[Closed] So who uses TOR to surf the web

Pedos, drug dealers, hitmen, terrorists and the tin foil hat brigade. Joking aside I've tried it and found it ridiculously slow due to the onion skinning. Interesting to explore tho but some sick shit on there so be careful.

The tinfoil hat brigade.Hahaha..Love that one.

I use it to get to sites that Sky block. Not for regular use.

You're watching Horizon, aren't you?
And yes, very occasionally; I find it a bit clunky, but DuckDuckGo makes it more user friendly.

Nope, nothing to hide so wouldn't need it

What is it?

Nope, nothing to hide so wouldn't need it

Tried to use it regularly out of principle but likewise found it too slow. I think I read somewhere though that the more people that use it, the faster it would become.

The more people who use it, the better. Safety in numbers and all that.. It will improve and evolve over time.

so does that mean your computer is carrying* other peoples data?

if its full of kiddyporn does that mean you are enabling it/ could get prosecuted?

*sorry non IT bod here

I use it occasionally, like Cougar, to get around ISP website blocking. A valuable tool for people with legit privacy concerns and criminals a like (though I feel the criminal element is usually overblown).

I've seen a few cases recently where TOR users were unmasked and arrested. Always pleased to find that it seemed to always be a case of the user being an idiot (same usernames else where on the web, using javascript etc) rather than a flaw in the software. Not that TOR is impervious to attack, but it's not an easy system to break.

if its full of kiddyporn does that mean you are eabling it/ could get prosecuted?

If you're running an exit node, then possibly, but it's unlikely.

[url= https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140701/18013327753/tor-nodes-declared-illegal-austria.shtml ]Austrian Tor Exit Node Operator Found Guilty As An Accomplice Because Someone Used His Node To Commit A crime[/url]

[i]I use it occasionally, like Cougar, to get around ISP website blocking[/i]

Out of interest what sort of websites, apart from the obvious, do ISP's block that you would want to be looking at?

Surely not having anything to hide is the point? Seems tor is more useful to the criminal element. So why would tor be useful to the normal law abiding citizen? I saw no convincing arguments for its use. And if GCHQ is monitoring the data to protect me I'm happy their tracking down to terrorists. I'm also not convinced that a piece of software invented by the US government is actually 100% secure. I thought the programme was pretty light, lots of conspiracy theory

I'd turn the question around and question who the **** are the govt, supposedly the servants of the people, to mass surveil and treat everyone as potential suspects?

Yep, I use it as Virgin Media block lots of Torrent Sites.

It's very slow as the number of users far exceed the donated BW from end servers.....

Out of interest what sort of websites, apart from the obvious, do ISP's block that you would want to be looking at?

Pretty much just the obvious. And if it wasn't, I'm hardly going to admit to it here, am I?

Seems tor is more useful to the criminal element.

And journalists, people in regimes where the Internet isn't free or implement widescale blocking, people who don't want their every move known to the worlds security services - even if they're not doing anything illegal.

I'm also not convinced that a piece of software invented by the US government is actually 100% secure.

I missed the program so you mught already know this. But there's opposing departments in the US government, one's funding the development of TOR as is gets the internet into places like China, the others trying to break it. Which might not be as counter productive as it sounds as the information seems to flow through back doors to the developers who fix the bugs, which presumably they want to do before the Chinese/N.korean's etc get to them (and I imagine the NSA/CIA/Whoever would quite like to be the only people who can see into it).

It's open source as well, so independent security audits are possible.

[i]Pretty much just the obvious.[/i]

The obvious being child pron.

Out of interest what sort of websites, apart from the obvious, do ISP's block that you would want to be looking at?

Not that it's really relevant, but torrent sites jump to mind. Not everything that's torrentable is an illegal download, but the assumption is that that's the only reason you'd be there.

There's grey areas too. Say I want to copy a movie I own to my tablet to watch at work. I could rip my own disc, but it's easier and quicker to find a copy that someone else has done. I fail to see how I'm morally bankrupt if I download a torrent to watch a film I've paid for on a 7" screen, when I could as easily take the disc into work and watch it on a 15" laptop screen.

