sound too confusing. The fact that the middle relay node knows neither the recipient nor the sender, is incidental. Onion routing requires only a minimum of two onion routers between the recipient and sender to keep the communication anonymous (though Tor does always use 3 nodes). --nlitement [talk] 19:02, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Competing Systems?

My issue with the article, as written, is that there is no discussion of competing systems, if any. The subject matter isn't well known enough that a casual reader can tell if TOR is unique, or if there are other, competing technologies to achieve the same goal. I don't know enough about the subject matter to even begin to create such a section.

There are obviously a few different approaches to the issue. First, if there are several competing technologies, then a link to an overview article about the various technologies would probably be best, since the over view article would be updated when conditions change rather than each technology. Second, if there is only one competing technology, then a short mention about the other technology (with an associated link to the other technology's article) would work well. Finally, if TOR is uniquly (boy, I can't spell) addressing the issue, then a statement to that effect would be good.

As an example, the article on Ford (automobiles) doesn't discuss cars in general, but does link to an article about cars. That article puts the Ford article in context. We're not getting context from this article.

I don't know enough about the subject to know which of the three approaches would be best. But any of them would make the article more useful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.239.172.2 (talk) 18:50, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See the Tor (anonymity network)#See also section for a list of anonymity technology. 94.222.191.144 (talk) 20:56, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge with List of Tor hidden services

A list of hidden services doesn't need to be a standalone page, there's no encyclopedic content on this page. Q T C 15:02, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please read Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Stand-alone lists. --Rezonansowy (talk • contribs) 23:28, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Then WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Q T C 16:01, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RfC concerning the Lavabit email service

There is a request for comments (RfC) that may be of interest. The RfC is at

Talk:Lavabit#RfC: Should information about Lavabit complying with previous search warrants be included?

At issue is whether we should delete or keep the following text in the Lavabit article:

Before the Snowden incident, Lavabit had complied with previous search warrants. For example, on June 10, 2013, a search warrant was executed against Lavabit user Joey006@lavabit.com for alleged possession of child pornography.

Your input on this question would be very much welcome. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:03, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article Plug?

This sentence:

"On September 20, 2013 Tor appeared among "solid" alternative web browsers "that deserve a fair look" in an article published by TechRepublic entitled, Five free alternative web browsers for Windows, as a browser that could make obfuscating one's web traffic an easy task. Their audience is composed mostly of IT professionals."

Seemed awfully forced. I've never seen article headlines and quotes from an article listed on a page. I've removed it as it also doesn't seem to fit under "Controversy". Puppier (talk) 18:21, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Refs in Implementation section

Concerning TheRedPenOfDoom edits,

I don't agree with you that everything there is unreliable and if so, that is no reason to delete entire section. Please tell me first which refs require improvements. --Rezonansowy (talk • contribs) 12:57, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tor is not a reliable source for any claims that are promotional towards Tor, its products or services or upcoming releases. WP:SPS. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:01, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Rezonansowy: - there's also the matter of Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is NOT#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Logs, excessive statistics, specs, excess data, etc. may be relevant to a subject but unless presented thoughtfully aren't all that helpful to an encyclopedia article. So there's the issue of primary sources, but to me the bigger thing is that all of the stuff is bunched together in that Implementation section. I wouldn't recommend deleting all of it because I think you can work a lot of that information into the article text where it might fit into the pre-existing structure of the article. --Rhododendrites (talk) 15:18, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I rewrote it a little, now it looks more like Microsoft windows#Alternative implementations. --Rezonansowy (talk • contribs) 16:01, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've created a separate article for Tor Browser Bundle and moved there article from merger proposal, PortableTor. Now, it's much better, however I've added {{expand section}} to this section. --Rezonansowy (talk • contribs) 16:52, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The merger was to merge Portable Tor into this article, wasn't it? I think it's just a matter of time before Tor Browser Bundle is itself merged back here. --Rhododendrites (talk) 17:16, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rather no, I'd like to merge the Vidalia (software) article into Tor Browser Bundle as well. See Talk:Vidalia_(software), there you can read why. --Rezonansowy (talk • contribs) 22:44, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Don't merge PortableTor. Delete it! It should have never been an article to begin with. It has only ever served to confuse people. Almost nothing in that article is true. 92.78.225.169 (talk) 23:19, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree with you, besides that's a section not article. --Rezonansowy (talk • contribs) 15:03, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly don't you agree with. What part of what is written about Portable Tor do you believe is true? I find it hard to believe that there is always one person willing to fight hard to keep users confused by having "Portable Tor" on Wikipedia. 92.78.233.214 (talk) 19:38, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you that Portable Tor needs cleanup and improvements, but removal of large amounts of content won't fix this, on Wikipedia it works differently. I've marked that article with Cleanup-rewrite template. Please give this article time to grow. --Rezonansowy (talk • contribs) 10:04, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You do not agree with me, because the Portable Tor article needs deleting. Thinking that it should be promoted here simply is not reasonable. I will create a new section on this page to discuss it. 92.78.148.8 (talk) 10:58, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You don't know why I don't agree with you, I don't want promotion, please reread my recent comments. --Rezonansowy (talk • contribs) 14:32, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've made several badly needed improvements, I think every single one of which was immediately reverted. Why is it so important to lead users in the wrong direction? 92.78.233.214 (talk) 19:41, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please look above. --Rezonansowy (talk • contribs) 10:04, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Rezonansowy: @92.78.233.214: - I don't know enough about the subject as either of you likely do, so don't know about what's current, what features various releases have, etc. Nonetheless, there are two issues with the mention of PortableTor as I see it.

