-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 The most likely person to be scared, and the one that the NSA would want to scare, would be a political activist. Most, but not all of them (I fall into the category of not all of them ;-) ) are not all that technically inclined, and use Tor based upon faith that it will give them an anonymous means to research, and in some cases communicate over a highly monitored internet.
In other words, the intent would be to create a "chilling effect". Not all would fall for it, but perhaps enough to diminish the positive effects (upon freedom of speech & expression, especially political speech) of Tor. Perhaps, because of the intimidating strategy used by the present occupants of 1600 Penn. Ave. I'm expecting this type of thing, but history tends to prove my concerns in this regard. Just look at the actions of governments in the past, all have used intimidation as a means of quelling dissent. Karsten Loesing wrote: | > ... it would not surprise | > me if they ran a server under a name like that just to scare people | > into not using Tor. | | That's an interesting issue. Who is scared by a suspicious server name | and would thereupon stop using Tor? Not the absolute beginner who does | not care about log files and not the expert who knows that an attacker | needs all 3 out of 900+ routers a user chooses to subvert her privacy. | | However, I assume that the NSA would rather run 10, 20, or 50 nodes with | inconspicuous names, sit back, and see what they can observe. But who | knows? Perhaps they have multiple strategies? :) | | Karsten . -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.2 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFGDnTylzq1/FLekkARCsEAAJ0Rywvj5LFt+gE3uNHv5fFHOSm6yACfbkfp /HYby9dQSjpFzB5KZxmiMxg= =sCiI -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
