5 ms·

Facebook Is Not Blocking Tor Deliberately

268 points by footpixel 13y ago

onedev 13y ago
I guess we can put away the pitchforks?
- maskedinvader 13y ago
  yes, one less thing to debate and speculate about !
- fnordfnordfnord 13y ago
  Nay! Don't be hasty! Find someone else to point them at. We live in a target rich world.
cantbecool 13y ago
Honestly, who cares if Facebook isn't blocking Tor traffic? They are only interested in mining your personal information to sell to advertisers; they don't care how you get to their service. In addition, Facebook will still ban you if you use pseudonym.
- maskedinvader 13y ago
  Facebook is not forcing you to give them your personal information ? I understand and pretty much agree with most of what you say but can we agree that Facebook is simply another company trying to make money and be a thriving business and not an evil organisation trying to take over your life and destroy your liberties ? capiche ?
  - evincarofautumn 13y ago
    This. If there is evil at Facebook, I haven’t seen it. It might be big, but at the most basic level it’s just a directory of people where you share stuff and see some ads to support the site. That’s not unlike the vast majority of sites that we all use every day. Besides, the goal of advertising on Facebook is to provide suggestions to people that are actually valuable. It’s good for people to get discounts on products they like, or information about new things to do in their area. It’s good for businesses to make sure their ads are shown to people who might actually care about the product/service/event in question. Making money is just a happy side effect of creating actual value.
    - Karunamon 13y ago
      >Making money is just a happy side effect of creating actual value. Pretty much Google's MO as well. Aside: People really need to stop bandying about the word "evil" as a value judgement, it manages to be inaccurate, non descriptive, subjective, and emotionally loaded all at the same time. Every time Google changes the slightest facet of their service, the idiot crowd starts up with "WELL SO MUCH FOR DONT BE EVIL HURR DURR!!1" Facebook much the same, except it's just become hip to hate on them after all this time. Familiarity breeds contempt, I suppose.
      - throwaway2048 13y ago
        >Every time Google changes the slightest facet of their service, the idiot crowd starts up with "WELL SO MUCH FOR DONT BE EVIL HURR DURR!!1" By using rhetoric such as this you are lowering the discourse on this site every bit as much as the straw man you created.
        evincarofautumn 13y ago
        Anecdotal people aren’t necessarily strawfolk.
    - CaptainZapp 13y ago
      If there is evil at Facebook, I haven’t seen it. For me Facebook's relentless race to the bottom in terms of privacy, their underhanded tactics on re-fiddling privacy setting defaults and their relentless push to try getting me to give up ever more private data was evil enough for me. Evil enough so that I "deleted" my Facebook account and don't intend to use the service ever again. Your mileage may (and apparently does) vary.
  - pessimizer 13y ago
    >another company trying to make money and be a thriving business >evil organisation trying to take over your life and destroy your liberties This is a false dichotomy. I'm not sure why you think that it's impossible for Facebook to be both of these things.
    - mpyne 13y ago
      It wasn't a dichotomy in the first place. The commenter said that the first applied and the second didn't, not that they were mutually exclusive.
danso 13y ago
Whether or not FB is deliberately blocking Tor now, how out-of-line would it be for them to eventually block it in the future? It doesn't seem in their best interest as a company to allow Tor connections...but other than that, what ethical obligations do they have to allow anonymous connections? FB already has a policy more-or-less mandating real identities...so for them, this is kind of a non-issue, right? By using FB, you're already identifying yourself and agreeing to implicitly under the TOS. So does that mean activists are screwed? Well...I'm interested in the use-cases for activists using FB...I mean, if you're in a situation where you fear the authorities tracking you down...then you hopefully have better sense than to conduct business under your social identity. If you're managing a FB account from a fake identity and fear the authorities tracking your IP...then maybe do your work from a public wifi? Facebook isn't your biggest enemy here...the enemy is, ostensibly, the government...and the secondary enemy is you (or your collaborators) attracting attention to yourself inadvertently, whether you're using Tor or not. I guess the tl:dr of my question is: if you must conduct sensitive work, why do it on Facebook, a network that is committed to sharing things in public?
- badclient 13y ago
  if you must conduct sensitive work, why do it on Facebook, a network that is committed to sharing things in public? You might as well replace "facebook" with "the Internet".
- rpedroso 13y ago
  It's not just a use-case for anonymous or clandestine activists. Consider the Arab Spring, where Facebook and especially Twitter were used to rally people together in public areas. Many countries might block large, uncensored social websites (like Facebook). Tools like Tor can help circumvent such practices.
- brownbat 13y ago
