They are too dependent on government sponsorship.
80% of their funding comes from the US government in some shape.
I would imagine that a project of that importance deserves to be able to be self-sufficient.
A US$2M budget/year is not that much, (m|b)illionaires making their money from the Internet could easily sponsor the project.
Better yet, having grass-root sponsorship is even more important.
Maybe they need marketing help more than anything else?
I work on a project depended upon and repeatedly promoted by Snowden (tweets) and less-than-public-figures-who-lives-depend-on-it (pastebins).
We gave up writing grant proposals. After repeatedly pouring hours into crafting proposals exactly as specified, the big one (no plural) OTF (.gov funding) has never responded. The smaller, more informal ones aren't interested as well (no clue why).
What little OTF money there is goes to the same projects, written by the same grant writers. We're told by insiders that we need connections, need to hire those writers, and we're told we need a sexier story.
We can't fund a modest income for the lead developer (approaching nearly a decade). He lives cheaply in a developing country off anonymous donations of unpredictable amount and timing.
Tor has resources we couldn't dream of, and if they're cutting staff, there's no hope for any open source security project.
> (m|b)illionaires making their money from the Internet could easily sponsor the project.
The thing is: When you're the kind of person that is able to amass m-/billions, you're unlikely to be very altruistic. Most of these people had to, excuse my language, fuck over people (workers, customers, investors, the larger public) along the way in various ways. You simply can't be a billionaire without some kind of severe exploitation and it is unlikely that, when you have no qualms doing so in one area, it is unlikely you care about people's livelihoods etc. in other areas (there are some exceptions ofc, Bill Gates comes to mind). Jeff Bezos is a perfect example: The richest person on earth has donated what amounts to a few cents for an ordinary person but with great public fanfare. Not even during the COVID-19 pandemic, he views it as necessary (cf. with Jack Dorsey, donating 1/3 of his wealth).
Ironically, if they had more government sponsorship, they may be having fewer financial problems now. Government grant programs have multi-year contracts, and the agencies have yearly budgets. The government money is still flowing. It's the private money, from foundations and individuals, that has suddenly become unavailable due to declines in income and wealth.
I feel for the people at Tor who were let go. My company was in the same position and I was unfortunately on the list of people who had their position terminated. While I am upset that I am now unemployed I also can understand how a company can be put in a difficult position during this time. I will survive, and I hope they do too.
This got me to think about the ACLU and what they are doing.
I see some issues about accommodating justice and other issues affected by the pandemic and the intersection with liberties... it's more about looking at the compounding effect than protecting against fundamental change and fundamental threats to civil rights.
But I don’t see any take on any measures governments have taken to kerb civil rights in the time of the pandemic as well as talk about tracking and contact tracing. Also kerbs on the right to assembly and to go out and about, etc.
Yes this would abut against the fight against the disease, but that’s not their job. They usually don’t contextualize liberties. But here they seem silent and it’s a bit puzzling.
The ACLU has largely transitioned away from civil rights absolutism towards progressive advocacy. They haven't entirely tossed it out the door, and still sometimes defend the civil rights of non-progressive groups, but the modern ACLU definitely feels it's important to contextualize liberties.
> But I don’t see any take on any measures governments have taken to kerb civil rights in the time of the pandemic
Part of it is that I expect that the ACLU doesn't really want to take on cases that are simply going to be moot once the state of emergency ends. I expect that their ears will perk up a little more about things that don't go back to "normal" once everything is done with.
And part of it is probably not wanting court cases to actually go through the courts unless they are sure they can win. If you send a case through to the Supreme Court right now, you may lose and set a really bad precedent.
The ACLU is likely better off fighting by lobbying and getting laws passed rather than using the courts right now.
I follow on Twitter and have seen a lot about prisoner/immigrant advocacy (probably because of my Twitter bubble/liking habbits). But re-looking seems like a good mix of voting rights and medical access mixed in https://twitter.com/ACLU/
"The ACLU" isn't one homogeneous entity. I've spoken with my locals about privacy and voting rights. Naive me thought I'd have ready allies.
Nope.
Lefties are all over the place. Agreement on one issue is no predictor for any other issues. First persuade others to acknowledge a problem. Then get commitments of effort, support. Then forge a consensus around an action plan. Be very wary of kindly seeming people who are actively working against you.getting everyone to agree to the same set of reforms is even more work.
Worse of all, getting momentum is very hard. Because your coalition will dissolve the moment any change is enacted (if not earlier). Because no one will agree on the next steps.
Rinse, lather, repeat.
Policy and coalition building is a lot of work. Maybe avoid my mistake of burning out too soon. Pace yourself for a marathon.
For a project that is about freedom of information they sure kept this vague. Why not share more details of why you had to fire people, what funding sources dried up, etc?
I’m confused by this... why are layoffs happening so suddenly? Did they recently lose some large corporate sponsors? How many donations have been cut off over the last few months? Do they not have money in the bank?
From my perspective it looks like they have had ongoing financial problems, and are using this as a convenient scapegoat to cut expenses.
It doesn't necessarily have to be a bad thing. Imagine if your company was going through a financially difficult time, and firing becomes the only path forward. This can greatly impact the team's moral and trust in management. Using the crisis as a scapegoat makes it easier to accept the event.
I’m sorry to hear this, also surprised. Is the funding for Tor going to be so immediately affected they had to cut staff without a public appeal or anything?
It can totally happen. Funding commitments are gone fast when a crisis hits. People start cutting costs and start trying to find ways to reduce expenses. Giving away money it's definitely a bad idea during an economic crisis, so non-profits are hit hard.
Why isn't there a public open-source fund to finance open projects (ie one to which the donors have no clue or control where the funds will eventually go; they're disbursed on the basis of how widely something is used)?
GPS, GSM, fiber optics, Internet, touchscreens, semiconductors, satellites, most of chemistry and aviation - all were researched and developed using taxpayer money.
And it took billions.
Now all public R&D is being destroyed and yet FLOSS fits exactly in the category.
We desperately need large, global, R&D funding not some people throwing some bucks at patreon.
I was hoping this would be an analysis of changes in usage patterns.
System identification may be easier (and privacy thus worse) now that the network topology is more static, as people move around less due to the virus.
You do not have 35 employees without some sort of stable budget. Seems very unlikely the budget changed so much in the past few months that you have to reduce your headcount by 40%!
Then they even mention that they expect Tor to be even more relevant in the coming period. Well, now would be a good time to keep the people, work on the product and show how relevant it is.
Very little specific detail considering they are a non-profit. Why not post the numbers?
[+] [-] Renaud|5 years ago|reply
I would imagine that a project of that importance deserves to be able to be self-sufficient. A US$2M budget/year is not that much, (m|b)illionaires making their money from the Internet could easily sponsor the project.
Better yet, having grass-root sponsorship is even more important. Maybe they need marketing help more than anything else?
[+] [-] justnotworthit|5 years ago|reply
We gave up writing grant proposals. After repeatedly pouring hours into crafting proposals exactly as specified, the big one (no plural) OTF (.gov funding) has never responded. The smaller, more informal ones aren't interested as well (no clue why).
What little OTF money there is goes to the same projects, written by the same grant writers. We're told by insiders that we need connections, need to hire those writers, and we're told we need a sexier story.
We can't fund a modest income for the lead developer (approaching nearly a decade). He lives cheaply in a developing country off anonymous donations of unpredictable amount and timing.
Tor has resources we couldn't dream of, and if they're cutting staff, there's no hope for any open source security project.
[+] [-] Quanttek|5 years ago|reply
The thing is: When you're the kind of person that is able to amass m-/billions, you're unlikely to be very altruistic. Most of these people had to, excuse my language, fuck over people (workers, customers, investors, the larger public) along the way in various ways. You simply can't be a billionaire without some kind of severe exploitation and it is unlikely that, when you have no qualms doing so in one area, it is unlikely you care about people's livelihoods etc. in other areas (there are some exceptions ofc, Bill Gates comes to mind). Jeff Bezos is a perfect example: The richest person on earth has donated what amounts to a few cents for an ordinary person but with great public fanfare. Not even during the COVID-19 pandemic, he views it as necessary (cf. with Jack Dorsey, donating 1/3 of his wealth).
[+] [-] mhuffman|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sowithit|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] maallooc|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] willis936|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dillondoyle|5 years ago|reply
https://www.aclu.org/other/aclu-annual-report-2019
[+] [-] nbar1|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] wegs|5 years ago|reply
* First step was laying off people without jobs which could be done remotely.
* Second step is laying off people who could still be productive from home, but where there's less demand.
Unless we act with boldness and resoluteness, this will just continue to feed in on itself as the nation collapses.
[+] [-] mc32|5 years ago|reply
I see some issues about accommodating justice and other issues affected by the pandemic and the intersection with liberties... it's more about looking at the compounding effect than protecting against fundamental change and fundamental threats to civil rights.
But I don’t see any take on any measures governments have taken to kerb civil rights in the time of the pandemic as well as talk about tracking and contact tracing. Also kerbs on the right to assembly and to go out and about, etc.
Yes this would abut against the fight against the disease, but that’s not their job. They usually don’t contextualize liberties. But here they seem silent and it’s a bit puzzling.
