Hello Arrakis, I believe that JT was saying that there are binary options regarding whether you are properly using TOR, or not properly using TOR. You are arguing that TOR itself is not considered "Security". He is saying that people who have deemed TOR to be secure and anonymous can either be using TOR properly or could have scripting, or other similar things enabled, and thus compromising what they have deemed as secure.
And there is a *huge* difference between disabling all scripting and using Lynx. Lynx has no scripts, but also no images, not frames, no color choices, and a very small screen size. You can browse just as "securely" with a properly configured Mozilla client as you can with Lynx. The security does not come from not downloading pictures, which is the main distinguishing factor when compared with Lynx, it comes from disabling scripting. Just my two cents, Kasimir On 3/29/07, Arrakis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
JT, Security is NOT binary, it is a process, and it is a gradient. We only desire the illusion of it being binary. There is compromise in every design, take tor for example using 128bit crypto because it is pretty secure and fast enough to encrypt on the fly. I'm sure there are people that wish it was doing 512bit elliptic curve or some other thing out there. However, it is possible we could come up with some secure-only mode which locks out most features, virtually all the plugins and functionality, and puts the user in a rigid framework in order to give a little more security and a stronger impression of anonymity. Of course, this makes it a significantly unpleasant experience and one might as well use lynx at that point. Regards, Arrakis >> As I said it is possible, but when you treat the user like a child it >> is going to be an issue to get them to keep using it. > Why? Surfing anonymously is a binary. Either 1) everything is set > perfectly to be secure and anonymous or 2) it is not. > There are two types of Tor users. Tor literate and Tor illiterate users. > The thing that both have in common is that they could accidentally > enable scripting or forget to turn in off. Both types would be greatful > for a mechanism that would force them to turn things off and not allow > them to use Tor otherwise. > After all they can choose to use Tor or not. Be anonymous or not be > anonymous. There is nothing third "state". Nobody would feel "being > treated as a child". > -- > JT > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- Kasimir Gabert
