On 19/06/17 16:20, Rogol Domedonfors wrote:
I quite agree that Phabricator is not suitable for these discussions. Perhaps Tim would like to say where and how discussions between the Community and Foundation staff about the need for, and desirability of, projects like this should be held. After all, we all want projects to go ahead on the basis of Community input, don't we?
We've had community input in this thread, but I haven't actually seen any objection to this proposal raised that stands up to analysis. Maybe meta would provide a platform for more organised discussion.
Almost everyone talked about abuse potential, ignoring the fact that we already allow editing via Tor. Nothing actually changes in terms of abuse potential. The same people can edit, they can just use a different URL.
The only other argument I saw was that by doing this, we are supporting Tor, and Tor is evil. But the hidden service only handles traffic which is directed to the service. It does not support the network in general. Meanwhile, since 2014 we are operating a relay which routinely forwards traffic for script kiddies, terrorists and child pornographers, and nobody complains about that?
I think we should shut down the relay, which in my opinion is not mission-aligned, and set up the hidden service, which clearly is mission-aligned.
A hidden service provides a small security improvement compared to plain HTTPS, and is marginally more censorship-resistant than a VPN. Its privacy protection is not perfect, but it is probably better than any other existing solution (except of course [1] ;-). It is a small technical project, which provides a small benefit to security-conscious users.
-- Tim Starling
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2016-04-01/Technology_report