[Author Prev][Author Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Thread Index]
Re: Child pornography blocking again
- To: or-talk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: Child pornography blocking again
- From: Kraktus <kraktus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 08:06:47 -0500
- Delivered-to: archiver@xxxxxxxx
- Delivered-to: or-talk-outgoing@xxxxxxxx
- Delivered-to: or-talk@xxxxxxxx
- Delivery-date: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 08:06:59 -0500
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; bh=uIxgHDuSZQIi5xQXxxHxOUyz7KbxaKhAN2Ae+zFhqhg=; b=CxCEFjFDBsdP8e8tC11M5XV3PutrB41coBbfj+iUD4ZXZ+1Ct/Oh7RFYqKvtlQTsy9ClaeTXe3XMwS4mZRh5G9GCowHZQ2bs6WZJch9njM3kLbjMohTQb9dQHNWwF4GVwScwP83dpGCJxcp2Ymoz0Ax/w98VOXu0zE3y129Anrg=
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=JV8LHRh/DuPDmBs4Agn/gmVQsoPt+nzvPfclKOc2ZpY6AxaQfM2AxH5Ed+UpVgybRQM9bdJ6Z2ZGIalZ2zAoPis6Lr60A6D/RcREIsn7NwRnFYAIFuI1+GAie2VZRrhznS6NuiNe4rbI3hdWCaa6vyhWwzkQe227zQAiEZsdo34=
- In-reply-to: <4798895D.5080004@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- References: <620d63820801240438o369f5fddkc0596f5fef24ece3@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <4798895D.5080004@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Reply-to: or-talk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Sender: owner-or-talk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
On 24/01/2008, Ben Wilhelm <zorba-tor@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Kraktus wrote:
>> I realise, of course, there are problems with this.
> * Use of effort that could be spent other places
True. Then again, we occasionally get people saying they won't run
exit servers if there isn't an easy way for the to block child porn -
this would provide such a way.
> * Possible legal liability issues
I'm not a lawyer, sorry, so I don't know what the correct response is.
> * Cries of "you're blocking child porn, why not also block warez/hate speech/freenet/political propoganda that I don't like"
Warez is bad, but it hurts people's wallets, not innocent children, so
it's more of an economic crime than a crime against humanity. In
other words, blocking child porn is more worth the effort.
Hate speech is everywhere. Just look at most any user-contributed
website. Unless you want to block entire user-contributed websites
just because a few members engaged in hate speech, blocking hate
speech is infeasible.
Blocking political propaganda is, of course, highly controversial.
Some exit node operators, e.g. those in China, might want to do this,
but most wouldn't. Such people can make their own blacklists, or just
do reject *:*
> * Every single problem that comes along with trying to maintain a blacklist, including malicious submissions, manpower, filtering
Well, there are professionals who do this sort of thing.
> And, the biggest problems to my mind:
> * If the blacklist is stored on some central server, creating a very
> nice system where people must report what they're browsing to a central
Well, no, they just get the list the same time they get the Tor
> * If the blacklist is stored in a downloadable form of any kind, effectively
> making a *list of child pornography sites*
> The second might be avoidable through some clever hashing, but that
> simultaneously eliminates any sort of accountability or auditability,
> and as much as I like the Tor guys I don't want them to be able to knock
> entire sites off the Tor network.
I have no solution to this.
> (I'm also kind of entertained at the idea of a privacy group saying,
> effectively, "okay now that our behavior is no longer trackable please
> send us all the kiddieporn sites you know of thanks in advance".)