202
Tor says it’s "still safe" amid reports of police deanonymizing users
(www.bleepingcomputer.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 20 Sep 2024
202 points (96.8% liked)
Privacy
31609 readers
85 users here now
A place to discuss privacy and freedom in the digital world.
Privacy has become a very important issue in modern society, with companies and governments constantly abusing their power, more and more people are waking up to the importance of digital privacy.
In this community everyone is welcome to post links and discuss topics related to privacy.
Some Rules
- Posting a link to a website containing tracking isn't great, if contents of the website are behind a paywall maybe copy them into the post
- Don't promote proprietary software
- Try to keep things on topic
- If you have a question, please try searching for previous discussions, maybe it has already been answered
- Reposts are fine, but should have at least a couple of weeks in between so that the post can reach a new audience
- Be nice :)
Related communities
Chat rooms
-
[Matrix/Element]Dead
much thanks to @gary_host_laptop for the logo design :)
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
The TOR network itself is safe - at least assuming the TLAs don't control at least half of the nodes, which is far from impossible. But let's assume...
The weak point comes from the browser: that's how the fuzz deanonymizes users. The only safe browser to use on TOR is the TOR browser, and that's the problem: it disables so many unsafe functionalities that it's essentially unusable on a lot of websites. So people use regular browsers over TOR, the browser leaks identifying data and that's how they get caught.
My understanding is that Tor Browser works fine, there's just some dumb website owners that block Tor traffic by IP address.
And ... guess what ... www.bleepingcomputer.com, the source of the story, is one of those.
Maybe email them and let them know about the misconfiguration
Let them know that tor users can't read their article about Tor
Done!
I mean, the advice I've heard for one who's threat model is "the feds are actively trying to identify me" is to have a dedicated burner computer that you do all of your illegal activities on and no other activities. Then of course on top of that avoid saving secrets onto the device and type them in manually every time (ephemeral distros like Tails are good for that)
Do you think it's better to use a VPN if you aren't using TOR Browser?
All VPNs do is change who has your browsing data: your ISP or the VPN operator. You may or may not trust either of them not to keep records, in either case you have no way of verifying this.
ISPs definitely keep records. At least some VPNs claim that they don't, and that their networks are set up in such a way that they can't. Some organizations claim to validate the claims of the VPNs, but it's unclear if they're trustworthy.
So your choice is to use something that definitely keeps logs, or to use a company that at least says that they don't/can't.
Yes, and there's also the fact that some VPNs such as Mullvad let you be anonymous so even if Mullvad were keeping logs, if you pay privately they have no way of knowing whose logs they are (unless the content itself of your internet history reveals your identity). Meanwhile your ISP definitely knows who you are, and absolutely will collaborate with the police if asked to.
You can pay anonymously, but if you regularly connect from your home IP address, it hardly matters.
I think the point here is to deny ISP data to sell.
Yeah I use mullvad for mostly that reason myself.
I mean, you could set up your own VPN on a VPS and ensure it doesn't keep logs. You could also get a VPS in a different legal jurisdiction from where you're at.
Depending on what you're doing, that probably wouldn't be a significant hinderance to law enforcement. Child sexual abuse, drug trafficking, etc., all tends to get lots of interagency cooperation, regardless of political issues.
And that's a very good thing too.
It depends on whether you believe that people should be allowed to use narcotics or not. I tend to believe that people should be able to make that choice for themselves--as it's their own body--and ordering narcotics online decreases violence in the drug trade since there's no longer obvious fights over territories, etc.
The same interagency cooperation that makes it easier to track down one groups of people and punish them also makes it easier to track down other groups of people that you might agree with.
I believe this is a wrong solution to the problem. Narcotics are fine, but that should be addressed through legalization. Creating a black market for narcotics creates its own set of problems.
The VPN company themselves may not keep logs. However, they might be a little black box somewhere in the data center...
As Proton made evident, VPNs can be legally compelled to start keeping logs on specific accounts as the result of a court order. So if you're gonna do something incriminating, then I guess you should create a new account each time.
That's true but it also depends what attack vector you're trying to defeat. If someone is doing a timing attack and you're running through a VPN, it might be harder to work for them, depending on where they sit.
Yeah, VPN at the very least adds another hoop they have to jump through.
That's exactly the reasoning I did for choosing a VPN. I know that VPNs are falsely advertised as "anonymous black magic" but better Proton or Mullvad than my ISP which definitely sells data to advertisers