  1. (on this one I might simply not know the right answer) -- isn't Tor Browser Bundle in some way released by the Tor Project whereas PortableTor is a third party (i.e. PortableApps.com) implementation? If someone just goes and takes open source software and releases a modified version of it, is there really precedent to include it on a Wikipedia page?
  2. More importantly for Wikipedia's purpose is, according to WP:V, "All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable. All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material." It has been contended, and therefore needs a source or can be removed. If it's notable enough, a source should be easy to find. --Rhododendrites (talk) 15:19, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
See my thread on Talk:Tor Browser Bundle, I've merged all subsoftware of official bundle (plus derivatives to it), but that article need attention and time to grow up. --Rezonansowy (talk • contribs) 16:30, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That thread doesn't respond to either of the above. The short of it is, if there's no source cited, the IP is justified in removing it. If it needs work, that means you would add the content back in once you have a source. --Rhododendrites (talk) 18:31, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To be clearer, Portable Tor was not an implementation of the Tor Browser Bundle. Further, Tor was already and still is entirely portable as described in the Portable Tor description. (And no, it had nothing to do with PortableApps.com either.) 94.222.99.150 (talk) 16:44, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Portable Tor

It should not be included in this article. Even if some people believe otherwise, it's placement under Tor Browser Bundle, as well as the everything said about it here are just flat wrong, and that's all there is to it. 94.222.98.167 (talk) 20:43, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If I don't hear anything on this talk page as to why the information isn't false and misleading, I will remove the information again. 94.222.76.104 (talk) 08:53, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What is this sentence supposed to mean?

likewise, agencies within the U.S. government variously fund Tor (the U.S. State Department),[62] the National Science Foundation, and (via the Broadcasting Board of Governors, which itself partially funded Tor until October 2012), Radio Free Asia, and seek to subvert it (the NSA).[10]

Seems like (multiple?) typos, but I don't know enough to correct it.--209.2.60.93 (talk) 14:25, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to mean "The US government funds Tor through the state department, NSF, and Radio Free Asia, but also subverts it through the NSA." It looks like except for the uncertain Radio Free Asia mention it's all covered elsewhere in the article so you could probably just cut it down or remove it completely. --— Rhododendrites talk |  16:49, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
One possible correction is "...likewise, some agencies within the U.S. government fund Tor (the U.S. State Department,[62] the National Science Foundation, and Radio Free Asia (via the Broadcasting Board of Governors, which itself partially funded Tor until October 2012), while others seek to subvert it (the NSA).[10]" 92.78.239.240 (talk) 21:12, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That was a fail. ""...likewise, some agencies within the U.S. government fund Tor (the U.S. State Department,[62] the National Science Foundation, and Radio Free Asia (via the Broadcasting Board of Governors, which itself partially funded Tor until October 2012)), while others seek to subvert it (the NSA).[10]" I think the BBG info was placed before RFA to avoid the double parentheses. 92.78.239.240 (talk) 21:17, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Name confusion

