Feature #5418
Allow Tails users to contribute bandwidth to the Tor network
0%
Description
Tails only uses the Tor Network as a user. No contribution to the network. Maybe it’s about time giving something back?
Tor has been improved to handle short running bridges.
Please add to Tails Greeter be a bridge, be a middle relay, be a exit. Options need to be well explained.
This should encourage Tails users to contribute. Even if only 1% of all users be a bridge that is already Tails user base / 100 * 1 more bridges.
Some people still use Tails normally, some will add a bridge and some people may find it easy to contribute to Tor. Just burn to CD, put into old machine, boot and voila a new relay is online.
All complicating setting up bridges or relays can be easy by burning Tails to CD.
Can be even better. The exit node setup for example could already contain an extra option for reduced exit policy, option for webserver which explains Tor.
Once this is possible, remove the bullet in the FAQ.
Subtasks
Related issues
Related to Tails - |
Resolved | 2014-03-07 | |
Related to Tails - |
Rejected | ||
Related to Tails - Feature #5494: Consider adding Snowflake support (Tor pluggable transport) | Confirmed | ||
Has duplicate Tails - |
Duplicate | 2014-08-01 | |
Has duplicate Tails - |
Duplicate | 2016-03-14 |
History
#2 Updated by intrigeri 2013-10-04 08:42:19
- Category set to 165
- Starter set to No
#3 Updated by intrigeri 2014-06-03 08:09:50
- related to
Feature #6872: Can I help the Tor network by running a Relay or a Bridge with Tails? added
#4 Updated by intrigeri 2014-06-03 08:12:33
Flashproxy might be better suited for the Tails usecase than a full-blown Tor relay, as the Tor network doesn’t make much use of short-lived relays AFAIK:
#5 Updated by intrigeri 2014-06-03 08:13:56
- Subject changed from Add Tor Contribute Option to Tails Greeter to Allow Tails users to contribute bandwidth to the Tor network
- Category changed from 165 to Tor configuration
Repurposing this ticket: adding an option in the Greeter is the easiest part of the job. One can still create a dedicated subtask once the other stumbling blocks are dealt with.
#6 Updated by Anonymous 2014-06-06 02:39:52
Great idea!
Maybe we could even tell users to participate in EFF’s Tor challenge if they run a relay: https://www.eff.org/torchallenge/ via the documentation?
#7 Updated by intrigeri 2014-06-06 02:51:44
> Maybe we could even tell users to participate in EFF’s Tor challenge if they run
> a relay: https://www.eff.org/torchallenge/ via the documentation?
I could be great, but there’s a (probably minor) glitch: the way their web page is done, you end up on https://www.torproject.org/docs/tor-doc-relay.html.en when following the steps to participate, and then see Vidalia screenshots, which might lead Tails users to think that they can do it within Tails, which is wrong. This should be made explicit in the piece of documentation we add.
Also, either one has to be careful to drop this bit of documentation once the EFF challenge is over, or to phrase it in a way that bypasses the EFF challenge, and directly points to the doc on the Tor website.
I think it would be easier, more long-term proof, and more in line with the “campaign” communication style adopted by the EFF on that one, to instead write a blog post about it in our news section.
In any case, I think we should move this discussion to a dedicated ticket :)
#8 Updated by intrigeri 2014-06-21 14:55:22
- related to
Feature #5438: Hide Sharing section of Vidalia added
#9 Updated by intrigeri 2014-08-02 10:15:16
- has duplicate
Bug #7718: Idea to increase anonymity added
#10 Updated by BitingBird 2014-12-03 21:12:00
- Description updated
#11 Updated by elouann 2016-03-21 13:49:56
- has duplicate
Feature #11236: Relay, Bridge and Exit Node Features added
#12 Updated by Anonymous 2018-08-19 10:22:38
- related to Feature #5494: Consider adding Snowflake support (Tor pluggable transport) added
#13 Updated by sajolida 2018-08-21 15:47:54
I think we should reject this ticket as out-of-scope.
#14 Updated by intrigeri 2018-08-22 10:28:03
- Status changed from Confirmed to Rejected
> I think we should reject this ticket as out-of-scope.
Agreed.