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

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

On 30 August 2017 at 14:45, Jon Tullett <jon.tullett@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Hi Jon - in certain respects we have now hit the nub of the issue, repeated
twice / in two similar ways:

Version 1:

Ethical stuff gets murky awful fast, and is so full of
> strawmen. You're opposed to censorship? You must be pro-terrorism.
> Burn the witch!

Version 2:

> Should [being a corporation] privilege [a corporation's] access to good
> security and communications technologies, above that of (say) an individual?
> Well, that's an interesting discussion. I'm actually not sure how I'd
> answer it

Yep. Very murky.  I've already sedimented my position on this a few years
ago - my Twitter bio and other bylines have read "Everybody Deserves Good
Security" for maybe a decade - but I'll be interested to see what you come
up with.


> [...]That's what Krawetz is
> bringing up by pointing out what he sees as Tor's denunciation of one
> type of content where it has scrupulously avoided that in the past.

Yep; this is something I ascribe to the Tor Project acting to
counterbalance a prior few years of being mute on such topics.  As context
to the bigger debate of "the ethics of technology", I tend to ignore it as
window-dressing, in as much as I don't see IANA or IETF or W3C trotting out
denunciations of $GROUP for their $BAD_USE of DNS, TCP/IP or HTTP/S.

The "mea culpas" in that space have stopped with the various service
providers (Google, Cloudflare) rather than the technology providers.  Tor
in a sense has the rare distinction of being both.  Meh.

    - alec

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