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

Re: [tor-talk] Neal Krawetz's abcission proposal, and Tor's reputation

Hi Jon!

On 30 August 2017 at 13:41, Jon Tullett <jon.tullett@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

First is that the technical advantages of Tor are not in question, and
> raising technical arguments in what quickly becomes an ethical debate
> tends to polarize positions further.

Did I do that? I don't think I did that.  If I did that, I didn't mean to.

What I meant to say, I suppose, after all that context, is that any
mechanism which denies or filters the availability of those "technical
advantages", to anyone who desires them, is tantamount to censorship.

I say that not as an ethical statement.  It simply is true.

Perhaps you can explain how it is not true?

> Second:
> > Practical example: the point of the Facebook onion site is to provide the
> > above-listed four benefits - plus a better quality of service - to people
> > who choose to access Facebook over Tor; the point is to free the
> > communications path from mediation of any form. To see this as a threat,
> or
> > to argue that "well maybe $THIS_SITE is okay, but $THAT_SITE should not
> be
> > afforded such protection" - is to call for censorship.
> And yet Facebook itself actively engages in censorship, and cooperates
> with law enforcement when legally required to do so.


It is a platform, and a corporation, and is bound by the laws of various
countries and geographies.

Should that privilege its access to good security and communications
technologies, above that of (say) an individual?


tor-talk mailing list - tor-talk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe or change other settings go to