Talk:Psiphon

This article was nominated for deletion on 16 February 2006. The result of the discussion was keep.

Current Status?

The software was scheduled to release to the public at the end of May, but obviously the devlopers still haven't delivered it yet. What is the plan?

Dakelv 05:37, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

This article says 'Friday', but the article is dated Friday so I don't know if it's today or a week today. Anchoress 00:04, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

ability vs likelihood of restrictive governments to block https

"As https protocol is widely used for secure communication over the Internet..., no government can block the usage of https."

This ambiguity of this sentence seems to confuse a restrictive government's ability to block access with reasonable government policies on network traffic. Given that Psiphon is designed specifically to provide access to citizens dealing with known-unreasonable governments, the statement "no government can block https" is either incomplete; should continue to say, "without further restricting their citizens access".

Jm3 22:52, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Tor similarities & differences

Can anyone with more in-depth knowledge of Psiphon flesh out this entry with how it differs from Tor and other anonymity networks? This would be useful as a growing number of people are familiar with Tor and it would serve as good point of reference to explain Psiphon.

From the Tor article:

Like all current low-latency anonymity networks, Tor is vulnerable to correlation attacks from attackers who can watch both ends of a user's connection. In a number of countries, various government agencies have access to connection data of a large number of internet service providers. Because of this, Tor is not suitable for protection against observation by those government agencies.

Does Psiphon get around this? Brentt 18:41, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Use: Anonymity?

I disagree with this categorisation; it's not an anonymity system, it's an accessibility system. Anchoress 00:02, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Does anybody know what Anchoress meant when she said that psiphon is "not an anonymity system, it's an accessibility system" 141.149.48.247 22:35, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Censorship by removing information?

There seem to be some recent attempts to censor this article by removing information about the risks involved in using Psiphon. If anybody disagrees with criticisms of Psiphon they should raise their issues on this page. Simply removing material is not the way to behave. Mrslippery 20:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

There is no attempt to censor, and you have done what you say is improper -- that is "simply removing material." The information you put in this entry was factually incorrect and based on a blog entry that, in turn, was based on a partial summary of a transcript of a question and answer period of a presention. Not all Psiphon servers ping back their IPs to a central server, there is an option for users not to do so. Those that do are not recorded. The code is open source, so anyone can see for themselves that this is the case. Please do not remove information that is accurate and factual, and includes criticism of psiphon, for example, that it does not provide anonymity.

"Not all Psiphon servers ping back their IPs to a central server" If that is the case add a note to the article explaining exactly what is being done. "The code is open source, so anyone can see for themselves that this is the case" Not everyone can read code, or should need to do so. I didn't remove material. I reinstated what you had removed. A Wikipedia article should give a balanced view. It seems that you are trying to remove anything that is critical, or warns of the dangers of using Psiphon. For example, you removed a link to a blog posting which warned of the dangers of using Psiphon in the EU because of its data retention legislation. Mrslippery 23:15, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Security

"Psiphon also offers a substantial increase in security, and an improvement in detection avoidance, over open public proxies." Is this an opinion or a fact? If it is a fact then expand and substantiate the observation. If it is just an opinion it should be deleted. Can I also make the point that a Wikipedia article is not a product advertisement. An article should not be used to promote anything. An article should present balanced and objective information. I think that is particularly important with something like Psiphon. Mrslippery 22:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I really do not think this fact needs any expansion or substantiation. It is obvious, by definition. An "OPEN PUBLIC" proxy is "open" meaning not secured or encrypted, easily eavesdropped and collected, and "public' meaning shareable to all who wish to see, use, and block it. Psiphon is closed Iencrypted) and intended to be used in a private (social networks of trust) model. What else needs to be said, than "Psiphon also offers a substantial increase in security, and an improvement in detection avoidance, over open public proxies."

