Re: IDS bells ringing

[patgus <patgus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

 Oh, I agree, but we should also do all we reasonably can to prevent this sort of abuse short of restricting the rights of persons to use it.
 For instance, a solution similar to hogwash http://hogwash.sourceforge.net (which is unfortunately 3 years out of date, no I can't code it) integrated into or available as a plugin for tor.
 At least then we could say that we were doing as much as is possible to prevent this and probably as much as any business in the industry.
 lol, most risks in the computer industry need to be litigated, not mitigated. 'Tis a bit of a situation though, how do you hold Microsoft responsible without crushing Debian?
 Suppose I could be overreacting a bit, dunno, oh yeah, you all are the EFF guys :) 
 
On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 17:58:36 -0800
Chris Palmer <chris@xxxxxxx> wrote:

> patgus wrote:
> 
> > You are missing my point. Please reread the second paragraph.
> 
> Which, for reference, is:
> 
> > You all have got to do something about this, as this would be a prime
> > argument AGAINST this kind of software. If our isps are shutting us 
> > all down there will not be too many servers online.
> 
> I think everyone understands your (not invalid) point. It's just that we 
> accept all kinds of risks every day, and we deal with them. By using 
> computers (and cars, and buildings, and ...) we open ourselves up to 
> risks, but we continue to use them because the benefit they provide is 
> greater than the risks. And the risks can be mitigated.
> 
> It's the same for Tor. Tor is more beneficial than it is risky, plain 
> and simple.
> 
> To demonstrate the point, consider that the framers of the US 
> Constitution provided for (and themselves made heavy use of) anonymous 
> speech, even as they explicitly acknowledged the inherent risks. The US 
> Supreme Court (and lower courts) continually reaffirm the right to free 
> speech, even in the face of risks.
> 
>