Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Deluge Anonymizing Browser Now Includes Bittorrent

Posted by CmdrTaco on Sun Dec 23, 2007 12:27 PM
from the how-do-you-spell-that-anyway dept.
markybob writes "An open-source bittorrent client, Deluge, now provides an internal, anonymizing browser to protect its users from overzealous ISPs. The client runs on Windows, Linux and OS X. From the site: "Everyone knows that it is common practice for ISPs to do their best to either block or throttle bittorrent users. We believe that this is wrong and unethical, as there are many legal uses for bittorrent. If an ISP is throttling or blocking bittorrent traffic, you can pretty much bet that they're tracking which users visit bittorrent-related sites so that they can better block or throttle those users." Their forum has more info"
+ -
story

Related Stories

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • by Symbolis (1157151) <(symbolis) (at) (gmail.com)> on Sunday December 23 2007, @12:43PM (#21798876)

    "Deluge BitTorrent Client Now Includes Anonymizing Browser"

    And to be exact, this is Deluge 0.5.8RC1

    • all I get is

      Error in download_count on line 262.
      ./ubuntu/gutsy/0.5.7.95/deluge-torrent_0.5.7.95-1_i386.gutsy.deb is already defined.
      and I'm trying to download the sources!
  • Mac OS X (Score:5, Informative)

    by christurkel (520220) on Sunday December 23 2007, @12:54PM (#21798936) Homepage Journal
    Small correction: The Mac OS X version uses X11, not Cocoa.
  • by stsp (979375) on Sunday December 23 2007, @12:57PM (#21798956) Homepage

    In related news, semantically reversed article headlines now include slashdot!

    Also, the summary is highly misleading. This is not a bittorrent-based replacement for TOR as one might conclude from the summary. The browser is merely designed to conceal the IPs of people surfing websites hosting torrents by going through a proxy. You also see ads while using the service. I wonder how long it will take ISPs with an anti-bittorrent agenda to block their proxies... Quoting TFA's FAQ:

    Can we use the internal browser to surf any site?

    No. This is a very touchy subject, so I want to be very clear. Our proxy servers have a whitelist of bittorrent-related sites (trackers, index sites, etc), which it allows you to visit.

    Why are there ads? Are you turning evil? This is free software!

    This is free software, however, our proxy servers (which anonymizies the browsing) costs us very real dollars.

    I can't download any files. What is that about?

    To prevent abuse, Deluge's internal browser only allows you to download bittorrent files..
  • From their FAQ [deluge-torrent.org]:

    Why are there ads? Are you turning evil? This is free software! This is free software, however, our proxy servers (which anonymizies the browsing) costs us very real dollars. Also, if you don't use our internal browser, you'll never see an ad. In the spirit of freedom, I openly disclose that it costs around US$800 per month (with a two-month contract) for us to cover the hosting expenses, which we need to make up for somehow, or else it comes out of my personal pocket. Deluge does not have a

    • Sorry, but did you even read the paragraph you cited? The guy is funding the service out of his own pocket. He needs to have some way to make back at least most of the money he's spending.

      This on top of the fact that he's already dedicating his time to writing the software... Geez.

      It's worth pointing out that the ads aren't showing up in the actual program. If you don't want to see them, don't use the anonymous browsing service.
      • by EmbeddedJanitor (597831) on Sunday December 23 2007, @03:22PM (#21799936)
        One of the problems with "Free Software" are the take, take, take folk. Ultimately if you value something you should support it, either financially by direct payment or by recognising that it needs money (eg putting up with ads).

        To give you those "free roads" you drive on, the government charges you taxes. To give out free services, charities accept contributions.

        I doubt many of the gimme,gimme, free software takers actually develop anything substantial or contribute anything, apart from annoyance.

        Perhaps with time people will mature in their outlook and freely contribute better than they do now: "Hey I like service x or software y. Here's $20 to say thanks!". This is not yet happening but perhaps it will one day.