"Psiphon also offers a substantial increase in security, and an improvement in detection avoidance, over open public proxies." Is this an opinion or a fact? It is an opinion until you can demonstrate it is a fact. Go ahead and demonstrate that it is a fact if you want that statement to be included in the article. Prove that in all its features, and in every possible circumstance, Psiphon is superior. If you cannot do that the the statement has no more value than a bit of advertising copy. BTW - sign your contributions. Mrslippery 17:50, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

clarification

I agree with Mr. Slippery that information that is critical should not be removed. At the same time, the way in which the entries proposed by Mr. Slippery are written make it sound nefarious and somewhat conspiratorial. (e.g., the article "reveals" "discloses" etc). In fact, the psiphon developers themselves were the ones to describe this function and the commercialization during the presentation described by the article. So it is not accurate to attribute to the World Changing article these details. Instead, they should be accurately described in the body of the article in full and in detail. As I have used psiphon and know the source code, I have made these changes.

I agree this is the right approach, and edited for grammar and accuracy.

Please sign your contributions. Mrslippery 17:50, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism?

There is continued vandalism on the psiphon site by Mr. Slippery and one other (perhaps the same) user. I have removed the links that violate the neutrialty norm. A second post was removed because the "perceived problems" around psiphon are addressed in a more factual, objective manner, in the precediing paragraph based on references to the code base.Paineman 13:19, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

MrSlippery, insists on posting clearly biased links. I will continue to remove the offending link. please refer to the Neutral point of view article for more information: "Neutral point of view is a fundamental Wikipedia principle. According to Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales, NPOV is "absolute and non-negotiable."[1]"one man salientOne man salient One man salient 16:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

The Psiphon article is being repeatedly vandalised by one man salient and 74.102.45.230. I assume they are the same person because the vandalism is the same in both cases and consists of deleting two external links. I have traced 74.102.45.230 to an ISP in Toronto. The creators of Psiphon are based at the University of Toronto's Citizen Lab. I have left a warning on vandalism on one man salient's user page. I wonder if I should also contact the University of Toronto and ask them to investigate if the vandalism is being performed by a member of their staff. Mrslippery 12:56, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I removed the links because they were incorrectly indicated as News in the wikipedia page, when in fact they are opinion pieces on psiphon. It seems MrSlippery wants it both ways, (see security section below, in which he indicates that 'opinions' should not be placed on wikipedia pages, when in fact both of those links are links to opinion pieces on psiphon. I have reorganized the page accordingly, and will leave the article links. one man salient

If you thought that the links were under the wrong heading you should have moved them. Repeated deletion was not the correct choice. In fact, the two links were not to opinion pieces. One was to a conference report. The other was to a blog post which gives some information of Psiphon that is not in this article, and makes some critical comments on Psiphon's security. I agree that they should be under the 'External links' heading and had moved them there in my last edit. Mrslippery 12:56, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I really think that you are being unnecessarily harsh in what you are saying here. I acctually deleted your blog post under the "News" section because I thought it was not "news" -- it is a blog posting from someone who was spreading inaccuracies. I am neither one man salient or the IP address to which you refer. I do happen to live in Toronto. You may be unaware of the fact that psiphon has received wide press coverage in Toronto, and the forum of the site (which perhaps you've never visited, I suggest you should to inform yourself better about how psiphon works and some of the real reactions of users themselves, as opposed to some blog entry out there) has thousands of registered users, many of them, like me from Toronto. I did not think a blog post full of inaccuracy should be included in "News". I could write a blog post right now that spreads all sorts of false information about psiphon. Should that then be cited and included? We need to have some disretion here. one man salient apparently agrees with me. you disagree, but that is not reason to call one man salient a "vandal."

You have removed information that is valuable to the content of psiphon for no apparent reason. In your history, for example, you removed an entire paragraph comparing psiphon to TOR, both in terms of strengths and weaknesses. It is now restored, but someone below had to admonish you about it. If you have some grievance against the tool, or are not properly informed about how it works, then you should not contribute the article.

