Re: Child pornography blocking again

[Kraktus <kraktus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 24/01/2008, Paul Henning <vxbinaca@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Child Pornography is not the cancer killing Tor. Nor is it bandwidth
> leeches. The cancer killing Tor are the people who want to make it like
> the rest of the internet. Why even have Tor is we make filters an
> exceptions? Why not just, use the internet. I mean, Tor's anonymity is
> weak anyway, so is the internet. What Kraktus is proposing sounds like
> the regular internet. And I don't go to Tor to use the regular internet.
>
> I go to Tor because I know I have absolute, 100 percent freedom of
> speech. Not like it is here in the US (or Europe for that matter), which
> is "Freedom of Speech*".

My idea of 'freedom of speech' doesn't include the exploitation of
children.  What about the freedom of the child to grow up without
being used for sexual purposes?

> Kraktus: Disable Tor if you don't like the Wild West it was meant to be.

I am perfectly aware that Tor can be used for both good and bad.  And
the good things can be really good.  Like protecting people who's
routing information would otherwise be used by [insert nemesis] to
hurt them.

Do I want to prevent all bad, even if it means also preventing all
good?  No, I don't want paedophiles to ruin it for people using Tor to
protect their personal safety, or a wide variety of other innocent
purposes.

I just want to know if there is a technically feasible way of
minimising one of the most harmful things Tor could potentially be
used for.  I.e., without overloading the Tor network with hundreds of
separate blacklists.  Do I expect it to be foolproof?  No.  Would it
still be up to individual exit node operators if they want to use it?
Yes.

And if it's not technically feasible?  Fine, I like Tor anyway, I
won't stop running an exit node just because of a few perverts, and if
the ISP does not already have it blocked, I guess at least people
using that ISP already have access to it.