This article now says that it's Tor and was previously TOR which was/is an acronym for The Onion Router. Tor was never TOR. Here's what we know: The Tor Project FAQ says that Tor was originally an acronym and that it's called Tor "Because Tor is the onion routing network." Onion-router.net refers to "The Onion Routing program...made up of projects..." That site's list of publications goes on to refer to Tor as "Tor (the Onion Routing)" in reference to "Deploying Low-Latency Anonymity: Design Challenges and Social Factors", IEEE Security & Privacy, September/October 2007 (Vol. 5, No. 5), pp. 83-87. (Plaintext). In reference to "Challenges in deploying low-latency anonymity", NRL CHACS Report 5540-625, 2005. (PDF) it refers to Tor as "Tor (the second generation onion routing network)". Finally, the original Tor presentation entitled "Tor: The Second-Generation Onion Router", in Proceedings of the 13th USENIX Security Symposium, August 2004. (PDF), in addition to its title, refers to a "second-generation Onion Routing system" and "The Onion Routing project..." It would be nice to know if there is one definitive acronym that Tor once was. Almost every time I've seen it used, "routing" was used rather than "router." Looking back at Tor mailing lists dating back to 2002 and the source code and documentation from Tor 0.0.0, there is never any reference from people within the project to the capitalization TOR. 94.222.101.57 (talk) 11:33, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved
You've made the edit and you're right. --Rezonansowy (talk • contribs) 16:02, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it is resolved. It says that it was "The Onion Router" in the first paragraph. In the History section, it says it originated as "The Onion Routing project (TOR project). In addition to that conflicting information, there is no mention of "The onion routing" anywhere. 88.75.170.170 (talk) 20:23, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There will be changes to and possibly removals from this article.

If this is how it's going to be as I make this article better, then we have a long road ahead of us. Since the brief explanation in the reason for the edit wasn't sufficient for some people, I will go into depth. I expect no more summary reverts without addressing the merits of the changes. Here is the original text with my reasons for changing it:

Users of a Tor network run an onion proxy on their machine. Reason for change: The term "onion proxy" is unclear and would lead people to think that by being a Tor user you are running a relay. This probably refers to the SOCKS proxy for letting an application talk to Tor. I renamed this the SOCKS interface and moved info from other sentences into the first sentence. My proposal is: A Tor user's SOCKS-aware applications can be configured to direct their network traffic through a Tor instance's SOCKS interface.

The Tor software periodically negotiates a virtual circuit through the Tor network, using multi-layer encryption, ensuring perfect forward secrecy. Reason for change: I changed the word negotiate to create for purposes of clarity. I removed "using multi-layer encryption, ensuring perfect forward secrecy" because the multi-layer encryption is actually part of onion routing which is explained elsewhere and perfect forward secrecy relies on the handshaking properties rather than the encryption layers. In any case, I didn't think it was critical information, and we can add it somewhere if it is. My proposal is: Tor periodically creates virtual circuits through the Tor network through which it can multiplex and onion route that traffic to its destination.

At the same time, the onion proxy software presents a SOCKS interface to its clients. Reason for change: Moving the SOCKS interface to the first sentence makes this clearer and more concise. I tried to make it clear that the it is the traffic from a user's own applications, not wanting the word "clients" to confuse people into thinking that other people will be able to route through them. I also avoided (again) the "onion proxy" terminology. I don't think this sentence needs a replacement.

SOCKS-aware applications may be pointed at Tor, which then multiplexes the traffic through a Tor virtual circuit. Reason for change: I moved the SOCKS-aware info the the first sentence and changed "pointed at" to "configured to direct their network traffic through" to make it clearer a) to non-techie people used to pointing networking software at another and b) that a configuration change is needed to make apps use Tor. I moved the multiplexing info to the second sentence.

Once inside a Tor network, the traffic is sent from router to router, ultimately reaching an exit node at which point the cleartext packet is available and is forwarded on to its original destination. Reason for change: I moved this sentence to the first paragraph. This is because it is the next logical step. I added that the routers are a part of the Tor circuit. My proposal is: Once inside a Tor network, the traffic is sent from router to router along the circuit, ultimately reaching an exit node at which point the cleartext packet is available and is forwarded on to its original destination.