Or, I miss an episode of something on TV. It's more convenient to download it, watch it and then delete it, than it is to view over a streaming service like iPlayer. I don't see a problem with this morally either, the programme is readily available (I could've Skyplussed it in the first place even), I've already paid for the privilege of watching it with my Sky subscription, I'm just choosing a convenient medium of playback which isn't going to suddenly start buffering halfway through or go mental if I pause it.

Regardless. My view is that I'm paying for Internet access, not a sanitised sandbox version of it. I'm not in China.

The obvious being child pron.

Heh, well you're head is in a different place than mine. I thought the obvious would be the pirate bay etc.

Piracy is way more popular....

i just use a chrome app to get to the pirate bay, safe in the knowledge that if im really bad my ISP will have to send me a letter!

The obvious being child pron.

I think that says more about your mindset than ours; that hadn't even occurred to me, let alone being obvious. I'm talking about last night's Big Brother, not child pornography. Unfortunately, ISP web filtering doesn't appear to be able to differentiate between the two (or, want to).

I'd agree Cougar but it also means that those who haven't bought the film etc can down load a pirated copy which is the more likely scenario

[i]I think that says more about your mindset than ours[/i]

Well I'm not the one that's trying to hide what I'm looking at and I've no idea what pirate bay is. I think to most people the obvious thing you wouldn't want people knowing you were looking at online is pron, terrorism, etc. Not Big Brother.

And what do you mean by mindset, explain that please.

I'd agree Cougar but it also means that those who haven't bought the film etc can down load a pirated copy which is the more likely scenario

But that's a moral argument and a different debate. The question should be why are we allowing the government to mandate any sort of web filtering? The answer usually contains some hysterics about children rather than any sensible or rational reasoning. How long until websites which have nothing illegal on them start to get 'accidentally' filtered or hidden from UK users due to their content?

erm id be pretty upset if anyone found out i watched big brother!

Again the sheeple mentality asserts itself. Those of you who wish your online activities to be private don't need to justify yourselves.

[i]Those of you who wish you online activities to be private don't need to justify yourselves.[/i]

I don't think anyone is saying they need to justify it. I asked out of curiosity what sites ISP's block apart from the obvious pron, terrorism, stuff. I don't use the web to steal licensed material and it never occurred to me torrent sites would be blocked.

I always used PrivatiseVPN to access torrents when virgin or sky block them, or pirate proxy as its easier

They don't block access to the Torrents, just the sites which list which Torrents are available. So you only need to use Tor to get to torrentz.eu etc, but you can download direct from peers etc.

I'd agree Cougar but it also means that those who haven't bought the film etc can down load a pirated copy which is the more likely scenario

Of course if does. But I'm not, yet being treated as though I am because other people might. That's not right.

Well I'm not the one that's trying to hide what I'm looking at and I've no idea what pirate bay is.

I'm not trying to hide anything, I'm bypassing unfair restrictions.

Do you really not know what Pirate Bay is? I find that quite amazing.

And what do you mean by mindset, explain that please.

Your first thought was child porn, it was 'obvious'. Child porn hadn't even occurred to me. So demonstrably, we think very differently.

I don't think anyone is saying they need to justify it. I asked out of curiosity what sites ISP's block apart from the obvious pron, terrorism, stuff. I don't use the web to steal licensed material and it never occurred to me torrent sites would be blocked.

I think that's the point. I think it probably depends on how internet savvy you are, but jumping to terrorism and child pron is a typical daily fail type reaction.

It's probably worth not posting too much online about your usage.

There has just been a successful arrest in UK ref illegally streaming content and this anti-piracy activity is going to step up a notch or two over the next year in UK.

Traditionally hosts are hit at source, but clients are going to be increasingly open to finding themselves in trouble, as new DRM tech starts making tracking easier.

erm id be pretty upset if anyone found out i watched big brother!

It was for my OH. Obviously.

(And it was just a random example, I haven't actually downloaded it)

it never occurred to me torrent sites would be blocked.

Well, now you know. Does that cause you to revise your opinion any?