        • This software is intended only for "take, take, take" movie and music pirates. Why would you expect any different response?
          • You make a good point. The typical pirate-types (OK, a generalization: oly 90% of bt traffic is pirating) have a notion of internet==free. If you make a service available to these people then don't expect any support.
        • by wrook (134116) on Sunday December 23 2007, @09:11PM (#21802176) Homepage
          Actually, the take, take, take, gimme, gimme, gimme users provide invaluable benefit to Free software producers. But to understand this, you must understand the economics of Free software development (I will assert that most people, even Free software producers have a difficult time understanding this). With Free software, you *can* make money off of distribution, but really it won't last for long. Eventually, since the cost of distribution is nearly free, someone will undercut you. Instead, you must make money (or better stated, value) out of the software itself.

          This can be done in a few ways. First, you can get value from using the software you wrote. Often the value you receive more than offsets the cost of development. If the software is popular and useful, then you can also benefit from forming a consortium with other parties to do development. You each share the costs and share the benefits. People who fund development get a greater say in what gets written (i.e., they write it ;-) ). Examples of this are the Apache software and the Linux kernel.

          Second, you can get value from future work on the software. If it is a popular, useful work, then often someone else will be able to receive value from funding you to do some new development. Probably the best example of this is the GCC tool set as it was developed by Cygnus software (google around for Michael Tiemann's description of how to make this work -- it's brilliant.)

          Finally, you can gain value (either directly or indirectly) through advertising. Usually (as is the case with this software), the software allows you to connect with a service that gains value from advertising. The best example of this is Mozilla who make nearly $100 million a year from the google search bar in Firefox.

          Now, I hope you'll excuse my tangent, I'm finally coming to the point. What all these methods of creating value have in common is that they work best (return the most value) when the software is *popular* and *useful*. Take, take, take, gimme, gimme, gimme people are essential to creating popular and useful software. First, they are often the absolute best sources for ideas. They are so internally focussed (i.e., selfish) that they have a really highly developed sense of what they want. Yes, they are annoying, but if you cut through the annoyance, you find gold. Second, these people are like rats. When one finds a good source of food *all their buddies join in*. This is indispensable for a Free software project.

          Now, what I read from the posts above is that these selfish users are not happy with direct advertising on the associated service. This is incredibly useful feedback! It means that there is significant risk involved in the venture. People are not against advertising per se. Take the google search bar in Firefox. I've never heard anyone complain about it. The connection between the google advertising and the search bar is removed enough to appease the user. But I would worry, in this case, that users will not accept the advertising on the associated service.

          In the end, cherish your selfish users. They are a PITA, but they are honest and they will spare no expense to tell you what they think. For software projects that don't have budgets for things like user studies, these people will pave the road to success.
      • Wait, so let me get this straight.

        This "service" allows you to get away with pirating movies and music. (Otherwise, if it were legal downloads, why would you need to be anonymous?) And to receive this protection, you have to pay this guy to use it?

        How is this any different from Kazaa charging for pirating media? Except that with this service you're slightly less likely to get caught.
        • by thegnu (557446) <thegnuNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Sunday December 23 2007, @01:56PM (#21799342) Homepage Journal

          Well considering that the main point of using his software is to be able to download torrents anonymously, it's rather self-defeating to say if you don't want the ads don't use the anonymizer. I don't begrudge the guy for wanting to make some money back on this, and obviously he's not twisting anyone's arm here, but come on.

          Picture if you will a pasty-white geek who has written some software. "The service my software provides puts people who use it at risk," he muses, "How might I protect those who may not know how to protect themselves?"
          Suddenly, a light goes off. Or on. I think it goes on. Anyway, he thinks, "I could integrate a browser that accesses a limited number of related services in such a way as to provide a safety net for the non-nerds whom I appreciate so well!"
          Time passes. "Oh, fuck. This is going to cost me money," the nerd thinks, "How can I provide this service when it costs me money, and I need to buy Ramen?"
          Another lightbulb does its thing. "Advertisement!"