Viewed from the destination, the traffic appears to originate at the Tor exit node. Reason for change: I kept this sentence in its entirety, moving it to the first paragraph.

Tor's application independence sets it apart from most other anonymity networks: it works at the Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) stream level. Applications whose traffic is commonly anonymised using Tor include Internet Relay Chat (IRC), instant messaging, and World Wide Web browsing. Reason for change: No change. While this part may be subject to editing in the future, I didn't see anything jarringly wrong with this part of the second paragraph.

When browsing the Web, Tor often is coupled with Polipo or Privoxy proxy servers. Privoxy is a filtering proxy server that aims to add privacy at the application layer. The Polipo proxy server can speak the SOCKS 4 & SOCKS 5 protocols and does HTTP 1.1 pipelining well, so it can enhance Tor's communication latency. TorProject.org therefore recommends that Polipo be used together with the Tor anonymising network.[23] Reason for change: Removed. This part, more than anything else, is the problem. If you check the source, it doesn't say anything of the sort, in fact the contrary is true. This point is not subject to compromise. Bad information endangers Tor users and these old hacks don't belong in this section anyway.

On older versions of Tor (resolved May–July 2010),[24] as with many anonymous web surfing systems, direct Domain Name System (DNS) requests are usually still performed by many applications without using a Tor proxy. This allows someone monitoring a user's connection to determine (for example) which WWW sites they are viewing using Tor, even though they cannot see the content being viewed. Using Privoxy or the command "torify" included with a Tor distribution is a possible solution to this problem.[25] Reason for change: Removed. It's very old information, is written in present tense for some reason, and refers to ambiguous, deprecated methods to get around a so-called problem. The FAQ doesn't say, for example, to use Privoxy or the torify command.

Additionally, applications using SOCKS5 – which supports name-based proxy requests – can route DNS requests through Tor, having lookups performed at the exit node and thus, receiving the same anonymity as other Tor traffic.[26] Reason for change: Removed. RFC1928 from the Wayback Machine doesn't have one word to say about routing DNS requests through Tor.

As of Tor release 0.2.0.1-alpha, Tor includes its own DNS resolver, which will dispatch queries over the mix network. This should close the DNS leak and can interact with Tor's address mapping facilities to provide the Tor hidden service (.onion) access to non-SOCKS-aware applications.[24] Reason for change: Removed. The Wayback Machine link just shows a calendar. I didn't even bother checking the changelog because this isn't a version history section, and this technical info isn't a part of what should be in the Operation section of this article. 188.103.63.90 (talk) 16:42, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NSA Endorsed!

"An extract of a Top Secret appraisal by the NSA characterized Tor as 'the King of high secure, low latency Internet anonymity'" Given recent revelations about the NSA, isn't that a bit like asking a mugger to recommend a safe place to walk alone at night?

