SOPA could ban TOR | Hacker News Reader

SOPA could ban TOR

boingboing.net

201 pointscleaver33 comments

Actual URL of the article is http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-57346592-281/how-sopas-cir...

Please submit the actual sources, not news aggregators or link sites.

How can USA promote freedom of speech through these tools, and then turn around and ban them themselves? If the world's belief that America is a role model for democracy hasn't been killed by now, passing SOPA will certainly kill it. They might as well release Hillary Clinton from her job because nobody will take her seriously anymore if this passes.

"""If the world's belief that America is a role model for democracy hasn't been killed by now, passing SOPA will certainly kill it."""

I don't think many countries consider the US a "model for democracy". More like a greedy global cop with a (not so hidden) agenda and holier-than-thou attitude.

Which reminds me: "I'm well-known for my sarcasm. But even I wouldn't have thought of placing a statue of liberty in the harbor of New York". (George Bernard Shaw, satirist)

Thanks for the "democratic" downvoting

VPNs are used by our own government and many US businesses. Even something simple like SSH is enough to get around an IP block. There is no way this language will hold up.

SSH and VPN software aren't "designed or marketed...for the circumvention or bypassing" of SOPA. Neither, come to think of it, is Tor.

Well, it would have been weird (and impressive) for people to market technology against a law that had yet to be written.

I guess my blog will be shut down as well for having an article about using the hosts file to aid domain routing.

Heck, what if the Justice Dept. wants to file an injunction against Microsoft and Apple to hijack my hosts file. If they don't comply they could be construed as "in concert" with copyright infringers.

Or, it will hold up and the government will have yet another inconsistently unenforced law to be used when it finds an innocent person who has done something politically inconvenient.

Using encryption is already proof, in many people's eyes, that you're breaking the law because otherwise you wouldn't have anything to hide. Having this enshrined in law will make it worse.

Ironically, even if Tor becomes illegal, the effect of SOPA passing could be millions of people flocking to Tor (or other onion projects such as I2P). This would be a net positive for internet freedom: Tor would work better, using Tor would not be a suspicious activity, and the government would have to either arrest millions of people or suck it up.

Small technical correction: I2P uses Garlic routing, which is based on the same basic ideas, but is implemented very differently.

http://www.i2p2.de/how_garlicrouting

You know what? This might be the perfect thing to kill SOPA. I've heard suspicion (I'd venture to call it a conspiracy theory, except it doesn't seem all that outlandish) that Tor is actively used by various intelligence agencies, in the US and otherwise. The theory being that a network like Tor is only useful for hiding CIA traffic (for example) if the majority of traffic on Tor is non-CIA related.

If SOPA effectively bans Tor, I could imagine the head of the CIA placing a strongly worded phone call to the President ensuring that the bill gets vetoed... Yeah, I wouldn't count on it, but I wouldn't be surprised if this is how things play out either.

Given that Tor was originally developed by the US Naval Research Laboratory it wouldn't be surprising if they were still using it [1].

But I don't think the CIA would care about SOPA. They are quite able to use "illegal" technologies, and don't need the law changed to do it.

[1] https://www.torproject.org/about/torusers.html.en

The point is that the CIA would need many non-CIA individuals in the US using Tor to effectively mask CIA traffic. Sure, if SOPA outlaws Tor that would not prevent the CIA from using it, but if it effectively reduces the number of others using it, then Tor becomes useless for the intelligence community.

Edit: Also, thanks for the link. I had forgotten, but the Tor project tacitly admits to an ulterior motive from the intelligence community.

Next: SOPA could ban USB thumb drives

Ah hell, let's ban punch cards too.

How is this possible? I was under the impression that TOR by design cannot be shut down by an external source. Am I off base here, or is this another "series of tubes" example of how congress doesn't understand technology?

Inasmuch as that's true Tor will still be unstoppable. It'll just be illegal, which makes it that much easier to stop Tor by the brute-force method of arresting every single user (and seizing their computer).

As long as you're using TOR to connect to any regular site, your traffic will eventually exit the TOR network through an exit node. If that node's ISP performs packet inspection and traffic originating from it ends up hitting an URL for illegal content on a download site, the exit node could be taken down and it's owner prosecuted.

Only hidden services using the .onion alternate TLD are safe.

Is .onion technically considered a TLD? Even thigh its outside the DNS system?

.onion is a pseudo-top-level domain host suffix (similar in concept to such endings as .bitnet and .uucp used in earlier times) designating an anonymous hidden service reachable via the Tor network. Such addresses are not actual DNS names, and the .onion TLD is not in the Internet DNS root

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.onion

"To be sure, it's unlikely that the attorney general would try to force Microsoft, Apple, and Mozilla to rewrite their operating systems (...)"

Subtle...

Shame on CNET and BoingBoing. This is hyperbole and they know it.

At the very end of the below committee hearing, Rep. Zoe Lofgren proposed an amendment that would ensure TOR and the friends aren't effected by SOPA. Rep. Lamar Smith, committee chairman, requested that she shelve the amendment so they could work on the issue out-of-channel.

http://www.justin.tv/unearthed365/b/302702510

Edit: I missed the paragraph in the CNET article that addresses this. Perhaps my wording is a bit strong, but I'm sticking to my guns.

That doesn't mean that that amendment is in SOPA though.

Nor does it mean the amendment would be effective or widespread enough.

Since the amendment is propossed, that confirms that SOPA would, otherwise, ban Tor. Until the amendment is actually in SOPA, that's the reaility: Tor will be banned by SOPA.

I would need more than that to consider as confirmation. It looks to me like it wouldn't fit under their definition, although it is quite ambiguous.

   a product or service designed or marketed for the 
   circumvention or bypassing of measures described in 
   paragraph (2) and taken in response to a court order 
   issued pursuant to this subsection includes a product or 
   service that is designed or marketed to enable a domain 
   name described in such an order--

Tor is designed to circunvent censorship, including SOPA. So yes, it matches the definition.

It is not however designed the specific censorship legislated by SOPA. It sure sounds like it is addressing MAFIAAfire (and DeSOPA), but not generalized tools like tor.

I guess we'll see.

Rep. Smith defended the language saying it was an important piece of the legislation. Without, it had no teeth.

He also said he cannot make guarantees that this section will not limit global free speech.

Then how, in his right mind, is he pushing for this legislation to go through as written?

This is a rhetorical question, sadly we already know the answer.

Don't these guys take an oath to uphold the Constitution when they are sworn into office? How is attempting to pass a law to subvert free speech not breaking what they swore to protect?

Politicians and most judges, and almost all lawyers, are paid specifically to come up with plausible sounding reasons why nothing violates the constitution.

It's a prestigious line of work, with a long and glorious tradition.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com