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

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

On 02/25/2016 09:37 PM, eliaz wrote:
>> 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.
> [snip]
> I still don't get it. If one believes in something, why not publish it
> non-anonymously?

Because maybe you'll be taken out and shot? End up an organ donor?
Stoned to death? And so on.

Also, some of us consider the global Drug War to be very much like the
Chinese war on Falun Gong. Or it's persecution of activists demanding
independence of Tibet etc. And then there's the global corporate
hijacking of the public domain.

> 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.

Well, George Washington was a terrorist, no? So what the bloody fuck
does "illicit" mean? I consider just about every government, and the
corporations that own them, to be illicit. We're all free to make
whatever calls we like, act accordingly, and get what we get.

> 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%?

Forget gun violence, and crazies on the road. The US imprisons a greater
percentage of its population than most other nations. China even. Even
Stalin at his worst. So who are the criminals now? Or, as MDC said, "Who
are the terrorists now?" (about Iran-Contra).


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