[+] [-] SpicyLemonZest|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jdp23|5 years ago|reply
How to Think About the Right to Privacy and Using Location Data to Fight COVID-19 (by Jay Stanley of the ACLU) : https://www.justsecurity.org/69444/how-to-think-about-the-ri...
Apple and Google Announced a Coronavirus Tracking System. How Worried Should We Be?: https://www.aclu.org/news/privacy-technology/apple-and-googl...
ACLU sues federal agencies seeking records of facial-recognition use at airports and U.S. border: https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/03/12/aclu-su...
[+] [-] bsder|5 years ago|reply
Part of it is that I expect that the ACLU doesn't really want to take on cases that are simply going to be moot once the state of emergency ends. I expect that their ears will perk up a little more about things that don't go back to "normal" once everything is done with.
And part of it is probably not wanting court cases to actually go through the courts unless they are sure they can win. If you send a case through to the Supreme Court right now, you may lose and set a really bad precedent.
The ACLU is likely better off fighting by lobbying and getting laws passed rather than using the courts right now.
[+] [-] 3ygun|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tastroder|5 years ago|reply
Uh, they published a full white paper on this outlining their views: https://www.aclu.org/report/aclu-white-paper-principles-tech...
[+] [-] specialist|5 years ago|reply
Contact your local affiliate and tell them.
"The ACLU" isn't one homogeneous entity. I've spoken with my locals about privacy and voting rights. Naive me thought I'd have ready allies.
Nope.
Lefties are all over the place. Agreement on one issue is no predictor for any other issues. First persuade others to acknowledge a problem. Then get commitments of effort, support. Then forge a consensus around an action plan. Be very wary of kindly seeming people who are actively working against you.getting everyone to agree to the same set of reforms is even more work.
Worse of all, getting momentum is very hard. Because your coalition will dissolve the moment any change is enacted (if not earlier). Because no one will agree on the next steps.
Rinse, lather, repeat.
Policy and coalition building is a lot of work. Maybe avoid my mistake of burning out too soon. Pace yourself for a marathon.
Good luck.
[+] [-] LyalinDotCom|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rentnorove|5 years ago|reply
https://web.archive.org/web/20200404101205/https://www.torpr...
[+] [-] tempestn|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cbsks|5 years ago|reply
From my perspective it looks like they have had ongoing financial problems, and are using this as a convenient scapegoat to cut expenses.
[+] [-] baby|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jzb|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] whoisjuan|5 years ago|reply
Exhibit from the 2009 Financial Crisis: https://publish.illinois.edu/illinoisblj/2009/09/20/the-impa...
A good recent article on the topic: https://www.philanthropy.com/article/As-Coronavirus-Threat/2...
[+] [-] anigbrowl|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] EamonnMR|5 years ago|reply
https://sfconservancy.org/donate/
https://www.apache.org/foundation/contributing.html
https://opensource.org/donate
https://www.linuxfoundation.org/about/donate/
[+] [-] throwaway092837|5 years ago|reply
GPS, GSM, fiber optics, Internet, touchscreens, semiconductors, satellites, most of chemistry and aviation - all were researched and developed using taxpayer money.
And it took billions.
Now all public R&D is being destroyed and yet FLOSS fits exactly in the category.
We desperately need large, global, R&D funding not some people throwing some bucks at patreon.
[+] [-] chrisco255|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jzb|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] burrows|5 years ago|reply
And if you want this thing, why don’t you make it?
[+] [-] justicezyx|5 years ago|reply
I thought people would be more willing to support them in current situations. Assuming they are on some crowd sourced funding sources.
[+] [-] bigiain|5 years ago|reply
https://www.zdnet.com/article/half-of-the-tor-projects-fundi... (2017 numbers article)
https://www.torproject.org/about/sponsors/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Tor_Project#Funding
(And people wonder why I'm stocking up on tinfoil millinery supplies...)
[+] [-] RedComet|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] totalZero|5 years ago|reply
System identification may be easier (and privacy thus worse) now that the network topology is more static, as people move around less due to the virus.
[+] [-] MikeGale|5 years ago|reply
There is one thing we can all do, if we care about Tor, donate now.
[+] [-] DeathArrow|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nbar1|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jerheinze|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] RocketSyntax|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] justlexi93|5 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] fierarul|5 years ago|reply
You do not have 35 employees without some sort of stable budget. Seems very unlikely the budget changed so much in the past few months that you have to reduce your headcount by 40%!
Then they even mention that they expect Tor to be even more relevant in the coming period. Well, now would be a good time to keep the people, work on the product and show how relevant it is.
Very little specific detail considering they are a non-profit. Why not post the numbers?
[+] [-] maallooc|5 years ago|reply
And this layoff is not because the budget changed now, it’s to prepare for that.
Don’t demand to be spoonfed, just pay attention little more.