(January 22, 2016 at 8:03 pm)RaphielDrake Wrote:

(January 22, 2016 at 7:52 pm)God of Mr. Hanky Wrote: Why the fuck not? It's for anybody who's interested in protecting their privacy against prying eyes (your know, every threat from commercial spammers to targeted malware producers). I have no moral qualms against dispelling malicious myths, just as you have none against the systematic murder of the innocent.

I meant because people who were banned by this site might now use it?

If this site relies on IP-tracking for its defense, and those who would violate your web space don't understand the non-secret that TOR obscures IP tracking, then they will soon enough put 2 and 2 together.

(January 22, 2016 at 7:52 pm)God of Mr. Hanky Wrote:

(January 22, 2016 at 7:47 pm)RaphielDrake Wrote: Thats cool and all but do we *really* want to share that on this site?

Why the fuck not? It's for anybody who's interested in protecting their privacy against prying eyes (your know, every threat from commercial spammers to targeted malware producers). I have no moral qualms against dispelling malicious myths, just as you have none against the systematic murder of the innocent.

        It's a two way street, the taking of children's and the taking of innocent life will happen till the end of time. No matter what we do as a society, putting camera's in peoples houses, watching what people do on the internet is still a massive invasion of right to privacy. As far as Tor is considered, that safe haven as been taking away from users by the government. In today's world of privacy, one has little right to it. You have to be many many steps ahead to keep your meta-data safe from corporate and government world. It should be if a consumer likes a certain product they can sign-up for better deals and there data gathered by that company is not sold to a other for similar products.

(January 22, 2016 at 8:08 pm)God of Mr. Hanky Wrote:

(January 22, 2016 at 8:03 pm)RaphielDrake Wrote: I meant because people who were banned by this site might now use it?

If this site relies on IP-tracking for its defense, and those who would violate your web space don't understand the non-secret that TOR obscures IP tracking, then they will soon enough put 2 and 2 together.

I think you over-estimate the intellect of most of the people who get banned here.

(January 22, 2016 at 8:07 pm)Bella Morte Wrote: There's nothing wrong with discussing Tor and we will continue to do so.

Oh cool. Let me just retract the unreasonable and unconstitutional demand to stop talking about it this instant. I don't know what I was thinking.
Wai- whats this? Looks like what I typed was just a question and nobody needs to lose their shit over it. How odd.

(January 22, 2016 at 8:03 pm)RaphielDrake Wrote:

(January 22, 2016 at 7:52 pm)God of Mr. Hanky Wrote: Why the fuck not? It's for anybody who's interested in protecting their privacy against prying eyes (your know, every threat from commercial spammers to targeted malware producers). I have no moral qualms against dispelling malicious myths, just as you have none against the systematic murder of the innocent.

I meant because people who were banned by this site might now use it?

What makes you think they haven't already? (They have)

What makes you think we need an IP match to detect socks? (We don't)

It's possible that someone could fly under the radar using TOR or a proxy for awhile - but we have other means of catching socks.

Some dude driving around town with a mobile or using public WiFi is, from our perspective, no less anonymous. Yet, we manage catch them nonetheless.

(January 22, 2016 at 8:49 pm)RaphielDrake Wrote:

(January 22, 2016 at 8:08 pm)God of Mr. Hanky Wrote: If this site relies on IP-tracking for its defense, and those who would violate your web space don't understand the non-secret that TOR obscures IP tracking, then they will soon enough put 2 and 2 together.

I think you over-estimate the intellect of most of the people who get banned here.

As Cthullu pointed out, you underestimate the intelligence of the forum staff.

(January 22, 2016 at 9:01 pm)RaphielDrake Wrote:

(January 22, 2016 at 8:07 pm)Bella Morte Wrote: There's nothing wrong with discussing Tor and we will continue to do so.

Oh cool. Let me just retract the unreasonable and unconstitutional demand to stop talking about it this instant. I don't know what I was thinking.
Wai- whats this? Looks like what I typed was just a question and nobody needs to lose their shit over it. How odd.

Well, like everyone else has said - you're underestimating the intelligence of the forum staff.

I may be a turtle by my IQ is higher than 0. It isn't lower, it is higher. That is true.

I haz zeh intelligentinz.

(January 22, 2016 at 6:55 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: You'll need to demonstrate that your comparison is apt. Simply shutting down the website doesn't necessarily preclude arrests.

Additionally, the absence of any reporting on international arrests in that article implies that there are few if any to report.

It wouldn't be the FBI's responsibility to arrest people abroad, that would be put upon interpol and the law enforcement from other countries.

Quote: the FBI infected the sites with software that punctured that security, allowing agents to identify hundreds of users.

To me it seems logical that if the FBI simply shut down the website that would mean they wouldn't have been able to infect the website, and identify it's users.

(January 22, 2016 at 10:30 pm)paulpablo Wrote:

(January 22, 2016 at 6:55 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: You'll need to demonstrate that your comparison is apt. Simply shutting down the website doesn't necessarily preclude arrests.

Additionally, the absence of any reporting on international arrests in that article implies that there are few if any to report.

It wouldn't be the FBI's responsibility to arrest people abroad, that would be put upon interpol and the law enforcement from other countries.

Thanks, Captain Obvious. My point is that given the absence of reports of arrests abroad -- by whatever agency -- you can't reasonably say that 137 arrests aren't all that there are. If you want to build an argument about the efficacy of this operation, you'll have to present better numbers. And you'll have to avoid relying on suppositions. You wrote:

Quote:Well exactly, you don't know one way or the other about the other arrests or the percentage of the overall users of the website that were in America so the percentage you established as a success rate is void.

The success rate that I have quoted is supported by the numbers we have at hand. The success rate you wish to use in justifying this operation has no support in the data, by your own admission.

(January 22, 2016 at 10:30 pm)paulpablo Wrote:

Quote: the FBI infected the sites with software that punctured that security, allowing agents to identify hundreds of users.

To me it seems logical that if the FBI simply shut down the website that would mean they wouldn't have been able to infect the website, and identify it's users.

Obviously not the case. They could shut down the site, and at the same time redirect anyone trying to browse it to a page which infects their computer without delivering kiddie porn. This isn't rocket surgery.