Would it be better if the article made clear that this was leaked by Edward Snowden and that there has been no endorsement by the NSA at all? I can see adding the Snowden fact to the article. Or is your comment just more "You'd better not use Tor!" spam? This isn't the place for that. 92.78.153.194 (talk) 18:55, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Having a bit of trouble following Wikipedia's WP:AGF behavioral guidelines, are we?
Let's look at what we know.
  • We know that RSA Security received $10m from the NSA to use a flawed formula for generating random numbers and thus create a back door in encryption products.[9]
  • We know from a secret government document (thanks, Snowden!) that using Tor is considered to be grounds for US-based communications to be retained by the NSA.[10]
  • We know that The U.S. government has promoted Tor as a tool for political dissidents in repressive governments and provided funding to the organization that develops Tor, while at the same time the NSA has developed browser exploits and man-in-the-middle attacks to track Tor users.
  • We know that several sources[11][12][13][14] have expressed concern that the NSA may have partially compromised the TOR network.
So, given all the things we know about the NSA and TOR, any NSA-based claims that TOR is secure are self-serving and clear violations of WP:NPOV.
(Please don't assume that pointing out that a source for a claim on Wikipedia is unreliable is any way implies that the claim itself is dubious. That only happens after attempts to replace the unreliable source with a reliable source fail. See WP:V.) --Guy Macon (talk) 22:41, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Are you trying to use this talk page to promote your theories or are you suggesting this be a part of the article? If you're just trying to scare people, this isn't a forum. 92.78.153.194 (talk) 00:58, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What part of "So, given all the things we know about the NSA and TOR, any NSA-based claims that TOR is secure are self-serving and clear violations of WP:NPOV" are you having trouble understanding? --Guy Macon (talk) 01:11, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Unless there is some evidence that NSA purposely distorts the facts in their own internal assessments, or that Edward Snowden has leaked poisoned documents, I see no reason to doubt the truthfulness of the statement. The document doesn't appear to have been intended for public release. The idea that NSA manufactures propaganda for its own employees is far fetched. To address your points directly, a) I don't think the RSA fact is relevant for inclusion in the article, b) the info about Tor increasing the chance of data retention could be, c) the point on Tor's promotion by the govt and use by political dissidents while NSA tries to undermine it is touched on in the article already and maybe could be expanded upon with reliable sources, and d) concerns that NSA might be able to completely defeat Tor is speculation. Synthesizing all of this into a conspiracy theory within the article would be unacceptable. Using it as a basis for branding NSA as an inherently biased source, even to the point of including leaked documents and secondary sources that derive from NSA, would be totally wrong. Are you holding all Wikipedia articles to this same standard, or just articles related to Tor? Have you been posting concerns in other Wikipedia article talk pages on encryption products, or that contain sources of information that originate from NSA? 88.75.162.67 (talk) 10:07, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know whether you have a competence problem, a language problem, or whether you are just trolling me, but when I argue in favor of removing a statement from the article and get a lengthy reply about why I should not insert material into the article, it is clear that further conversation will be a waste of time and I have better things to do. In the spirit of WP:IAD I am withdrawing from this discussion. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:54, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to help craft a proposal

Surveillance awareness day is a proposal for the English Wikipedia to take special steps to promote awareness of global surveillance on February 11, 2014. That date is chosen to coincide with similar actions being taken by organizations such as Mozilla, Reddit, and the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

Feedback from editors of this article would be greatly appreciated. Please come join us as we brainstorm, polish, and present this proposal to the Wikipedia Community. --HectorMoffet (talk) 12:28, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So much for that idea. Here are the Wikipedia:Surveillance_awareness_day/Brainstorming_phase and Wikipedia:Surveillance_awareness_day/Options. Note the big collapsed section in the brainstorming phase that includes a proposal to have this article linked from the front page of Wikipedia Wikipedia:Surveillance_awareness_day/Brainstorming_phase#Articles_that_are_not_Featured_Articles. 92.78.233.127 (talk) 21:53, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia-only exit node?

I just posted a proposal that may be of interest:
User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 156#Proposal: Create a Wikipedia-only read-only Tor exit node
--Guy Macon (talk) 08:00, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This describes what used to be known as an exit enclave. Personally, I don't see any reason to frame the proposal in terms of a Wikipedia-only exit. I think it would be great if Wikipedia operated an exit relay. And my captcha today is pukessanta, how nice. 94.222.97.99 (talk) 10:32, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The EFF does.

"Exit relays raise special concerns because the traffic that exits from them can be traced back to the relay's IP address. While we believe that running an exit is legal, it is statistically likely that an exit relay will at some point be used for illegal purposes, which may attract the attention of private litigants or law enforcement. An exit relay may forward traffic that is considered unlawful, and that traffic may be attributed to the operator of a relay. If you are not willing to deal with that risk, a bridge or middle relay may be a better fit for you. These relays do not directly forward traffic to the Internet and so can't be easily mistaken for the origin of allegedly unlawful content." -- Electronic Frontier Foundation's Tor legal FAQ