  > Whether or not FB is deliberately blocking Tor now, how out-of-line would it be for them to eventually block it in the future? > tl;dr: Why use Tor + FB? Fair point, there may only be some arcane use cases for the combo, but the dilemma becomes far more stark at: "How out-of-line would it be for users of the internet writ large to aggressively block IP addresses associated with malicious activity?" There was a call to "name and shame" DDOS participants a few months back, with the argument that every operator has the obligation to keep their "systems in trim." http://bsdly.blogspot.ca/2012/12/ddos-bots-are-people-or-manned-by-some.html http://bsdly.blogspot.ca/2012/12/ddos-bots-are-people-or-man... I was enamored with the idea. AV blacklists code, why not source? The AV industry has learned (for the most part) that sharing malware samples is for the good of everyone. But victims tend to stay silent about the IPs that participated in a DDOS, or worse, launched targeted intrusions. Why not build a list of pariah IPs and refuse to talk to them until they get their act together? Turns out that puts radical constraints on some useful projects, like Tor. Bot farmers might accidentally DDOS not only their target, but all of Tor if exit nodes were quickly blacklisted. Possibly worse, a government could intentionally spew noisy malicious activity through the network to get the endpoints shut down with deniability. Is it possible for a Tor exit node to "keep their system in trim?" Preventing its use as a gateway for malicious activity? You could make a crippled Tor that only allows a certain limited set of services, but that's not really Tor anymore. Anyone have a way to address: a) policing malware by IP addresses while b) allowing deniability of communication that's better than just giving up on one priority or the other?
deathhand 13y ago
It wouldn't surprise me if this was deliberate by an entity to prevent unmonitored communications.
Orva 13y ago
This is also reason why most of the time you cannot use online bank systems through Tor: banks block big chunk of Tor exit nodes as malicious traffic sources (for legimate reason, I believe).
- dublinben 13y ago
  I can't think of a legitimate reason to use online banking through TOR. A bank account is an inherently non-anonymous account, which defeats the purpose of accessing it anonymously.
  - discodave 13y ago
    My money laundering scheme is entirely legitimate!
  - vidarh 13y ago
    The bank account is not anonymous, true. But you may be in situations where you are not concerned about your anonymity, but in protection against someone discovering your location.
aaronbrethorst 13y ago
Recent evolution of a story on Hacker News: An incorrect story is posted, and quickly rises up the homepage. Hacker News commenters wave their torches and pitchforks. Somewhere between a couple hours and a couple days later, a correction is posted. The correction never attracts the same amount of attention, and multiple people inevitably post comments saying something to the effect of 'just because this time proved to be factually inaccurate doesn't mean our rage isn't justified, since this could conceivably happen in the future.'
- pkfrank 13y ago
  i.e. The Sean Parker wedding fiasco.
  - untog 13y ago
    I'd say the PRISM stuff is a better example. "They have direct server access!"
  - mseebach 13y ago
    Wow, I hadn't heard about that. 9 points. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5834359 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5834359
    - pessimizer 13y ago
      https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5833546 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5833546 85 points.
- dylangs1030 13y ago
  The worst part of that life cycle is being one of a minority group trying to explain what's really going on. I had the top comment on 3 different NSA stories at one time, correcting misinformation in each. I still don't think it helped.
  - jamesaguilar 13y ago
scrapcode 13y ago
On a side note... Has anyone ever noticed Vim-like shortcuts on the facebook news feed? (hjkl item jumping)
binarysolo 13y ago
Tor has an unfortunately seedy underside, where data scrapers and online scammers (two of several use cases that I know of) use the service to obfuscate their actions and avoid crackdown. "That's why we can't have nice things." For those who are still somewhat paranoid, consider getting paid proxies for a much more reliable service while still maintaining IP anonymity.
- arthulia 13y ago
  Tor can't monitor your data itself (and put it to an identity), so it is considerably more anonymous.
kyboren 13y ago
It worries me that Facebook is not deliberately blocking Tor. Suppose an oppressive regime wants to block its people from anonymously accessing a service: Facebook, Google+, Twitter, etc. They have traditionally been locked in an arms race of sorts with Tor developers: the regime will identify Tor relays and filter connections to them; Tor developers step up with bridges. The regime uses DPI to attempt to identify Tor connections, and Tor developers put out Obfsproxy. And so on, and so on. Now it's clear to everybody that their best option is not to prevent outbound connections to Tor, it's to prevent inbound connections from Tor on the services they don't want their people to use anonymously. All they have to do is ensure they inflict maximum abuse on the targeted service from Tor, and in this way give that service the incentive to cut off the users most in need. I'm not suggesting abuse on the Tor network comes largely from intentional government 'territory denial'. However, it's frightening that there is such an easy way for them to deny the services which are in practice essential to the universal free exercise of speech on the Web.