Please also be careful in your choice of language. Your posts err on the side of "conspiracy" implying that the creators of psiphon are trying to hide something, when in fact it is clear from the very blog post you yourself had posted that the information came directly from the lead director of the project Ron Deibert. Be balanced and accurate please in what you write. 67.71.3.154 14:46, 4 March 2007 (UTC) schmautzie

67.71.3.154 Please place your posts under the correct heading and sign them if you have a user name. Some of your comments are factually incorrect but Wikipedia is not the place for personal disputes. I suggest we devote our energies to improving the article. Mrslippery 12:56, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

External Link removal request

Mr. Slippery is repeatedly posting personal blog entries to the news section that are biased, repetitive, and not based on a credible source of information -- all contrary to Wikipedia posting norms. Please stop.142.150.218.150 15:44, 14 March 2007 (UTC)Jackson

Still no response from MrSlippery, and he keep posting clearly biased links. I will continue to remove the offending link. please refer to the Neutral point of view article for more information: "Neutral point of view is a fundamental Wikipedia principle. According to Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales, NPOV is "absolute and non-negotiable."[1]"one man salientOne man salient One man salient 16:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

As there has been no response to my request for an external link removal, and the link referenced below clearly contravenes the Neutral point of view Wikipedia principle, I will remove the offending link.

please refer to the Neutral point of view article for more information: "Neutral point of view is a fundamental Wikipedia principle. According to Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales, NPOV is "absolute and non-negotiable."[1]"one man salientOne man salient 15:09, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

There is an article that has a deragatory title on the external links section (psiphon - too dangerous to install). Claiming psiphon is dangerous is not a "neutral" statement, as mandated by wikipedia rules. All other links address psiphon in a neutral manner, so for that reason, I feel that this is an inappropriate link and that it should be removed. I would like MrSlippery to remove the link, as he is the one who insists on posting it. The premise that psiphon is dangerous is not true, especially when it is used within the intended model, one utilizing a social network of trust. That said, there are many popular software packages that are more invasive and potentially dangerous on a users system, and yet deragatory external links are not included. one man salient, 05 March 2007

Removal of Perceived Problems

I have removed the "perceived problems" sectcion to this site, as the entry is not based on fact, but is rather a personal rant. The issues concerning trust and security of pisphon nodes, in particular the "check in" feature, are clearly discussed in a previous section, only in a much more balanced and objective manner. Please do not deface the psiphon site with personal rants. An encyclopedia entry should strive for objectivity and neutrality. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Paineman (talk • contribs) 13:09, 23 March 2007 (UTC).

Removal and Editing of Material Based on Consensus and Compromise to Acheive an Accurate and Balanced Result

Paineman- It seems we have come to somewhat of a compromise prior to the page being frozen the section being left in there with some of your changes and some of my changes intact. I changed the heading to "Theoretical Problems" to accomodate your sensibilities. There are some things I would like to see changed. Why don't we deal with each one at a time. For instance, first sentance "...so that each user upon signing on can choose to report to check their IP." should be changed to "...so that user's IP are automatically reported to a central psiphone computer, however users have the option of witholding their IP address as a program option." This would more accurately reflect what is actually happening with the IP information. As it stands I am not sure what "upon signing on [users] can choose to report to check their IP." represents. There would be no real "choice" upon sign in unless a pop up box appears upon sign in that allows the user to choose to send or withold IP info. Unless I am not mistaken that is not the case with actual use of the program which, as I understand it, is set up to automatically send IP info unless a user has the know how to fiddle with the program options. 141.149.48.60 22:56, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

There is now a section entitled "theoretical problems" each of the problems mentioned are admited to be problems only if the social network of trust requirement is ignored. This section should be removed, as it points out nothing but how NOT to use psiphon. It is NOT the intention of wikipedia to publish information on how to incorrectly use a tool, of any kind One man salient 17:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Salient, psiphon is an information tool, wherebye a proxy of the internet is available to those in need of such a proxy. Full disclosure of the risks and benefits of any tool is critical to proper use of that tool. The theoretical problems section sets out those risks clearly, whereas in the balance of the article the risks are glossed over, as if the article is an advertisement of psiphon. Psiphon is not a tool that can be used without significant risk, in certain countries the risk is death and imprisonment. If anything this Wikipedia entry, which is an extremely important entry because it may be relied upon by those people in danger, should err on the side of caution. "only if the social network of trust requirement is ignored", only means if people lie and mislead each other. What in the world makes you think the Chinese Government doesn't lie and mislead people? And/or pay, promote and sponsor people to lie and mislead people? I believe they use torture to accomplish things. Do you really want some person from Iran or China to believe that there is some "network" out there protecting them. There is none, but one could well believe there is from the ad copy type wording in the balance of this article. It needs to be plainly stated if the person running the psiphone node gets caught or sells you out your goose is cooked, if the benign folks running the psiphon central server goof and release the IP addresses your goose is cooked. I have no idea why one would want to state anything else. The section needs to stay in from a purely moral point of view. Honestly, the section should be entitled "Dangers of Psiphon Use", but in the spirit of Wikipedia I was trying to compromise. 141.149.48.60