BTW, the proposal is for a Wikipedia-only read-only exit node. The distinction is important; The MediaWiki software's TorBlock extension automatically blocks all editing through Tor except where an account has been granted IP block exemption. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:43, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't believe that is the EFF's opinion on what Wikipedia is allowed to consider. The read-only caveat, which I don't think is really so important, would serve to make the possibility of editing Wikipedia anonymously someday in the future even more remote by adding more policy against it, and even creating new technical barriers to prevent it. At any rate, thank you for sharing your proposal here. If WMF decides to run a relay or an exit, it might be relevant to this article. 92.78.227.136 (talk) 19:07, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

government money text & washington post

This block of text has gone back and forth a few times. I'm not clear what's controversial. It sounds like the IP removing it has a problem with what the source says rather than its inclusion here, but I might be mistaken. --— Rhododendrites talk |  17:28, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are the two people quoted here, Roger Dingledine and Andrew Lewman, liars? Maybe they accept money from the US government in exchange for deliberately making it insecure to use. Is there anything wrong with having them answer to these charges in a Wikipedia article? I mean, if a blog operated by the Washington Post can speculate on their honesty, why can't we? I have a better idea; find a reliable source that does in fact have evidence that this is true and then we can include it in the article. We should have a factual article, not an editorial on the question as to the honesty of those two people. 94.222.97.99 (talk) 18:00, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm finding your edit summaries and response here difficult to understand. That may be because sarcasm isn't translating into text. So, wait, your problem is that you think the Washington Post blogger is calling Dingledine and Lewman liars? I see nothing of the sort there. I do see quotes and I do see a reliable source, though. Even if they did question the honesty of those speaking for Tor, we wouldn't be practicing a neutral point of view to omit it just because we don't like the tone of the article. Wikipedia operates according to Verifiability, not what a user says is or is not "fact." The idea is that if a source is reliable, it won't publish incorrect information -- and if it does, other reliable sources will publish contradictory information. It sounds like you just don't like it, but even then I don't understand why -- all I see is an article about where Tor gets its money and an account of a couple spokespeople as to the role of that money. --— Rhododendrites talk |  18:39, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is easily understood. Look at the title of this blog post: "The feds pay for 60 percent of Tor’s development. Can users trust it?" Notice that the blog does not answer this question; it merely "puts it out there." It is pure speculation. Here is what Brian Fung goes on to say in his blog post: "...NSA had managed to circumvent much of the encryption...By inserting backdoors...calls into question many of the technologies...One indispensable tool is Tor...there's no hard evidence that the government has compromised the anonymity of Tor traffic. But...a substantial chunk of the Tor Project's 2012 operating budget came from the Department of Defense, which houses the NSA." So it does question whether or not the NSA has purchased the ability to de-anonymize Tor users. That directly questions the honesty of Andrew Lewman and Roger Dingledine, who are now quoted in this Wikipedia article denying the allegation. They should not have to answer to these questions here.
What I don't understand is why people think this opinion piece of WP:NEWSBLOG is so important to have in this article. Just because some media outlet wants to raise conspiracy concerns doesn't mean we have to. If you want to continue to maintain that this blog does not incriminate those people, you need look no further than its comments section. Almost every single comment says that the Tor devs have been paid off. The connection is undeniable. 94.222.97.99 (talk) 21:29, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's a provocative title, yes, which isn't ideal journalism but has nothing to do with whether or not it's considered a reliable source. The headline wasn't even copied into the article on Wikipedia. Are you disputing the facts that were copied here? I.e. that Dingledine and Lewman verified part of its budget comes from these governmental agencies? If that's your argument, I think it would be worth looking for other sources to refute it, but if you just don't like that the piece casts doubt -- that's what the news does. In today's privacy climate when organizations have many times said the NSA has no access to their data just for the opposite to be true, doesn't it also make sense to look closely at the end-all be-all of privacy tools when it's discovered they receive government funding? Nothing here says "the NSA has a back door" and in fact what's in question is two quotes rebutting that accusation. But we can't include them because of the title of the source they were quoted in? --— Rhododendrites talk |  23:56, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I included the title as evidence that the blog does, contrary to your previous remarks, cast doubt as to the honesty of those people you mentioned. I believe the quality of the source does, in fact, affect it's status as a reliable source. What was copied into the article was not merely "that Dingledine and Lewman verified part of its budget comes from these governmental agencies". Roger Dingledine was quoted as saying the funds are "...less similar to being a procurement contract...", the context being the NSA procuring a secret backdoor, which yes, would be dishonest of him. Lewman