268 points by footpixel 13y ago

onedev 13y ago

I guess we can put away the pitchforks?

maskedinvader 13y ago
yes, one less thing to debate and speculate about !
fnordfnordfnord 13y ago
Nay! Don't be hasty! Find someone else to point them at. We live in a target rich world.

cantbecool 13y ago

Honestly, who cares if Facebook isn't blocking Tor traffic? They are only interested in mining your personal information to sell to advertisers; they don't care how you get to their service. In addition, Facebook will still ban you if you use pseudonym.

maskedinvader 13y ago
Facebook is not forcing you to give them your personal information ? I understand and pretty much agree with most of what you say but can we agree that Facebook is simply another company trying to make money and be a thriving business and not an evil organisation trying to take over your life and destroy your liberties ? capiche ?
- evincarofautumn 13y ago
  This. If there is evil at Facebook, I haven’t seen it. It might be big, but at the most basic level it’s just a directory of people where you share stuff and see some ads to support the site. That’s not unlike the vast majority of sites that we all use every day. Besides, the goal of advertising on Facebook is to provide suggestions to people that are actually valuable. It’s good for people to get discounts on products they like, or information about new things to do in their area. It’s good for businesses to make sure their ads are shown to people who might actually care about the product/service/event in question. Making money is just a happy side effect of creating actual value.
  - Karunamon 13y ago
    >Making money is just a happy side effect of creating actual value. Pretty much Google's MO as well. Aside: People really need to stop bandying about the word "evil" as a value judgement, it manages to be inaccurate, non descriptive, subjective, and emotionally loaded all at the same time. Every time Google changes the slightest facet of their service, the idiot crowd starts up with "WELL SO MUCH FOR DONT BE EVIL HURR DURR!!1" Facebook much the same, except it's just become hip to hate on them after all this time. Familiarity breeds contempt, I suppose.
    - throwaway2048 13y ago
      >Every time Google changes the slightest facet of their service, the idiot crowd starts up with "WELL SO MUCH FOR DONT BE EVIL HURR DURR!!1" By using rhetoric such as this you are lowering the discourse on this site every bit as much as the straw man you created.
      - evincarofautumn 13y ago
        Anecdotal people aren’t necessarily strawfolk.
  - CaptainZapp 13y ago
    If there is evil at Facebook, I haven’t seen it. For me Facebook's relentless race to the bottom in terms of privacy, their underhanded tactics on re-fiddling privacy setting defaults and their relentless push to try getting me to give up ever more private data was evil enough for me. Evil enough so that I "deleted" my Facebook account and don't intend to use the service ever again. Your mileage may (and apparently does) vary.
- pessimizer 13y ago
  >another company trying to make money and be a thriving business >evil organisation trying to take over your life and destroy your liberties This is a false dichotomy. I'm not sure why you think that it's impossible for Facebook to be both of these things.
  - mpyne 13y ago
    It wasn't a dichotomy in the first place. The commenter said that the first applied and the second didn't, not that they were mutually exclusive.

danso 13y ago

Whether or not FB is deliberately blocking Tor now, how out-of-line would it be for them to eventually block it in the future? It doesn't seem in their best interest as a company to allow Tor connections...but other than that, what ethical obligations do they have to allow anonymous connections? FB already has a policy more-or-less mandating real identities...so for them, this is kind of a non-issue, right? By using FB, you're already identifying yourself and agreeing to implicitly under the TOS. So does that mean activists are screwed? Well...I'm interested in the use-cases for activists using FB...I mean, if you're in a situation where you fear the authorities tracking you down...then you hopefully have better sense than to conduct business under your social identity. If you're managing a FB account from a fake identity and fear the authorities tracking your IP...then maybe do your work from a public wifi? Facebook isn't your biggest enemy here...the enemy is, ostensibly, the government...and the secondary enemy is you (or your collaborators) attracting attention to yourself inadvertently, whether you're using Tor or not. I guess the tl:dr of my question is: if you must conduct sensitive work, why do it on Facebook, a network that is committed to sharing things in public?

