[Author Prev][Author Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Thread Index]

Re: Some legal trouble with TOR in France +

In addition, censoring child porn, death threats, etc. is impossible and you're dedicating yourself to a job that you will have to do 24/7 and never finish. You block a site, they make a new one. You block a file hash, they modify a file. You block a keyword, they use encryption. You block message topics, they use stenography. The line has been drawn and needs to continue to be drawn at:
No Censorship
You can't say that stopping child porn isn't censorship. You might want to censor child porn because it's bad for society. Under the same logic, you can censor profanities. Then it goes further, people want to censor "radical views" as is happening with terrorism because it's bad for society, then it goes to censoring conversation topics, political views, and BAM you live in  a police state.

On 5/15/06, Ben Wilhelm <zorba@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
crackedactor@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> Ok so they will come back with more than just child porn... thats when we have to draw the line!

"Yeah, so we disabled child porn like you asked, but we're not willing
to do anything about piracy, death threats to government officials,
cybercrime, or that mob ring running all their communications through
our system. Yeah yeah, I know, the mob ring is responsible for the death
of a dozen officers. Can't do anything. Well, I mean, we could,
obviously. But we don't want to. Sorry! Let me know if you find any more
child porn sites though!"

That will go over *real* well.

The line is drawn. The line is that Tor does not censor. That's the only
line that makes sense, because everything else requires subjective
judgement that many would not be able to agree on.

If you don't want your internet connection to be used anonymously, for
*anything*, then don't run a Tor exit node. It's impossible to block
subjects on a case-by-case basis anyway - the exact thing Tor was built
to prove! - and I'd rather not waste our coders' time on that.