There are gonna be 0 chances of getting a waiver. You would probably have to be law enforcement/lawyer's with a talktalk connection and involvement in the case.
A) In order to drive Tor adoption and increase the feasibility of normal people hosting sites on Tor, it is necessary that normal people be able to connect to hidden services, even if they themselves are not necessarily reaping the privacy benefits.
If Firefox and Chrome both supported the Tor protocol out of the box then I would be more likely to host content on Tor, because I wouldn't need to tell my family and friends to install a new browser just to access that content.
B) Even though Brave's Tor features are inferior to the Tor browser, they still probably offer some privacy benefit over normal browsing (assuming users are not assuming that the mode is perfectly private).
That being said:
A) It would still be better for Brave to fix issues like this over time, and the leak is worth taking seriously instead of brushing off as a known issue.
B) A warning on a FAQ is not sufficient to handle point B. Brave should be looking into UX methods to make it clear to users that visiting a Tor site does not make them anonymous. Most of the people installing Brave are never going to see that warning.
I’d say more likely than either of those things, it’s just convenient, and it gives them a(nother) selling point over other browsers.
Besides, assuming you live in the West, as long as you aren’t you’re planning a terrorist attack, watching child porn, selling drugs, weapons, assassinations, bomb making materials, etc, then brave will probably do
I would still use TOR for pretty much any dark web activities, but in practicality, as long as you aren’t doing anything that you can imagine a policeman actively hating you for, it’s probably pretty safe
Is it true that everyone who browses Tor needs 100% privacy to maintain safety? I'm not very aware, but I've heard that a good part of Tor consists of regular boring pages and blogs that don't involve transactions and aren't necessarily illegal or shady.
My first thought is that frequent and disparate traffic makes Tor more secure against certain attacks. Including Tor in Brave makes Tor better.
Also, I can imagine some instances where you want to obfuscate your IP location to the visited site/service, but don't much care if your DNS requests leak because you're more concerned about the accessed site/service generating a patchwork of locations associated with a specific user and less concerned about your ISP or DNS provider knowing generally that you connect to the site/service.
DanBC|5 years ago
> Access to this website has been blocked under an Order of the Higher Court.
> Any TalkTalk customer affected by the Court Order has a right under the Court Order to apply to vary or discharge it. Any such application must:
> (i) clearly indicate the identity and status of the applicant;
> (ii) be supported by evidence setting out and justifying the grounds of the application; and
> (iii) be made on 10 days notice to all of the parties to the Court Order.
> For further details click here. https://community.talktalk.co.uk/t5/Articles/Blocked-website...
emayljames|5 years ago
SahAssar|5 years ago
danShumway|5 years ago
A) In order to drive Tor adoption and increase the feasibility of normal people hosting sites on Tor, it is necessary that normal people be able to connect to hidden services, even if they themselves are not necessarily reaping the privacy benefits.
If Firefox and Chrome both supported the Tor protocol out of the box then I would be more likely to host content on Tor, because I wouldn't need to tell my family and friends to install a new browser just to access that content.
B) Even though Brave's Tor features are inferior to the Tor browser, they still probably offer some privacy benefit over normal browsing (assuming users are not assuming that the mode is perfectly private).
That being said:
A) It would still be better for Brave to fix issues like this over time, and the leak is worth taking seriously instead of brushing off as a known issue.
B) A warning on a FAQ is not sufficient to handle point B. Brave should be looking into UX methods to make it clear to users that visiting a Tor site does not make them anonymous. Most of the people installing Brave are never going to see that warning.
permo-w|5 years ago
Besides, assuming you live in the West, as long as you aren’t you’re planning a terrorist attack, watching child porn, selling drugs, weapons, assassinations, bomb making materials, etc, then brave will probably do
I would still use TOR for pretty much any dark web activities, but in practicality, as long as you aren’t doing anything that you can imagine a policeman actively hating you for, it’s probably pretty safe
syrrim|5 years ago
drak0n1c|5 years ago
unknown|5 years ago
[deleted]
totalZero|5 years ago
Also, I can imagine some instances where you want to obfuscate your IP location to the visited site/service, but don't much care if your DNS requests leak because you're more concerned about the accessed site/service generating a patchwork of locations associated with a specific user and less concerned about your ISP or DNS provider knowing generally that you connect to the site/service.
vmception|5 years ago
dartharva|5 years ago