badclient 13y ago
if you must conduct sensitive work, why do it on Facebook, a network that is committed to sharing things in public? You might as well replace "facebook" with "the Internet".
rpedroso 13y ago
It's not just a use-case for anonymous or clandestine activists. Consider the Arab Spring, where Facebook and especially Twitter were used to rally people together in public areas. Many countries might block large, uncensored social websites (like Facebook). Tools like Tor can help circumvent such practices.
brownbat 13y ago
> Whether or not FB is deliberately blocking Tor now, how out-of-line would it be for them to eventually block it in the future? > tl;dr: Why use Tor + FB? Fair point, there may only be some arcane use cases for the combo, but the dilemma becomes far more stark at: "How out-of-line would it be for users of the internet writ large to aggressively block IP addresses associated with malicious activity?" There was a call to "name and shame" DDOS participants a few months back, with the argument that every operator has the obligation to keep their "systems in trim." http://bsdly.blogspot.ca/2012/12/ddos-bots-are-people-or-manned-by-some.html http://bsdly.blogspot.ca/2012/12/ddos-bots-are-people-or-man... I was enamored with the idea. AV blacklists code, why not source? The AV industry has learned (for the most part) that sharing malware samples is for the good of everyone. But victims tend to stay silent about the IPs that participated in a DDOS, or worse, launched targeted intrusions. Why not build a list of pariah IPs and refuse to talk to them until they get their act together? Turns out that puts radical constraints on some useful projects, like Tor. Bot farmers might accidentally DDOS not only their target, but all of Tor if exit nodes were quickly blacklisted. Possibly worse, a government could intentionally spew noisy malicious activity through the network to get the endpoints shut down with deniability. Is it possible for a Tor exit node to "keep their system in trim?" Preventing its use as a gateway for malicious activity? You could make a crippled Tor that only allows a certain limited set of services, but that's not really Tor anymore. Anyone have a way to address: a) policing malware by IP addresses while b) allowing deniability of communication that's better than just giving up on one priority or the other?

deathhand 13y ago

It wouldn't surprise me if this was deliberate by an entity to prevent unmonitored communications.

Orva 13y ago

This is also reason why most of the time you cannot use online bank systems through Tor: banks block big chunk of Tor exit nodes as malicious traffic sources (for legimate reason, I believe).

dublinben 13y ago
I can't think of a legitimate reason to use online banking through TOR. A bank account is an inherently non-anonymous account, which defeats the purpose of accessing it anonymously.
- discodave 13y ago
  My money laundering scheme is entirely legitimate!
- vidarh 13y ago
  The bank account is not anonymous, true. But you may be in situations where you are not concerned about your anonymity, but in protection against someone discovering your location.

aaronbrethorst 13y ago

Recent evolution of a story on Hacker News: An incorrect story is posted, and quickly rises up the homepage. Hacker News commenters wave their torches and pitchforks. Somewhere between a couple hours and a couple days later, a correction is posted. The correction never attracts the same amount of attention, and multiple people inevitably post comments saying something to the effect of 'just because this time proved to be factually inaccurate doesn't mean our rage isn't justified, since this could conceivably happen in the future.'

pkfrank 13y ago
i.e. The Sean Parker wedding fiasco.
- untog 13y ago
  I'd say the PRISM stuff is a better example. "They have direct server access!"
- mseebach 13y ago
  Wow, I hadn't heard about that. 9 points. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5834359 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5834359
  - pessimizer 13y ago
    https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5833546 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5833546 85 points.
dylangs1030 13y ago
The worst part of that life cycle is being one of a minority group trying to explain what's really going on. I had the top comment on 3 different NSA stories at one time, correcting misinformation in each. I still don't think it helped.
- jamesaguilar 13y ago

scrapcode 13y ago

On a side note... Has anyone ever noticed Vim-like shortcuts on the facebook news feed? (hjkl item jumping)

binarysolo 13y ago

Tor has an unfortunately seedy underside, where data scrapers and online scammers (two of several use cases that I know of) use the service to obfuscate their actions and avoid crackdown. "That's why we can't have nice things." For those who are still somewhat paranoid, consider getting paid proxies for a much more reliable service while still maintaining IP anonymity.

arthulia 13y ago
Tor can't monitor your data itself (and put it to an identity), so it is considerably more anonymous.

kyboren 13y ago

It worries me that Facebook is not deliberately blocking Tor. Suppose an oppressive regime wants to block its people from anonymously accessing a service: Facebook, Google+, Twitter, etc. They have traditionally been locked in an arms race of sorts with Tor developers: the regime will identify Tor relays and filter connections to them; Tor developers step up with bridges. The regime uses DPI to attempt to identify Tor connections, and Tor developers put out Obfsproxy. And so on, and so on. Now it's clear to everybody that their best option is not to prevent outbound connections to Tor, it's to prevent inbound connections from Tor on the services they don't want their people to use anonymously. All they have to do is ensure they inflict maximum abuse on the targeted service from Tor, and in this way give that service the incentive to cut off the users most in need. I'm not suggesting abuse on the Tor network comes largely from intentional government 'territory denial'. However, it's frightening that there is such an easy way for them to deny the services which are in practice essential to the universal free exercise of speech on the Web.