- https://github.com/mikeperry-tor/vanguards/blob/master/READM...
- https://github.com/mikeperry-tor/vanguards/blob/master/READM...
- https://spec.torproject.org/proposals/344-protocol-info-leak...
- https://github.com/mikeperry-tor/vanguards/blob/master/READM...
- https://github.com/mikeperry-tor/vanguards/blob/master/READM...
- https://spec.torproject.org/proposals/344-protocol-info-leak...
That being said, yes, feds can de-anonymize traffic, probably reliably at this point. There are only about 7-8000 active nodes, most in data centers. The less nodes you hop through, the more likely that traffic can be traced back to the entry point (guard node), and combined with timing can be reasonably traced back to the user. Tor works best with many, many nodes, and a minimum of three. There's not as many nodes as there needs to be so quite often it's only 3 you are going through (guard node/entry point, middle node, exit node)
Plus browsing habits can also be revealing. Just because someone is using Tor doesn't mean they also have disabled javascript, blocked cookies, aren't logging into accounts, etc.
I can't find a link, but I think people have done simulations and the privacy benefits of more hops are not as great as one might think. If you control the guard and exit, then traffic confirmation is relatively easy by just looking at timing and volume of traffic no matter how many hops are in between.
A lifetime ago, I ran bridges from RAM only distros. But early versions of the Dan list (1st in wide use) killed that.
DL didn't try hard to differentiate between bridge IPs and exit IPs. Server hosts just grabbed the first list they saw and blocked with it.
It was years before the notion of Exit != Bridge became understood but everyone had moved on. We're at the entropic 'No One Cares Anymore' phase now.
Have you heard of Cloudflare's Project Jengo [0] [1]? They were sued by Sable, a patent troll. So they made a website where anyone could submit prior art for any of Sable's patents and they would pay I think around $1000-2000 if it helped their case. Imagine if you had a website where you listed drugs alongside their patents, and a bounty in dollars if you found prior art. The bounty could be funded by hedge funds, generics companies, or other competitors. If the submissions were solid enough, they would take the case to lawyers and hopefully win.
KEYTRUDA® (pembrolizumab)
- Bounty: $100,000
- Patents:
- U.S. Patent No. 8,354,509
- U.S. Patent No. 8,900,587
- U.S. Patent No. 9,834,605
- U.S. Patent No. 11,117,961
- U.S. Patent No. 9,220,776
...
You would probably need a lot of connections to make this work. You would also basically create a side hustle for bored patent lawyers or people with a lot of time on their hands. Though the people who are really good at this sort of work probably already make a lot of money, so maybe it wouldn't work.This is basically your original idea, but there's a monetary incentive. I don't think people with the level of expertise needed to do this would do it for free.
[0] https://www.cloudflare.com/jengo/sable-prior-art-search/
[1] https://blog.cloudflare.com/the-project-jengo-saga-how-cloud...
Edit: but maybe I'm wrong. The CEO of Cloudflare says most of the people who submitted probably would have done it for free: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41732580. But then again, Cloudflare was able to publicize their cause easily among technical people who can understand software patents on places like HN, and there was a moral righteousness element to it because patent trolls are parasites. It might be difficult to inspire the same level of enthusiasm about orphan drugs, and there is also likely a smaller number of people who have the skill to review drug patents.
[1] https://www.clearview.ai/post/how-we-store-and-search-30-bil...