We’ve had enough of digital monopolies and surveillance capitalism. We want an alternative world that works for everyone, just like the original intention of the web and net.
We seek a world of open platforms and protocols with real choices of applications and services for people. We care about privacy, transparency and autonomy. Our tools and organisations should fundamentally be accountable and resilient.
On 14/08/14 22:32, David Burns wrote: > https://github.com/getlantern/lantern/wiki/Questions-and-Answers > > I had not heard about lantern until today. My impression is it is tor > without security. It just gives people a way to access blocked sites, > and the blocked sites have to be on a list. It sounds like a potential > security nightmare. The only obvious advantage versus tor would be > speed? Hmmm... There are certainly parallels with Tor, but with the addition of a Freenet-style in the "friends" mode, whereby your traffic is routed through a web of trust. The stated goal is fairly plain: to help users in restrictive locales to access some known-censored content, and to do so through trusted nodes only. In principle there's nothing wrong with this model, and the software may indeed achieve that goal (given critical enough mass). The fact that it is unapologetically non-anonymous would be troublesome in any other context, but generally speaking, a web of trust requires some diminished anonymity anyway, so I can see why they've just chosen to abandon any pre-text to such altogether. That it only proxies a pre-defined set of sites is an interesting element in the equation. It fits well within the narrow scope of their stated goal, but I worry about the content of that list - in particular, who manages it exactly? It would appear that there is an ironic opportunity for censorship at this layer. :/ -- dan (phrawzty). devops; mozilla.