was quoted as denying it, "...the Tor service did not collaborate with the NSA to reveal identities of users." These are direct aspersions to their integrity. Just because the "news" does something doesn't mean we have to follow suit. And no, it does not make sense to "look closely" if what you really mean is to ask pointed questions about the honesty and integrity of living persons on Wikipedia. It's not unreasonable to stick to the facts and avoid unsubstantiated conjecture. Yes, it's poorly sourced, but an even bigger reason not to use this is that it introduces speculation into the article, even if they are only denials in the article itself. Since you warned me with a block if I remove the content again as per WP:3RR (even though it's been much longer than 24 hours and this is a WP:BLP issue), could you please remove this content for me? 94.222.97.99 (talk) 00:40, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how you're not agreeing with me. "less similar to being a procurement contract" and "...did not collaborate with the NSA to reveal identities" are sides of the same coin. Given the information that they receive funding from the government, suspicion is taken for granted. All that's added is their denying it. Are you saying that even bringing up the question of whether or not some governmental agency is granted access on the basis of funding is the same as questioning the character of these two representatives for Tor? If so, that's not how it works. Regardless, pending a third party weighing in here I'll remove it for now in the interest of avoiding edit wars and deference to WP:BLP. --— Rhododendrites talk |  00:55, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To answer your question, you asked, "Are you disputing the facts that were copied here? I.e. that Dingledine and Lewman verified part of its budget comes from these governmental agencies?" My response was that in addition to that they were quoted in the context of answering questions about their truthfulness. And yes, asking if they've been lying to the public all these years without evidence is something we must not do. This is very important. Brian Fung's doubts are not. 94.222.97.99 (talk) 01:26, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To answer your actual question: "Are you saying that even bringing up the question of whether or not some governmental agency is granted access on the basis of funding is the same as questioning the character of these two representatives for Tor?" Converting your question from third person: Are you saying that bringing up the question of whether or not Roger Dingledine and Andrew Lewman granted access to some governmental agency on the basis of funding is the same as questioning the character of these two representatives for Tor? Naturally! (In case you didn't know, Roger and Andrew are the project leader and executive director, respectively.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.222.97.99 (talk) 01:37, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, so I understand your point now, and I'll reiterate that just because you say "we shouldn't do that" doesn't mean any Wikipedia policy agrees. BLP isn't an issue because it's a direct quote taken from a reliable source. A question was asked -- a question, by the way, which is implied in the notability/inclusion of the Tor-government funding connection to begin with -- and a reply was issued (from people representing the organization, no less). Unless the whole matter of funding isn't a notable enough aspect of the subject, this is an obvious include. --— Rhododendrites talk |  04:34, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Do you understand that the matter of funding, which is already thoroughly presented in this article, is different from Roger and Andrew accepting money to backdoor their products while lying about it, which is sheer speculation? And I said "we must not do" that, not shouldn't. If you want to go into the reliability of the source, there is plenty wrong with it, but I've been trying to keep this brief. 178.8.155.17 (talk) 13:26, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is now a thread about this at the reliable sources noticeboard. --— Rhododendrites talk |  15:10, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding this material over and over again until the issue is resolved! Every time this information reappears, it gets cached by Google. 88.75.125.199 (talk) 10:26, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No. Four editors (Rhododendrites. Materialscientist, WhisperToMe and me) have examined and rejected your claims of a BLP violation, and you are now attempting to override that consensus through edit warring. You have two choices; you can try to persuade other editors using reason and evidence, or you can keep doing what you are doing and be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Please read WP:BRD, WP:TALKDONTREVERT and WP:CONSENSUS. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:09, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:BLPREMOVE and remove the material. 88.75.125.199 (talk) 11:27, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also, can you show me where this is so? Are you talking about on this talk page or elsewhere? What consensus are you talking about? 88.75.125.199 (talk) 11:30, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