The problem with the argument below is that it assumes that psiphon operational information is not readily avialable in the extensive documentation that is on the psiphon website. There is an FAQ, User Guide, and user forums area all of which describe psiphon completely (not to mention the open source code that is freely available). There are many inaccuracies in the statements in the Theoretical problems area, such as confusion as to whether IP addressess are logged. The psiphonode does not log IP addresses of psiphonites (users in censored countries), but you insist it does. If you take 5 minutes out of your day and install psiphon on a computer you will see this fact.

The bottom line here is that wikipedia is not a place to post technical reviews, especially reviews from someone who clearly does not understand how psiphon works. Your theoretical problems are missinformed and inaccurate, as backed up by the open source code and extensive listed documentation.

As well, when the psiphonode (optionally) connects to a citizen lab server (or 1 of 4 others, again optional), only the external IP address of the machine requesting information is returned.

As you can see, your "theory" is based on half knowledge and undisciplined research, and that is why it should be removed. (please sign your discussion posts in the future) One man salient 21:31, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Well its obvious your life is entwined with this tool far too deeply for you to write objectively about it at all. So the psiphonode doesn't log IP addresses; it "just" keeps a log of where every person who uses the node has ever been on the internet. In other words each server keeps proof of where each psiphone node has been visiting on the internet. Sounds like a good evidence trail, ready for trial. And I notice that you are not saying that possession of a psiphon server wouldn't compromise each and every one of the clients. Don't tell me that I'm making a technical review, I'm not. Your source code is completely irrelevant, because the fundamental flaw is a human one, you think the magic words "social network of trust" somehow makes your IP logging and history keeping a safe practice. It simply is not and never will be if you want any level of protection for the people you claim to wish to help. Frankly if you wanted to help so much you would be more cautious about your rhetoric simply because you would care about the consequences of your marketing. However, this is an encylopedia, no place for you to make unsubstantiated claims about how protective this software is of personal freedom...if nobody lies, if nobody cheats, if nobody steals. You should stop the marketing talk and be honest about what this is and what it is not. It is a web proxy, that it is. There is a level of encryption involved, true. But to sell this as a way to surf in Iran and China, all the while keeping IP logs by default, and designing the software to track surfing habits from each server, whilst not admitting to these two issues as glaring flaws, is dangerous to the very population you say you care about. It should be disclosed in plain language as a known risk to use of your tool. 141.149.48.60 22:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia entries are not places for personal rants or airing of personal biases. You need to strive to be objective, and frankly you are not. You claim that the psiphon project is somehow hiding or minimizing the fact that servers have log files of psiphonities' surfing. However, in every single piece of literature related to psiphon, including the psiphon wikipedia entry, this is made clear. It is made clear in the FAQ. Have you read that? It was designed *deliberately( into psiphon as a socail safety mechanism so that operators of psiphon nodes can check what sites the people who are, in effect, borrowing their computers visit. When the producers of the project themselves are the first to disclose it, how can you assert that there is some kind of attempt to hide things. It is just plain ignorance.

Your entries are full of biased, personal opinions, and not neutral or based on objective fact. For example, you assertion: "And of course the "professional service" to "complement and help fund the free, open source version" is just not how normal privacy advocates go about things." Really? Who says? You? What about PGP? What about Anonymizer? You are asserting something based on your opinion, which is contrary to wikipedia norms.

