Re: [tor-talk] Fwd: Cryptopolitik and the Darknet

[Zenaan Harkness <zen@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 2/25/16, eliaz <eliaz@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Elaboration: I said in my previous post that I never quite believed that
> "there are more good than bad people."  I think it's more to the point
> of upgrading tor architecture to say that I don't feel comfortable
> relying on "there are more good than bad people" as a justification for
> the Tor Project's laudable aims. Regardless of numbers there *are*
> people who will misuse tor, and the article gives good evidence that
> those people are the ones who employ anonymous content platforms. - eliaz

There is a principle: to give up anonymous publishing for the ~2% of
bad actors, you will give up that right for the rest of us as well.

Same goes for other rights, not just anonymity.

By allowing people to drive on public roads, we accept that
occasionally some nutcase will also drive on the roads, run down a
pedestrian or cop and or cause a lot of damage to property. It's part
of the bargain.

Then some people will suggest "time for full time GPS tracking of all
vehicles, you know, to stop the crazies", thereby giving up our right
to anonymous travel.

Once again, you will not stop the crazies, and you give up a basic
right, something fundamental to being human, to being in society/
community.

There's probably a fancy logical name for this "bad bargain" that
"well meaning" humans seem to always want to make. Somehow they are
wired differently to me and many others on this list. You see I always
ask another question immediately to the thought or suggestion to "give
up a liberty" (e.g. anonymous publishing, private phone calls,
anonymous travel, pseudonymous travel, freedom of thought, etc), and
that question I always ask is "do we lessen our humanity by treating
ourselves as children, with cotton wool gloves?"

Guns, knives, cars and communication are topical examples these days.

I find it mind bending, but some folks actually think mandatory
registration, rego plates and licensing, is a great idea for bicycles
- you see, some folks on bikes have run into pedestrians, ride fast on
footpaths, and if they're being chased on foot by police they can get
away, not to mention how dangerous they are to the rider, there's just
so many problems with bicycles we could probably raise a good argument
to ban them completely - perhaps a govt buy back scheme and a govt
financial compensation scheme for stationary exercise bikes to
compensate for the health problems which would statistically arise due
to the reduction in exercise of the population when bicycles are
banned.

These are serious problems. We must not be flippant about the dark
dangers of cyclists traveling anonymously and dangerously, not to
mention their rogue machinery!
-- 
tor-talk mailing list - tor-talk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe or change other settings go to
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk