Are you confusing Tor and something like deep/dark web? Because Tor itself is just a webbrowser, it’s basically a Firefox with some modifications for stricter privacy.
Possibly, I know Tor is a browser but because it can be used to access deep/dark web I don’t trust myself with it. 100% out of acknowledged ignorance yes
As long as you stay off of any .onion sites, there won’t be any difference w.r.t. dark/deep web access. If a domain doesn’t end in .onion, then it can be accessed with a regular web browser anyway.
I promise you that like 90% of the creepy stories you’ve heard are people either exaggerating or just straight-up lying to sound cool on the internet. The kind of stuff that actually needs to operate over the TOR network doesn’t exactly want to be easily discoverable by normal people.
You’re no more likely to accidentally stumble across illegal / dangerous content while using TOR than you are while using any other browser.
Isn’t the problem was that back then everyone used to be a node (was it exit node?), but I heard today it’s not the case anymore so no one can actually link you to other bad things other people do.
To simply use TOR you do not need to run any kind of guard/middle/exit relay (this has always been the case), but yes there is the risk of being held accountable for other users data while hosting an exit relay.
This hasn’t gone away thanks to any legal precedent as far as I’m aware, so I imagine it all depends on the tech literacy of your local jurisdiction & how good of a lawyer you can afford.
There’s a TOR browser, but calling tor “just a browser” is really odd and not really correct. The TOR project is the routing protocol that bounces your traffic around. You can do so through the TOR browser, but the browser isn’t TOR. It also isn’t the only way to use TOR.
Also, while HTTPS is close to universal now, it’s still possible to use HTTP and theoretically a malicious exit node could modify any unencrypted traffic.
Are you confusing Tor and something like deep/dark web? Because Tor itself is just a webbrowser, it’s basically a Firefox with some modifications for stricter privacy.
Possibly, I know Tor is a browser but because it can be used to access deep/dark web I don’t trust myself with it. 100% out of acknowledged ignorance yes
As long as you stay off of any .onion sites, there won’t be any difference w.r.t. dark/deep web access. If a domain doesn’t end in .onion, then it can be accessed with a regular web browser anyway.
I promise you that like 90% of the creepy stories you’ve heard are people either exaggerating or just straight-up lying to sound cool on the internet. The kind of stuff that actually needs to operate over the TOR network doesn’t exactly want to be easily discoverable by normal people.
You’re no more likely to accidentally stumble across illegal / dangerous content while using TOR than you are while using any other browser.
Thanks for the advice! I’ll keep in mind.
Isn’t the problem was that back then everyone used to be a node (was it exit node?), but I heard today it’s not the case anymore so no one can actually link you to other bad things other people do.
To simply use TOR you do not need to run any kind of guard/middle/exit relay (this has always been the case), but yes there is the risk of being held accountable for other users data while hosting an exit relay.
This hasn’t gone away thanks to any legal precedent as far as I’m aware, so I imagine it all depends on the tech literacy of your local jurisdiction & how good of a lawyer you can afford.
Thanks for the correction.
deleted by creator
There’s a TOR browser, but calling tor “just a browser” is really odd and not really correct. The TOR project is the routing protocol that bounces your traffic around. You can do so through the TOR browser, but the browser isn’t TOR. It also isn’t the only way to use TOR.
Also, while HTTPS is close to universal now, it’s still possible to use HTTP and theoretically a malicious exit node could modify any unencrypted traffic.
Thank you for clarification! Of course I meant the TOR browser client itself, should have been more precise.