Here is another example: . "This program is not one to trust your personal safety and freedom upon." Who says? You? Does that make it true? It is your *opinion." Great, have an opinion all you want. Blog about it. Tell your friends about it, or whoever will liisten to you. But don't vandalize a wikipedia entry with it. You are violating the wikipedia norms. Keep your opinions out of it.

Here is another example: ""Through the psiphon control panel, psiphonode administrators have access to a log of sites that their psiphonites access", this is not a feature but an extreme security risk because psiphone can and will be used as a "honeynet" to ensnare users". Apart from the fact that you don't even spell "psiphon" correctly, you are putting forth an opinion as fact. It is not a fact just because you say it. On the contrary, the psiphon user guide, the FAQ, the public material related to psiphon, the psiphon forum, all spell out clearly "Do not give out your connection information to someone you don't know and trust, and visa versa, do not connect to a psiphon node if you do not know and trust that person." Sure, some stupid people will not follow the instructions, but that is not a detriment of the technology -- it is a shortcoming of stupid people. Moreoever, the issue was addressed in the section comparing psiphon to "open public proxies" which by definition are open (iie not secure) and "public" meaning advertized. If anyone is going to set up a honeypot, it will be throug that method.

You are being ignorant and malicious, that is clear for anyone to see. You should either inform youself, or stop posting your personal rants. Wikipedia is not the place to air them. Go write a blog entry.Paineman 23:26, 23 March 2007 (UTC)paineman

You can flame all you want. The truth is that you are obfuscating the facts and the real world consequences of those facts. You do yourself a disservice if you bill your software as some sort of solution that it is not. And from the history of this Wiki you have violated all sorts of Wikipedia principles and rules. I'd be willing to freely remove "This program is not one to trust your personal safety and freedom upon" although I think that is an informed opinion. 141.149.48.60 00:10, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, it appears that an anonymous poster is now making declarations about my life, accusing paineman of flaming, please wikipedia admin put a stop to all this. Clearly this anonymous person has some kind of personal issue that he/she is trying to vent.

here are the facts, and the reason why the "theoretical problems" section should be removed.

these theoretical problems are not based on objective facts about the software. Fact: all psiphon nodes do not "check in." Fact: of those that do, it is policy of the Citizen Lab not to store those IPs and thus impossible to "hack" or "disclose" or "accidentally reveal." Fact: psiphon "professional services" two track plans are actually quite prevalant among security and privacy software tools, like PGP, Anonymizer, YourFreedom, and others. Fact: Psiphon user guides explicitly inform people on how best to use psiphon nodes, to not connect to nodes of people that they do not personally know and trust. The wikipedia article for psiphon is no place for Mrslippery and the anonymous poster to vent their personal opinions and imply them as facts. One man salient 02:13, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

"Informed opinions" have no place on Wikipedia. I have no interest in this software. I do have an interest in maintaining the integrity of wikipedia norms. If you can demonstrate that you opinions have a basis in fact, then you can write them into the entry, using impartial and objective (as opposed to inflammatory) language. The wikipedia entry is no place for you to rant about your pet peeves and personal opinions. Go set up a blog for yourself to do that. Every single one of your assertions has been demonstrated to be in ignorance of the software, unsubstantiated by fact, and based on your own personal opinions. The "theoretical problems" section should be removed.Paineman 00:23, 24 March 2007 (UTC)painement

You sound kind of like the owners of the Titanic (prior to the iceburg) when you say this software is "impossible to "hack" or [and the data impossible to] "disclose" or "accidentally reveal". Actually, you have been making personal attacks on just about anyone who opposes your views since inception of this wiki. Its reasonable to conclude you have some kind of vested interest because of your manifest lack of objectivety. And a section should only be removed on its content, not on any other basis. I've offered you reasonable changes bases upon your sensibilities and all you have done is attack. On the other hand I think that this is a healthy dialogue that should have taken place a while back. 141.149.48.60 12:35, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Whatever inferences you make about "us" and "our interests" the bottomline is that you have not demonstrated any of your assertions are based on fact. I am asking you to avoid putting forth personal opinions and concentrate on facts. If you can show that any of your assertions are based on fact, not opinion, then we can keep them, toned down appropriately to avoid inflammatory language. Do you have any that meet these criteria? If not, let us move on and erase the "theoretical problems" section. Paineman 14:27, 24 March 2007 (UTC)paineman.

