Socks5 proxy support and 3rd Twitter API support

[Pengu1n]

Hi all,

I'm newbie here, call me penguin, @pen9u1n on twitter.

While there are many web based twitter clients, I still like to have a
native client application on my linux desktop,
while there're many censored internet link over this world, even some
great web services has been prohibited by gov., such as twitter/
youtube/facebook...etc, I must use proxy to access them, I use Tor as
my first proxy tool, it provids socks5 proxy, and I use privoxy for
http proxy.

1. I hope qwit can support socks5 so I can use any socks5 proxy to
connect to internet

QHttp(QNetworProxy) can do it, I can implement it.:)

2. I hope qwit can support config 3rd twitter API proxy so I can
connect to it instead twitter.com (censored) directly.

I still not very family with twitter 3rd API proxy, but I know some
guys setup it's proxy and just change there's client's config and they
can access twitter freely.

I guess it's not a big deal, add a new setting page and a little
change in the code base is enough.

any comments?

Sincerely

penguin

[Artem Iglikov]

Hello, penguin.

1. Unfortunately, right now I have almost no time to do anything
significant with qwit, so, if you can and have time and desire, you
are welcome to implement it :)
2. Have you tried 'Custom service' account in qwit? I think it should
be able to work with api proxies, but, of course, the api proxy option
in twitter account configuration will be better (honestly, I didn't
ever heard about api proxies, but suspected that they should exist :)
)

> --
>
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Qwit" group.
> To post to this group, send email to qw...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to qwit+uns...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/qwit?hl=en.
>
>
>



--
Best regards, Artem Iglikov
http://kiwi.kz technical specialist

I do know everything, just not all at once. It's a virtual memory problem.

[pefimo]

Hello,

I don't think using proxies is a good idea. If someone bans the use of
Twitter and other social networks, then they must have some reason to
do it. Except for political reasons, where someone is trying to deny
people their right to access reliable sources of information, tools
like Tor should never be used, as far as it gives power to people that
do not respect any rules nor laws. Trust me, I know what I'm talking
about.

So if anyone here cares about ethics in Free Software World, let's
leave this feature unimplemented.

Regards,
Piotr F. Mieszkowski

[Carlos Galisteo]

> I don't think using proxies is a good idea.

Implementing the option doesn't force you to use it. There are tons
of software features I personally don't use for technical or 'ethical'
reasons

>f someone bans the use of
> Twitter and other social networks, then they must have some reason to
> do it.

Yes, and in most of cases the reason is just censorship.

> Trust me, I know what I'm talking
> about.

I don't know you. I don't have to trust you if you don't give me
valid arguments :)

> So if anyone here cares about ethics in Free Software World, let's
> leave this feature unimplemented.

I really think the developers should decide to implement it or not by
their self, without any pressure. I mean, I don't think that the fact
of implement a feature which allows to escape for censorship is
unethical at all. If in a specific case a user does something
unethical this is not developer responsibility.


Regards.

--
---
Carlos Galisteo <cgalisteo AT k-rolus.net>
GPG keys & fingerprints:
0x8E0076E9 -> 939E 3D10 EAA2 A972 3AF2 E25C 26B7 D8E3 8E00 76E9
0x69ADBE65 > F888 6FBA 9145 B5A2 C187 66D6 5B8C 027A 69AD BE65
---

[pefimo]

Hello,

>  Implementing the option doesn't force you to use it. There are tons
> of software features I personally don't use for technical or 'ethical'
> reasons

It's not about me using it or not, nor is it about forcing anyone to
do anything. It's about giving the power to the wrong people.

> > Trust me, I know what I'm talking
> > about.
>  I don't know you. I don't have to trust you if you don't give me
> valid arguments :)

No problem, here you go: there are many people who use Tor or proxies
to remain anonymous while they exchange information about activities
like raping children. There are also people who use these tools to
overcome bans they've got for inappropriate behaviour.

(By the way: if you don't trust me here and now, in this discussion,
then would you trust just anyone on the Internet and give them
powerful tools to do things like mentioned above?)

> If in a specific case a user does something
> unethical this is not developer responsibility.

To some degree the developer *is* responsible. Think about chain
reaction and how the research behind it changed the world. Think how
many people died because of improper use of science and because
powerful thing was given to the wrong people. You may say it wasn't
the scientists' fault, it wasn't them to pull the trigger. But if they
didn't let other people pull the trigger, thousands of people wouldn't
die.

All in all, freedom is important - I understand it - but even more
important is safety. This is the point of my mere suggestion of not
adding the feature.

Regards,
Piotr F. Mieszkowski

[Reid Ellis]

If this is all about implementing SOCKS/proxy support, I don't see what the fuss is about. Proxies and SOCKS are valid means by which to access the internet. Feel free to add #ifdef's or something so that people can create "locked down" versions for certain specific environments, but don't use paranoia as a reason not add communication features to a communications program.

Reid

[Pengu1n]

On Dec 5, 9:00 am, Reid Ellis <reidel...@gmail.com> wrote:
> If this is all about implementing SOCKS/proxy support, I don't see what the fuss is about. Proxies and SOCKS are valid means by which to access the internet. Feel free to add #ifdef's or something so that people can create "locked down" versions for certain specific environments, but don't use paranoia as a reason not add communication features to a communications program.
>

+1

Actually, while the http proxy is supported, it's enough to run qwit +
privoxy (http proxy) + tor to anonymous access internet.

A knife can kill life also save it, everything in our world can used
to crime, but we can't prevent crime by destroy or lock down
everything.

[Carlos Galisteo]

On Sat, Dec 5, 2009 at 12:37 AM, pefimo <pfmies...@gmail.com> wrote:

> It's not about me using it or not, nor is it about forcing anyone to
> do anything. It's about giving the power to the wrong people.

It's also about let the user decide if it's worthy for their
particular circumstances.

> No problem, here you go: there are many people who use Tor or proxies
> to remain anonymous while they exchange information about activities
> like raping children. There are also people who use these tools to
> overcome bans they've got for inappropriate behaviour.

There are many people who use cars for raping children. Should we ban
the use of cars? Is the car designer guilty?

> (By the way: if you don't trust me here and now, in this discussion,
> then would you trust just anyone on the Internet and give them
> powerful tools to do things like mentioned above?)

Good point :)

I'm not encouraging people to use this kind of services. I've always
said that if I were the FBI/NSA/whatever intelligence agency, the
first thing I'd do is to setup an 'anonymous' proxy in the Internet,
sit down and wait for delinquent to use it. (This is, of course, valid
both ways)

My point is that if there is a user out there (let's say in China)
who could avoid censorship by using this service and, knowing the pros
an cons, he decides to use it, I'll not hamper doing it with my
program.

> powerful thing was given to the wrong people. You may say it wasn't
> the scientists' fault, it wasn't them to pull the trigger. But if they
> didn't let other people pull the trigger, thousands of people wouldn't
> die.

I don't blame scientists for that.
Science progress is a good thing even if there are people making bad
use of it. It's the bad use what we have to stop, not the progress.

> All in all, freedom is important - I understand it - but even more
> important is safety. This is the point of my mere suggestion of not
> adding the feature.

This perfectly resumes our different points of view.
If I have to choose between freedom and safety I choose freedom.

I guess this is going too off-topic and positions are clear enough.

I just want to add that it's not easy to find a list where to discuss
this topics in a friendly manner. Thanks for that :)