Given that these particular terrorists didn't appear to use Tor, what's the point? Or are the French doing something proactive, instead of just reacting like the USA's TSA?
More likely, this is just the French "Intelligence Community" pushing for something they've wanted for a while, but haven't had a good excuse.
> Or are the French doing something proactive, instead of just reacting like the USA's TSA?
Why is it that you're giving the French the benefit of the doubt here, framing their actions as being "proactive" rather than reactionary? Who says it isn't reactionary? If you were an executive officer or politician in charge of the nation's security apparatus, and it became clear that a massive security disaster happened not only your watch, but planned in the open on places like Facebook, prioritizing the legislative agenda towards Tor and encryption is a reactionary tactic to cover your own ass. To see it otherwise may be a bit naive about how human organizations work.
Well, clearly intrusive, dragnet surveillance didn't help the French snoops to find the Paris attackers - apparently they communicated in the clear. So, if they're really going to ban usage of Tor and other things, they might, possibly, have some otherworldly explanation that makes it "proactive in a Dilbert sense.
I'm in the "intelligence services know not to waste a good opportunity to expand their powers" camp.
I'm not as sanguine as I used to be about Internet freedom. I can now imagine the great firewall spreading to all nations, spurred by these events and the publics general disinterest.
Can you imagine how different the world might be in 20 years?
Like you said, this is very much on the lines of the US/UK govt claiming encryption as the culprit for everything. There would have been a push for this anyway, irrespective of whether the Paris attacks had happened or not.
The implementation would likely be forced at ISP level, blocking known Tor nodes. But then, Tor is larger than that.
7 comments
[ 2.7 ms ] story [ 30.7 ms ] threadMore likely, this is just the French "Intelligence Community" pushing for something they've wanted for a while, but haven't had a good excuse.
Why is it that you're giving the French the benefit of the doubt here, framing their actions as being "proactive" rather than reactionary? Who says it isn't reactionary? If you were an executive officer or politician in charge of the nation's security apparatus, and it became clear that a massive security disaster happened not only your watch, but planned in the open on places like Facebook, prioritizing the legislative agenda towards Tor and encryption is a reactionary tactic to cover your own ass. To see it otherwise may be a bit naive about how human organizations work.
I'm not as sanguine as I used to be about Internet freedom. I can now imagine the great firewall spreading to all nations, spurred by these events and the publics general disinterest.
Can you imagine how different the world might be in 20 years?
The implementation would likely be forced at ISP level, blocking known Tor nodes. But then, Tor is larger than that.