Fact- there is no protection whatsoever that the users of psiphon have against purposefull misuse of the IP information by Citizen Lab, none whatsoever.

Fact- there are viruses, trojans and backdoors, not to mention rootkits, there is no guaranty that Citizen Lab's security will not be breached. You say "they" don't "keep the logs", but the fact that IP information is ever collected is enough, even if the information is "thrown away". In that case all it takes to compile a list is to take control of the garbage, whether it be electronic or otherwise.

Fact- if psiphon becomes a popular way of evading censorship in countries hostile to freedom of the press and speech the Citizen Lab server will be a desirable target to subvert, whether through software or through other means, exactly because IP logging of any kind exists. The folks attempting the subverting would be at the government level and thus have a very high level of sophistication and a truly large amount of money to spend. If I can think of it, they surely can. I wonder if Citizen Lab has considered what it is letting itself in for by doing this.

Conclusion: Logging IP addresses, even if they aren't "kept" is a significant risk.

BTW- salient, I found this on the psiphon site http://psiphon.civisec.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=904 does this mean that you are site admin for psiphon? 141.149.48.247 22:35, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

In any case I am not going to agree that this section is to be erased. Would you care to discuss specific edits? 141.149.48.247 02:05, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Your "facts" are actually one "assertion" repeated over and over again. As to the validity of that one assertion, psiphon users presently have a choice whether or not to have their nodes "check in" with the Lab -- so your assertion only applies to those that do. Assuming that for those who do there is still a theoretical security vulnerability, the point was rasied and covered in the preceding section making reference to a theoretical "canonical list." So your one assertion is repetitive.

On this basis, I propose rour "theoretical problems" section should be removed.Paineman 00:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC)Paineman

No. 151.205.177.250 04:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Would you care to discuss specific edits? 68.161.21.37 16:42, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

History and Functionality

The Section on "History and Functionality" should really be modified:

"Psiphon requires no download on the client side, and thus offers security and ease-of-use for the end user in case of equipment seizure. But unlike Tor, psiphon is not an anonymizer, as the server logs all of the clients surfing history. At the same time, such a set-up limits abuse of psiphon servers, which are limited in principle to a social network where clients and servers know and trust each other."

"No client side software" will not offer security to anyone using psiphon if their equipment is seized. Yes there will be an absence of psiphon software on the seized computer, but an abscence does not make a security feature. If the psiphon server is seized, with its detailed log of surfing habits and log of IP addresses of the clients who have used the node, then there is no extra security offered the user, the user in such a case is simply "caught". Therefore the "set up" does not "limit abuse of psiphon servers". If somehow a server that logs surfing history is more secure and naturally limits abuse please support this assertion with a citation to a publication that is not your own, as this assertion would be contrary to common sense.

Also "In the main English wikipedia, there is still a need to avoid professional jargon and to keep language as simple and direct as the accurate treatment of subject matter permits." is quoted from the Wikipedia documentation. This means that all of the "social network" language should not only be eradicated from this section, but should come out of this article, especially because it is used here as psiphon specific jargon. For instance "such a set-up limits abuse of psiphon servers, which are limited in principle to a social network where clients and servers know and trust each other" could be put into plain English as "such a set-up limits abuse of psiphon servers, because the psiphon users know and trust their psiphon node administrator" Not that I agree that this particular statement should stay in (see the above proposed edit), but at least it states things in a simple way that avoids confusion. If there has been formal social network research that has been done in the area of data security and privacy that the psiphon software implicates please explain it and cite to the source. 151.205.177.250 12:15, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

""No client side software" will not offer security to anyone using psiphon if their equipment is seized." Though users would not have a copy of Psiphon on their computers I suppose their browser cache would still hold a record of all the pages they had viewed. The cache could be deleted, but it would still be possible for a forensic examiner to recover its contents from the users hard disk. To put the data beyond recovery the user would have to employ a specialised data erasure tool, and perform at least seven overwrites of their hard disk. Will users in countries like China be aware of, and have access to, such tools?

