Hacker News Reader

Comment by naner | Hacker News Reader

I can't believe I'm "defending" Comcast, but this sounds made-up.

Why would Comcast care about Tor and if they wanted to discourage use why would they confront customers using it?

I think the methods are crude but the motives are quite clear (if the story is true); Comcast doesn't like Tor for the same reason the NSA doesn't like Tor. Comcast doesn't have a good track record for handling traffic ethically, for instance attempting to monetize NXDOMAIN errors [1], throttling protocols they don't like [2], etc.

I don't think its beyond the pail to suggest they want to spy on their customers and sell their data to advertisers. They may even be under contractual obligation from RIAA/MPAA to disallow Tor as a part of Six Strikes, and are doing this either before or in lieu of a technical solution.

[1] http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2009/08/comcasts-dns-redi... [2] http://torrentfreak.com/comcast-throttles-bittorrent-traffic...

Even if money was the motivation its not like Tor is super popular. I doubt it's hurting any ISPs bottom line. My bet this is simply a political move, or one influenced by interested 3rd parties who do financially benefit from a destruction of privacy. Assuming it is real.

fabulist is not arguing that this policy is a result of financial loss, but rather contractual obligation with RIAA/MPAA.

Totally with you; this story sounds made-up.

>>Users who try to use anonymity, or cover themselves up on the internet, are usually doing things that aren’t so-to-speak legal.

So what does Comcast think about people who use VPN? Maybe VPN also illegal now? Privacy is dead? Next up, curtains on the windows of your house are also illegal.

It's interesting to read what BBC thinks about that [1].

[1] http://torrentfreak.com/bbc-isps-should-assume-heavy-vpn-use...

So it's really going to happen... slowly, in the name of piracy(but we know that's not really why), any form of encrypted communication will become illegal. Oh, and of course this won't apply to affluent.

Or 3rd-party DNS.

well, it's possible for Comcast to inspect the hostname of a DNS query even if its destination is not Comcast's nameservers.

Not if the communication with the DNS server is encrypted, for example with this service: http://www.goldenfrog.com/vyprvpn/features/vyprdns

Don't even need to use a VPN. DNSCrypt encrypts DNS queries.

http://dnscrypt.org/

Agreed, this doesn't sound like anything an ISP would actually do.

Comcast isn't run by the brightest people though so I'd be interested to see if anyone provides evidence that these phone calls actually took place.

Maybe it goes something like this:

1. Customer got caught X time(s) under the "Six Strikes" policy.

2. Comcast starts monitoring customer more closely.

3. Customer starts torrenting over Tor.

4. Comcast (who is monitoring this person more closely) sees that large amounts of traffic is going over Tor.

5. Comcast tries to intimidate customer to stop using Tor.

6. ???

7. Profit?

I'm kind of iffy on the motivation for anything past #4 though, but it seems sort of plausible... maybe?

If it's not a fabrication, it's more likely the customer was running a Tor exit node and that caused some problems and Comcast told him not to run an exit node. Which is somewhat reasonable, as it's a pain to deal with abuse complaints.

Good point -- it would be very easy for Comcast to disable entries on to the Tor network if they wanted to (as China does), since their IP addresses are public.

To be fair, not all tor IP addresses are public; there are bridge relays which are not publicly listed[0]. This is one of the tactics for getting around blocking of tor in countries such as China.

[0] https://www.torproject.org/docs/bridges.html.en

Reply on news.ycombinator.com