All on this page. Count the editors who have reverted your attempts to remove the material or who have told you on this talk page that it does not violate BLP. and WP:BLPREMOVE isn't a magic word you can use to edit war with impunity. The material has to actually be a BLP violation, and this clearly isn't. -Guy Macon (talk) 11:49, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That would be three, one of whom has not weighed in here and another, namely you, has posted a lengthy NSA conspiracy theory on this talk page Talk:Tor_(anonymity_network)#NSA_Endorsed.21. We must not write rumors about people's integrity into the article, and merely writing their "responses" (which when you check the original source for Andrew Lewman, it isn't anything of the kind) to the allegations does not get around that. We have to insist on high quality sources when talking about people, because their professional reputations are at stake. This source is far from being high quality. 88.75.125.199 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:24, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And now that this page has been protected with that content in it, I would ask that someone with an account remove the content until this has been resolved. 88.75.125.199 (talk) 12:28, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It was semi-protected because of your edit warring. I suggest that you try persuading others rather than insulting them and barking orders. --Guy Macon (talk)
I'm sorry, but you reverted three times to put the contentious material back while we discuss whether or not it's defamatory. Editors are supposed to remove the material immediately and wait for consensus. You are the one warring, and I now suspect it's to advance your pet theory. 88.75.161.131 (talk) 21:11, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that the uninvolved administrator who semi-protected the page, thus blocking you from editing it while leaving me, Rhododendrites, and the other logged-in editors free to edit it does not agree. If you think that he should have instead blocked me or some other editor, feel free to ask him to do that, or you can go to WP:AN and ask another uninvolved administrator to review his decision. Let me know how that works out for you.
I suggest that when you appeal, you use the following language as being appropriate to the situation:
Help! Help! I'm being repressed! Did you hear that? Did you hear that, eh? That's what I'm on about. Did you see him repressing me? You saw it, didn't you? Ah, now we see the violence inherent in the system!! [15]
Also, "BLP" is not a magic word that lets you get your way. The material has to actually be a BLP violation, and this clearly isn't. This has been explained to you before. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:06, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're presenting the same kind of arguments repeatedly and have not convinced anybody. In fact now you're just pointing fingers. It's hard to point at anyone else as edit warring when you're waging a one-person campaign to remove this material several others have now added. Rather than persist along this same course, I recommend you seek satisfaction at the BLP or NPOV noticeboard. --— Rhododendrites talk |  23:12, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Herostratus made a significant change to the meaning of the Lewman citation. Would anyone like to voice their opinion? Good, bad, indifferent? 94.222.96.136 (talk) 20:34, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: the edit in question was explained at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Washington Post blog at Tor (anonymity network).
I think it was a good edit. In general. I am pretty happy with what the current group of editors have been doing with the page, and if something isn't quite right someone corrects it in short order. Now I might be inclined to support your preferred version, but that would require that you actually explain your reasoning, which is something you have, so far, refused to do. Instead you have made claims of BLP violations where none exist, edit warred to the point where an admin stepped in and prevented you from editing the page, and insulted the other editors. I can't make you follow our policy at WP:CONSENSUS, but I can tell you that if you pester the other editors too much without engaging in any real effort to discuss things and reach a compromise, you will find yourself unable to edit the article talk page as well. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:02, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop talking about me. You keep retelling events and distorting facts along the way. 92.78.115.171 (talk) 09:57, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am interested, however, in what you think my preferred version is. 92.78.115.171 (talk) 12:03, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Could somebody please at least fix the reference? Since the publisher has a well-known newspaper of the same name, and the current citation makes it appear that this material was printed in it. I can not make this change myself due to page protection. Naturally, this is no way an endorsement of what has been included. I recommend <ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2013/09/06/the-feds-pays-for-60-percent-of-tors-development-can-users-trust-it/ |title=The feds pay for 60 percent of Tor’s development. Can users trust it? |last=Fung |first=Brian |date=6 September 2013 |website=The Switch |publisher=The Washington Post |accessdate=6 February 2014}}</ref>.
I started a thread about the poor sourcing on the Biographies of living persons noticeboard. 92.78.115.171 (talk) 14:08, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Trimming down the See also section

Some of those terms are only tangentially related tor Tor. Any nominations for removal? 94.222.99.59 (talk) 01:11, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edit requests during protection

The Day We Fight Back

Would anyone care to add to the end of the history section:

The Tor Project participated on The Day We Fight Back, a global protest against mass surveillance by the NSA, on February 11, 2014.

This material is from Tor Weekly News, which is sent to the tor-news list [16] and The Tor Blog [17]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.222.96.136 (talk) 20:51, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Swartz Dedication

Would anyone care to add in the history section:

The Tor Project dedicated current stable release series 0.2.4 to the memory of Aaron Swartz.

This material is from Tor Weekly News — December 18th, 2013 on the Tor blog, posted to tor-talk, and announced to tor-talk here. 94.222.99.19 (talk) 19:39, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tor_(network)&oldid=595625734"