My view on Psiphon is that any attempt to circumvent censorship is to be applauded, but Psiphon's capabilities must not be oversold. Potential users who consult Wikipedia need to be able to read a full and objective analysis of the software, warts and all. Attempts to delete critical comments must be resisted. Mrslippery 14:19, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Please note that the official psiphon user guide, found here: http://psiphon.civisec.org/samples/psiphon_guide.pdf makes explcit reference to using a cache deletion software after each use. I think the fact that the producers of the software, in their offiicial guide, make explicit reference to doing so should be taken into acccount. If we are going to assess something, I agree, let's not overstate it. But I have been struck by the extent to which a number of users are seemingly going out of there way to make ill-informed assertions about psiphon. Let us be fair, and at least take the time to look over the software, its code, its official user guide, and its FAQ before making these assertions.

As to the "social network of trust" -- I do not believe this is jargon. It is the language used by the psiphon project itself, in all of its literature, and it's well explained in the FAQ, in the news articles referenced in this section. I believe in light of the extensive association, it should not be deleted but simply defined.Paineman 00:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC)paineman

See for yourself http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jargon Jargon is exactly what it is, and at its worst because it is insider speak for a simple concept which when expressed in normal English spells DANGER. But that's exactly what you seem to want, to talk about social network of trust to avoid spelling out that if you log onto a psiphon server that is compromised you are toast etc. Words like "explicit" in proximity to "social" and "network" and "trust" are used because it sounds important, scholarly and protective. But this is software that should have full disclosure in non-suger-coated language. And insistance that only idiots would and could get caught betrays disdain for the users of this software not to mention the semi-literate of this world. You see, not everbody has the opportunity to acquire an education, especially a high level education in the English language which is notoriously difficult to master. The assertions that the software is wonderful should be few, the clear, concise and conspicuous highlighting of the dangers of its use should be many and likewise clear and concise and above all understandable by those who are easily confused. One may think women who never had the opportunities had by the educated are stupid because they cannot read and understand the "high level concept" that the supposed social network of trust is and is not, but one has a moral responsibility to protect them although one may think they are lower on the social scale. And last, but not least, these information gathering servers with clients that report ip info to the central server are running on MS sofware, absolutely nuts. Yes, in the user materials it says "make sure your computer is virus free and you are fully patched" [not an exact quote]. Do you know what kind of ongoing herculean task it is to make that operating system fully patched??? And even in the fully patched versions known vulnerabilities abound. The "Social Network of Trust" language should be stricken everywhere it appears throughout the entire Wikipedia entry as it is both jargon, dangerously misleading and has no connection to any scholarship regarding social networks whatsoever. 151.205.177.250 05:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Do we have agreement or disagreement on the proposed edit:

"Psiphon requires no download on the client side, and thus offers security and ease-of-use for the end user in case of equipment seizure. But unlike Tor, psiphon is not an anonymizer, as the server logs all of the clients surfing history. At the same time, such a set-up limits abuse of psiphon servers, which are limited in principle to a social network where clients and servers know and trust each other."

Lets get to the good faith editing :) 151.205.164.84 17:56, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree to the revised edit. However, I fundamentally disagree with striking "social network of trust" from the pisphon wikipedia article elsewhere where it is found. The term "social network of trust" is an explicit part of the psiphon software literature, its FAQ, its user guide, and in media and other articles based around it. It may be considered "jargon" (although I disagree that it is) by any one individual, but an encyclopedic article on psiphon has to include, and define it. Leaving it out because someone thinks it is "jargon" is like leaving out "psiphon" from the entry because you think it's a confusing spelling or not using the term "Tor" in a discussion of "the onion router" because the term "Tor" is jargon. You can define it, but you cannot erase it from the entry -- unless of course your intent is to completely abuse and undermine the entry.

