On Fri, May 08, 2020 at 06:17:37PM +0000, jim bell wrote: > Excellent. I should mention that I have focussed on Raspberry Pi 4 merely > because it was new, and seemed to be quite capable of serving as a > anonymization node.
A warning Jim, you might consider calling any conceivable such nodes as "corporate surveillance reduction nodes" or "privacy hope enhancement nodes" (PHEPs has a good ring to it). Without qualifying "privacy" nodes, non technical users -will- be lead astray, for example they will be lead to believe they are achieving private online communications. other.architekt fell into the same false assumption about Tor, not realising the very real and known problems directly about privacy on the Tor network. When some folks discover they have been deceived in their thinking in this way, there will be backlash against those whom they believe deceived them. Choose your words wisely. > If anything, we might call it "over-capable", but in the computer world >that's not necessarily a bad thing. Standardized devices, especially if they >are manufactured in huge quantity, become more economical. If somebody has an >alternative idea for the hardware, now would be an excellent time to speak up. > They also tend to be studied more intensely than obscure, low-volume > devices, I would imagine. What's the old saying, something like "Yes, we're > paranoid, but I sometimes wonder if we are paranoid ENOUGH?" > https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/876669-yes-i-m-paranoid-but-am-i-paranoid-enough Just as an additional minor example, the above sentences, juxtaposed as they were immediately after your first sentence ("Raspberry Pi 4 .. seemed to be quite capable of serving as a anonymization node") would most likely further feed the unthinking "reader with AP hope" into assuming, subconsciously inferring, or consciously believing, the following: - So it's 'over-capable' as an anonymization node? Great, that's even better. - So it's a 'standardized anonymization device', wow, how good is that?! - And so the Raspberry Pis "also tend to be studied more intensely than obscure, low-volume devices" - but of course, that will make it not only private and secure, but hardened! - And damn, he's also quoting "Yes, we're paranoid, but I sometimes wonder if we are paranoid ENOUGH?" - man, this Jim guy thinks just like I do, he must -really- be onto this security and privacy thing - wish I'd found this sooner, sign me up! Again Jim, beware the backlash.