          There you have it. If you don't like it, cut pasty-dude a check.
        • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

          Not sure where you got the idea that "the main point" of using his software is to be able to download anonymously.

          I've used Deluge for a long time before the announcement of this feature. It's a bittorrent client, just like Azureus or Ktorrent. The new anonymous browsing feature is nothing more than a built in web browser that uses their proxy.

          I haven't been able to run the new release yet (download links are broken), so I might be wrong on this, but I'm pretty sure the anonymous part is only referring to f
    • > Instead of attempting to out-tech Big Content there should be a focus on improving consumer rights.

      In the long run, yes - this is the primary objective. But if this tool is just one more head of a hydra that overzealous ISPs or the **AA have to fight then it is a good thing, even if you or I never use it and it only works for a limited time. If they have to fight this war on 100 fronts then they will soon find that even their pockets have a limited depth and decide the fight is not worth it. Yeah, a
  • Almost a year ago I switched from Comcast Cable Modem to AT&T ADSL just to save money. My BT traffic wasn't throttled then (though I see stories that now Comcast is throttling it at least in some areas), and it isn't throttled now. So I don't know that it is a common practice, would like to hear of all ISP that do so, please post your experiences. I'm 30 miles north of Chicago.
    • I've heard a lot of complaints of 'throttling' even on the ISP I'm on who don't throttle anything at all. I'm not convinced anyone is doing it.

      Basically bittorrent is slow because you always end up downloading from people on dialup etc. instead of downloading from a fast mirror as you do with FTP. Plus unless your firewall is wide open you aren't uploading.. which means the trackers will throttle you because your upload ratios are too low.
    • From what I'm seeing Comcast isn't throttling BT traffic specifically, downloads are just fine, and uploads work as long as your downloading, but when you cross that line from peering to serving the gig is up. Now I've tried to be nice and severely limit connections and upload bandwidth during prime-time and even, during off-peak, but no dice almost nothing goes upstream. Anything they identify or misidentify as as a server gets forged resets; If I was a java coder I'd be hacking Azureus to use UDP instead
      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        If I was a java coder I'd be hacking Azureus to use UDP instead of TCP
        I would think that using UDP to actually download chunks would be horribly inefficient; the client wouldn't know if it received the data intact until it does a checksum on the chunk, and then you'd have to re-download the whole chunk if you missed even a single packet.
        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          According to a quick search (so may not be accurate) current "semi-official" block size is 16KB which easily fits into a single datagram packet (allowing for IP Fragmentation). Or if you are determined to keep your datagrams under the Ethernet MTU then you could employ some form of erasure coding to the data (at the expense of CPU cycles) and then if a few packets get lost then not to worry or you could advertise a 1k block transfer size at the expense of great application level overhead. Any system would
  • by wdebruij (239038) on Sunday December 23 2007, @02:05PM (#21799422) Homepage
    The best solution, ofcourse, is to switch to a less zealous ISP. But that is not always possible: I, for example, find myself subletting an
    apartment that comes with horrible, horrible Comcast DSL (who actively reset with your TCP connections [slashdot.org]).

    In these cases say Aye, matey and hook up to the swedish Pirate Party's Relakks [relakks.com] VPN service (as seen on Slashdot [slashdot.org])
    to get past your pesky ISPs rules. It's also be very useful if you use coffeeshop wireless a lot and your email provider still requires plain-text passwords.

    Arrr, we be lootin' again!
    • > Arrr, we be lootin' again!

      Oh wait, I'm in RIAA country now. Did I say looting? I meant to say "sending holiday greetings to our loved ones".