Proposal: Strike At the same time, such a set-up limits abuse of psiphon servers, which are limited in principle to a social network where clients and servers know and trust each other. Psiphon also offers a substantial increase in security, and an improvement in detection avoidance, over open public proxies[opinion needs balancing]. Please see "Theoretical Problems" below for an alternative view on whether this software actually does offer a substantial increase in security, and an improvement in detection avoidance, over open public proxies.

Add:

Psiphon differs from previous approaches in that the users themselves have access to server software which is easily installed on the Microsoft Windows platform. The ease which users themselves are able to set up their own servers should, given a certain level of use of the sofware, result in a greater number of servers being online. A great number of servers online would make the task of attacking the overall user base more difficult for those hostile to use of the psiphon proxy than attacking a few centralized servers, because each individual web proxy would have to be disabled one by one.

151.205.164.84 20:41, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Quotation without citation should be removed

The quotation "According to Nart Villeneuve, Director of Technical Research from the Citizen Lab, "The idea is to get them to install this on their computer, and then deliver the location of that circumventor, to people in filtered countries by the means they know to be the most secure. What we're trying to build is a network of trust among people who know each other, rather than a large tech network that people can just tap into." should be removed as there is not citation to a publication wherein the quotation was gleaned. 68.161.21.37 16:48, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Does anybody have a citation for this quote? 151.205.164.84 14:26, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

The source was in the external links section until an editor moved it to "News". See: Boyd, Clark. (March 10, 2004). Bypassing China's net firewall. BBC News. —Viriditas | Talk 14:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Then of course that source should be cited in the body and it should stay. 151.205.164.84 15:01, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

All mention of Wikipedia as a Service Should be Removed

The quotation "We're aiming at giving people access to sites like Wikipedia," and following sentance "a free, user-maintained online encyclopedia" should be removed as it is unseemly to have any Wikipedia bolstering material in the article. 68.161.21.37 17:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Paineman, would you please stop top posting, the new topic belongs underneath the older topics. It took Anchoress quite a bit of time to clean up the page, please don't mess it up again. Once you put it there I will respond. Let me get this straight though, you want me banned from this talk page? For requesting that we discuss specific edits? And for attempting to format the page properly? Calling for me to be banned is not exactly "welcoming". 68.161.21.37 17:15, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, I think the mentioning of Wikipedia gives the appearance of some psiphon/Wikipedia link being fostered, of which there is (to my knowledge) none. 151.205.164.84 18:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Does anybody know whether there exists policy regarding Wikipedia mentions in Wikipedia articles? 151.205.164.84 15:11, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Discussion Practices that Violate Wikipedia Norms

People are posting to this discussion page contrary to wikipedia rules. They are posting without signing and making personal insults. They are re-editing their own comments, again contrary to wikipedia discussion norms. It is virtually impossible to track who is saying what, based on constant changes of IP addresses. I agree that the article should be improved by good faith, but I will not stand by while a Wikipedia article is abused with ill-informed personal rants. If a person whose post is shown to be not based on facts and is clearly writing negative, unobjective half-truths, responds with nothing but "no" they should not be allowed to participate in the discussion. "No" is not good faith nor productive dialogue. Everyone who wants to engage in dialogue in good faith should sign in.Paineman 20:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

If by sign in you mean get a user name rather than edit and discuss anonymously although with IP address showing, that is missing the mark by a quite a bit. Good faith is simply the willingness to put aside ones own anger and bias and to act towards others with fair intentions. All of which I am presently doing. It has absolutely nothing to do with the decision to edit via a "sign in" name. 151.205.164.84 01:49, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

By showing that you have animus towards anyone involved in the edit process you are extending the period of time the page is protected against edits. I suggest that we put together a body of agreed edits, act like people who are reasonable, and stop trying to get others in "trouble". The alternative is this article being protected for an extended period of time and absolutely for sure not being designated as a "good article". 151.205.164.84 17:07, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article on Windows XP http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_XP seems to have both the good and the bad of the software discussed in an intelligent fashion. I suggest we consider using it as a model. For instance see the Section entitled "Security issues" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_XP#Security_issues as an example of a section balancing the positive material with negative information. 151.205.164.84 18:53, 27 March 2007 (UTC)