Oh so Tails with a bridge? Hope someone invents that, it sounds cool.
Not sure what country you live in, but
there's usually nothing suspicious about a tails usb either. And it's a
bit pointless to worry about suspicion after the police have already
gotten enough evidence to seize your devices.
No you don't. Your ubuntu usb can still make non tor connections. Use a tor router if you want that.
there's usually nothing suspicious about a tails usb either. And it's a
bit pointless to worry about suspicion after the police have already
gotten enough evidence to seize your devices.
With this set up, you get the gateway-workstation IP level protection of Whonix
No you don't. Your ubuntu usb can still make non tor connections. Use a tor router if you want that.
I think you're missing the point. The
idea is to not have any physical evidence of TOR use when police come.
Tails is exactly that and exactly what you don't want there. Tails and a
bridge doesn't solve this
idea is to not have any physical evidence of TOR use when police come.
Tails is exactly that and exactly what you don't want there. Tails and a
bridge doesn't solve this
The VPN is at the router level though
so Ubuntu can ping a server outside of the browser all day long its only
ever going to get the VPN IP.
Also if cops come to your house suspecting DNM activity having a Tails USB is not helpful regardless of the country.
so Ubuntu can ping a server outside of the browser all day long its only
ever going to get the VPN IP.
Also if cops come to your house suspecting DNM activity having a Tails USB is not helpful regardless of the country.
Tails USB is not helpful regardless of the country.
Doesn't help them either. That's not evidence of anything. Neither are
your vpn logs that show you downloading a 600mb file from torproject.org
every day for the last year.
You are gonna download TOR browser every time?
You trust TOR browser more than Tails?
You're gonna store your secrets remotely?
You trust TOR browser more than Tails?
You're gonna store your secrets remotely?
If you ever read court documents about
busts the prosecution makes a big points of it. They go on about how its
a specialized form of Linux people use to cover their traces. I agree
with you from my eyes but I feel like a lot of plausible deniability
goes out the window when the find a Tails USB at your house with the
latest update indicating recent use.
When people clean house they always would get rid of a Tails USB, meaning it is something that's better to not have at all
Also Mullvad got raided and LE got zilch so that's not a concern for me.
busts the prosecution makes a big points of it. They go on about how its
a specialized form of Linux people use to cover their traces. I agree
with you from my eyes but I feel like a lot of plausible deniability
goes out the window when the find a Tails USB at your house with the
latest update indicating recent use.
When people clean house they always would get rid of a Tails USB, meaning it is something that's better to not have at all
Also Mullvad got raided and LE got zilch so that's not a concern for me.
1. Yes
2. No not the point. The point is having nothing suspicious on prem at all.
3. Yes. You could store it on an anonymous email service in a kdbx file
with Argon2 and a strong passphrase. No one is accessing that.
2. No not the point. The point is having nothing suspicious on prem at all.
3. Yes. You could store it on an anonymous email service in a kdbx file
with Argon2 and a strong passphrase. No one is accessing that.
Well possession of Tails does not prove
anything if you use it with a bridge it should be okay unless you have
other evidence linking you to whatever you were doing, I agree that the
prosecution will go on and on about how it's a system designed to clear
traces and use of TOR is required since the whole system is routed but
on the other hand the jury has to find that you have a right to possess
it and there is no evidence of you using it besides you having it and
there is no evidence of TOR usage because of the bridge. The defense can
also raise an argument of it protecting privacy and additional security
it provides.
anything if you use it with a bridge it should be okay unless you have
other evidence linking you to whatever you were doing, I agree that the
prosecution will go on and on about how it's a system designed to clear
traces and use of TOR is required since the whole system is routed but
on the other hand the jury has to find that you have a right to possess
it and there is no evidence of you using it besides you having it and
there is no evidence of TOR usage because of the bridge. The defense can
also raise an argument of it protecting privacy and additional security
it provides.
In prosecutions LE always relies on TOR browser usage and installation to piece together their case."
Citation needed. I've never seen this.
It would prove little anyway. LE is trying to catch people with drugs/contraband.
Members-only continuation
This discussion contains more posts.
Create an account or sign in to continue reading the full conversation. 1 additional post awaits inside.