      5GB/day? Why yes, officer, I do write long emails.
  • not this ISP (Score:5, Informative)

    by not_anne (203907) on Sunday December 23 2007, @02:39PM (#21799636)

    "...you can pretty much bet that they're tracking which users visit bittorrent-related sites so that they can better block or throttle those users."
    My employer, a large cable ISP, does not track or monitor what sites customers visit. However, we do track the types of traffic on our network and shape traffic as needed to keep the network reasonably healthy.

    We don't single out users, we monitor nodes, which many customers are attached to. If a node is exceeding healthy levels (different nodes have different max levels, there's no one set "healthy" level) then that node is shaped until the traffic goes down.
  • While the anonymization may be useful for other reasons, if your problem is filtering by your ISP then a better solution is, if possible, to get a different ISP. If you keep giving them your money, then not only do you seem to be implicitly consenting to their behavior, you're actually financially supporting it.

    Now I realize that in some places people may really have no reasonable choice, but it's been my experience that many people who live in an area where there is a choice still go with providers (

  • Deluge is great. (Score:3, Informative)

    by lattyware (934246) on Sunday December 23 2007, @06:24PM (#21801174) Homepage Journal
    The best client out there for Linux users with Gnome (KDE users can look to kTorrent). Been using it for some time.
    • Re:Legitimate use? (Score:5, Informative)

      by burris (122191) on Sunday December 23 2007, @01:25PM (#21799120)
      BitTorrent works just fine behind a typical "firewall." It is not necessary to accept incoming connections, especially with a well seeded legitimate torrent. If you can't download with BitTorrent at all then you have a problem with your firewalls policy not the firewall per se.

      It's not a horrible method of distribution. Its an excellent method of distribution, especially for free software. Thats why it is being used for such distribution.
        • It isn't necessary to accept incoming connections to "share." You can do that just fine with only outgoing connections to peers. The tracker can't "throttle you to hell and back" as it plays no part in the choking done by peers. The tracker merely introduces peers to each other.

          Also, "ratios" enforced by trackers is only done by pirate sites. The purpose being to ensure there are seeds for infringing torrents because nobody wants to be left "holding the bag." Legitimate torrents have dedicated seeds, s
            • Re:Legitimate use? (Score:4, Insightful)

              by burris (122191) on Sunday December 23 2007, @02:08PM (#21799440)
              I call bullshit, Tony Hoyle has no idea what he is talking about or he is just trolling.

              Do you think FTP can saturate your 10 mbit link when its downloading from my FTP server sitting on a 384 kbit up DSL line?
            • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

              The problem is you're defining 'efficiency' in a very limited and incorrect way. True, FTP is good at transferring a large chunk of data from exactly one host to exactly one more. But that is a trivial problem these days; Any network programmer could easily write a protocol/application that sends data from a server to a client as fast as the bottlenecks will allow. And yeah, that's "efficient," in a way because it maximizes your resources. But efficient peer-to-peer downloading is much harder. I suppo
    • Not sure what makes you think it's fine at home - my ISP (eclipse.net.uk) throttles bittorrent traffic, and every time I try to leave a download going overnight I find my connection totally dead in the morning, with no traffic at all. Seems like they are trying very hard to stop it. Not I desperately *want* to be a responsible internet user and use P2P to download linux distros (especially the smaller ones who can least afford to provide bandwidth) but it's very hard. One day I'll switch to a different ISP.
      • I use Be (bethere.co.uk). Its ADSL2+, so you can get up to 24mb, unlimited for £18 a month. Im pretty sure they dont throttle torrents, but I dont download many. I get up to 2mbps down from a good ftp mirror (eg: heanet)
    • I use Mandriva, and although I have seen a push to try to get people to use torrents, I still find that there is quite a large number of FTP mirrors available, and thanks to more people using bittorrent, they are a lot faster than they used to me. I use FTP to download my Linux ISOs, because I only have a 1 mbit/125 kbit connection. That low upload speed means that I have a very hard time getting really good torrent speeds. Meanwhile, with FTP, I can usually max out my connection. Even when I do max out
      • Sounds like you need some QOS handling on your local router.
        • Oh, possibly, but I don't have the energy to set one up. I just download my Linux distros via FTP, and throttle those to 3/4 of my max speed with the FTP program, and everything works fine. I just checked my ISPs home page (Rogers Ottawa) and they are now offering 18mbit/1mbit connections for $99.99 a month. If my cable/internet/cellphone bill wasn't already through the roof, I might consider upgrading. Funny how they can put out such a fast service, and not even have their customers know about it.
          • Probably means that they want to appear progressive when it comes your regulating authorities, but don't really want to provide that service on a significant scale. Then they can say, "See? We offered it and nobody bought it." I don't know about Canada, but down here they pull that kind of crap all the time.
    • Re:Legitimate use? (Score:4, Informative)