[i]Do you really not know what Pirate Bay is? I find that quite amazing.[/i]

Quick poll of office colleagues suggests a high majority of people don't know what pirate bay is. I'm sure if I did a poll with the IT team the results would be different. So I'm amazed at your amazement.

[i]Does that cause you to revise your opinion any[/i]

Could you tell me what my opinion is, as you seem to have assumed I have one on the subject.

There has just been a successful arrest in UK ref illegally streaming content and this anti-piracy activity is going to step up a notch or two over the next year in UK.

Really? Arrested for streaming content? I know there was an arrest regarding camming in the cinema, uploading a torrent and then selling fake DVDs, but haven't seen anything regarding streaming.

It's probably worth not posting too much online about your usage.

Sure. Of course, this is a hypothetical discussion.

clients are going to be increasingly open to finding themselves in trouble, as new DRM tech starts making tracking easier.

DRM is an interesting one. The more companies try to restrict usage, the harder people are going to resist. If I buy a film, say, it's mine, and I want to play it on whatever playback device I chose. If I buy an album, I don't expect it to suddenly disappear from my collection if the record label goes bust. If I buy a book, I want to be able to lend to a mate when I've finished, or, heaven forbid, give it to someone else. This isn't buying, it's rental in all but name.

The second hand market is the elephant in the room here, companies see no revenue from it so they'd love to be able to kill it. Microsoft proposed this with the Xbox One, and got such a lambasting for it that they back-pedalled.

Adding new DRM techniques to existing technologies is hard, for compatibility reasons. You're not going to be able to, for example, add 'DRM 2.0' to DVDs, as current players won't understand it. You need to integrate your new protection into forthcoming formats from the outset. Games consoles are a good example of this; compare piracy levels of the original Playstation software with that of the PS2, or PS3. I've probably seen more copied PS1 games in people's collections than originals, but don't think I've ever seen a pirated PS3 game.

Quick poll of office colleagues suggests a high majority of people don't know what pirate bay is.

Don't know exactly what it is, or never heard of it at all? It was all over the news for months.

Top hint for Gary in a similar vain to this:
[img] :large[/img]

The pirate bay isn't an actual bay for actual marine pirates 😉

[i]It was all over the news for months.[/i]

And then forgotten about by those that are not interested.

Here's some stats on file uploads to pirate bay

[i]According to a study of newly uploaded files during 2013 by TorrentFreak, 44% of uploads were television shows and movies, porn was in second place with 35% of uploads, and audio made up 9% of uploads.[/i]

So I'm not completely wrong in my daily mail style assumption.

Thanks whatnobeer but I have an iCloud account, iPhone, Ipad, etc. I just don't sit in my bedroom at night in front of three monitors downloading free shit.

Gary_M's office....

[img] [/img]

And then forgotten about by those that are not interested.

So they did know what it was and have forgotten? Not a lot I can do about that; seems odd to me to be discussing something you have no interest in.

So I'm not completely wrong in my daily mail style assumption.

Sorry, you'll have to help me here, I'm not seeing the percentage for "child porn."

I just don't sit in my bedroom at night in front of three monitors downloading free shit.

I'm not sure any of us here do. As Cougar has already pointed out, there are legit and almost legit reasons for wanting access to torrent portals. You still seem to be operating under the assumption that anyone accessing the pirate bay, using torrents or TOR is likely to be doing something illegal or immoral.

[i]Sorry, you'll have to help me here, I'm not seeing the percentage for "child porn." [/i]

Who wants to look at images of dead children.

[i]In September 2008, the Swedish media reported that the public preliminary investigation protocols concerning a child murder case known as the Arboga case had been made available through a torrent on The Pirate Bay. In Sweden, preliminary investigations become publicly available the moment a lawsuit is filed and can be ordered from the court by any individual. The document included pictures from the autopsy of the two murdered children, which caused their father Nicklas Jangestig to urge the website to have the pictures removed.[76] The Pirate Bay refused to remove the torrent. The number of downloads increased to about 50,000 a few days later[/i]

Thats me on the left kimbers. You're funny though, predicatble, but still very witty.

used to use it to access the usual iPlayer etc. catchup services from outside UK.
incredibly slow for the browsing part, but once the vids play they're fine since they go P2P.
ditto for getting around the GEMA music royalty cartel nonsense which blocks about 60% of youtube in Germany, since they have a constitutional right to assume royalty collection powers on ALL music unless the owner of that music instructs them otherwise.

use a UK based server now, with SSH tunneling to do that. I have nothing to hide, other than the physical location of myself at the time of watching mainstream broadcast TV.

Sky and the beeb will be after those that re-stream, not the handful of expats wanting to watch telly.

Who wants to look at images of dead children.

Still not child porn. I can't begin to speculate on why someone might have an interest in a document detailing preliminary investigations into a (presumably) high profile murder case, though from your post it would seem that it was something publicly available from direct channels anyway. I don't doubt that not everyone's interest was strictly healthy, but it seems somewhat disingenuous to cherry-pick one component of the report and conclude that everyone who downloaded it was a necrophillic nonce. If I [i]was[/i] to guess, I'd expect that for most downloaders "morbid curiosity" was the primary motivation.

And that's one document in gods know how many files make it to TPB and similar. Wikipedia has photos of genitalia; shall we close the web?

Really? Arrested for streaming content? I know there was an arrest regarding camming in the cinema, uploading a torrent and then selling fake DVDs, but haven't seen anything regarding streaming.

see http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-29016566

If I buy a film, say, it's mine, and I want to play it on whatever playback device I chose

My point was although piracy and copyright violation will always be with us, there will be increasing chance that people breaking the law will get caught, especially in countries such as UK.

...back to talking about MTB 🙂

I just don't sit in my bedroom at night in front of three monitors downloading free shit.

You just leave it running. You don't have to sit in front of a computer for it to work....

wanting to and it being legal to do so, are two different things

Sure, but pushing me into [i]not[/i] wanting to is going to hurt their sales figures far more than the availability of illegal downloads.

To put that another way; I'll happily buy a movie I want to own. In fact, I'll buy a movie I want to own even if I were to already have an illegal download of it. If you make it so that I can't actually own it, then I'll not buy the film in the first place. Why would I, what's the point any more? I'll wait for it to appear on Sky and Sky+ it.

Maybe I'm in the minority there, I don't know. But we've been having this "home taping is killing music" argument since the 80s and it's short-sighted at best. I've discussed this here before, but when I was a kid I bought as much media as I could afford with my pocket money. Without playground piracy I wouldn't - couldn't - have spent any more money, I'd just have had fewer Spectrum games.

Great to see the [i]"Nothing To Hide; Nothing To Fear"[/i] brigade massively buying into the media/government scaremongering that anyone browsing privately must be looking at child porn or be a terrorist.

Happy to have CCTV in your bedroom?
Happy for someone to read all your mail and listen to your phone calls?

Why not?

So why would tor be useful to the normal law abiding citizen? I saw no convincing arguments for its use.

Someone in witness protection or sheltering from an abusive relationship who needs to communicate on the net without revealing their location?

On the above, the internet definitely appears to be heading down a route of restriction and censorship which is counter to one its founding tenets. I have just switched away from Sky (which I only ended up with as they acquired Be) partly for this reason, to an ISP that at least for now doesn't block any website access.

I've discussed this here before

If anyone cares, my previous (lengthy) post on this subject is here: http://singletrackmag.com/forum/topic/legality-of-watching-films-that-are-streamed#post-5651085

I don't use it for general web-surfing, it's too slow. Just accessin torrent sites.

If anyone cares, my previous (lengthy) post on this subject is here: http://singletrackmag.com/forum/topic/legality-of-watching-films-that-are-streamed#post-5651085

I'd link that GoT Oatmeal comic if I could be bothered.

see http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-29016566

Ah yes, I had seen that. But that's someone using piracy to make a profit - a criminal offence. Different from you or I watching the stream. I've not seen anyone being done for that (plus it would be a civil offence I think).

Friend got "the letter" via ISP from Warner for torrenting, but only cos he was a bit slack in moving downloaded movies from the share folder.

He now torrents movies that aren't Warner.