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

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

> On 2/25/2016 5:13:34 PM, Zenaan Harkness (zen@xxxxxxxxxxxx) wrote:
> > 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.
I still don't get it. If one believes in something, why not publish it
non-anonymously? Most of the examples given for anonymous publication
speak of small percentages of crazies. The Cryptopolitik article doesn't
show a small percentage of illicit hidden services. Of the 2,723 hidden
cervices that unambiguously met the taxa used, ~57% were illicit.
Analogies to crazies on the roads, etc., take on a different complexion
with such numbers. Gun violence in this country is pretty bad, but 57%?

It's easy to be a libertarian or anarchist at home. These perspectives
have contributed a lot to society; at the same time there's good reason
why they don't work as sole governing principles. For even
self-governance to work, liberty has to entertain constraints. The
Cryptopolitik study & article attempts to set the groundwork for a
non-bureaucratic, non-centralized but purely architectural way this
might be done.

That some people might have a non-criminal reason to host anonymous
sites is a valid concern. But, if "anonymous publication" isn't an
oxymoron, those folks will surely find ways to do it.

Maybe tor-talk isn't the place to talk about these issues. Thanks for
the opposite viewpoints. I'll shut up now, but will be interested to
follow any dialogue that ensues by folks who have waded thru the whole
article. - eliaz

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