      by the_B0fh (208483) on Sunday December 23 2007, @01:31PM (#21799166) Homepage
      Why the hell are comments like this marked insightful?

      *waaa* I can't download via p2p, all the free stuff I want, at work

      Either go home and do it, or work with your IT. If you have a business need to download linux distros, it's up to your ork IT to provide that to you. If you don't, well, go suck at Microsoft's teat.

      I used to run a firewall, and I allow out what is business appropriate. If that includes bit-torrent, so be it.
      • Is there a good solution for filtering out unwanted torrents, like pirated movies, software and games, while still allowing wanted torrents like Linux distros and other open source programs? Something that didn't work on a whitelist/blacklist would be pretty nice. Although I guess such a solution doesn't exist. The problem with bittorrent, is that the illegitimate uses far outweigh the legitimate ones, which is why most places of work will block bittorrent.
    • by mangu (126918) on Sunday December 23 2007, @01:39PM (#21799216)

      BitTorrent isn't exactly a firewall-friendly protocol and makes a horrible method of distribution

      Let's put it another way: there are some firewall administrators who aren't BitTorrent friendly. If you work in a company that has such a firewall and you have a problem with BitTorrent, you should take it to the IT administration. Oh, wait, perhaps your problem is that the IT people in your company aren't Linux-friendly? Then download at home and bring a CD or DVD to work.


      The one big advantage BitTorrent has is that it avoids slashdotting the server. Traffic doesn't concentrate, it has a much gentler effect both on the servers themselves and on the internet backbone as a whole, because you end downloading more from those peers that have more bandwidth.

    • Using those same complaints, FTP should be discouraged:
      1. "Most uses are illegitimate". At this point in the game we call the Internet, every new file transfer mechanism is likely to be adopted by pirates first. Yarr. But we both know they still use FTP where needed, and I'd wager there's more illegal FTP servs than legal.

      2. "isn't exactly firewall friendly". That's right, FTP isn't firewall friendly. It has crazy rules for control connections vs data connections. The saving grace here is that FTP is not en
    • Which linux distros offer bittorrent only?
      How does the firewall policy in your workplace make one protocol better or worse?
      How does the ratio of legal vs illegal content make one protocol better or worse?
      Do you realize bittorrent has catched on already?
      Do you realize there is one terribly common scenario (PC with enough cycles but not enough outgoing bandwidth) where scatter gather p2p beats ftp hands down?

    • How are you defining "legitimate"?

      The announcement suggests a similar inversion of ethical and legal [gnu.org] when it says "Everyone knows that it is common practice for ISPs to do their best to either block or throttle bittorrent users. We believe that this is wrong and unethical, as there are many legal uses for bittorrent."; does this mean that if there were no legal uses BitTorrent would be "wrong and unethical"?

      The idea that laws decide what is right or wrong is mistaken in general. Laws are, at their best,

    • if you're trying to download it through a corporate firewall it's damn near impossible

      Okay, so you're downloading Linux distributions at work? If this is something you are doing for your company, you should be able to have some influence on the firewall, perhaps have a machine in the DMZ to facilitate these types of downloads. If you are just leaching the company's bandwidth to download distros for you own use, I can't work up much sympathy.

      In either case, another alternative is to run an ssh server on you

      • That's not a good use of bittorrent... their torrent seeds suck the big one, because they're totally saturated and get about 1kbps peak rate. Everyone just waits until the mirrors are available.
        • Everyone ?

          I was subscriber from day 1 of eu release till last june or so and i personally *never* downloaded a patch from a mirror. And i always got download speeds of 300-900kb/sec .. roughly i'd say it was about 450kb/sec on average whenever i was downloading a patch.
            • Blizzard have only one seed that means that *Everyone* downloads from the same source.


              Huh? Do you have any idea how BitTorrent works?
            • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

              Sir, Chuck norris calls you bullshit. 10 Megabit cable connection (pretty standard here) gives ruffly 990kb/sec transfer depending on the sender's connection and protocol used. (For example, 990kb/sec is the top speed i can get from ftp.funet.fi which is few hops away)

              Personally i never used background downloading in wow and at the time of the patch going live, there where so many seeds already available that having only 1 official seed from Blizzard didnt really matter. Comparing the "patch" downloading
      • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

        Yup, you're correct. WoW does use it for patches and updates. Given that the patches are at least 100megs in size and there are 9.5million subscribers I'd say it's one of the better examples of a problem for which BitTorrent is the ideal solution.
      • Your numbers sure don't sound right.. but maybe it will gradually kick in a higher download rate. Perhaps you are one of those who needs the program the article was talking about ?.. I have usually found that with new releases of popular distros, bittorrent to be faster than FTP
    • by poopdeville (841677) on Sunday December 23 2007, @02:29PM (#21799562)
      The headline was obviously written in Soviet Russia.
    • by PopeRatzo (965947) * on Sunday December 23 2007, @04:47PM (#21800520) Homepage Journal

      no respect for copyrights, intellectual property,
      You've got this much right. Copyright and the concept of "intellectual property" is doing nothing to encourage innovation and creativity or to enhance the circumstances of innovators and creative makers. It only serves to enrich people who can afford to buy the abstract "intellectual property" of others and then bring lawsuits to create a money stream for themselves and for their lawyers.

      Most important, copyright and "intellectual property" is no longer necessary for those who are doing the making. I have first-hand experience with the transformation from the creative equivalent of an indentured servant into an artist that has control over my own product and income. Step one was examining just how corrupt and useless the current system has become. Step two was learning about Creative Commons, direct to public domain and other innovative approaches to distributing work and getting paid for it. Step three, at least in my case, was "profit!!" (of course).

      The experience has also radicalized me in terms of how I see not only the way artists support themselves, but also how I view the entirety of economic life in these United States (and beyond). Reading Adam Smith and Milton Friedman and comparing their words with the actuality of 21st century life, has convinced me that the entire system of "free markets" "supply and demand" and "the unseen hand" are all so much baloney. It's all been a dodge to keep those of us who work for a living from noticing that we're getting less for working more while our bosses are gaining wealth and producing less.

      Notice how the the bosses (executive vice-presidents) at Circuit City have been forced to accept mere 1 million dollar bonuses (called "retention awards") this year because their company has performed so poorly. If any of us were to perform so poorly, we'd get pink slips instead of six-figure Christmas presents. To complete the picture, notice how Circuit City has unceremoniously fired their most experience sales staff, who were earning as much as $14.00 per hour, and then offered them their jobs back a $9 per hour and no benefits! The French Revolution was not so long ago that these "executive vice-presidents" can't learn a few lessons regarding what happens to people who oppress a working class. Hell, some of them must have seen V for Vendetta.
    • Note that, although I'd say it's a fair guess that almost any work you'll download is copyrighted, that doesn't mean you aren't allowed to download it. Think open source software, for example.