Re: Child pornography blocking again

[Scott Bennett <bennett@xxxxxxxxxx>]

     On Thu, 24 Jan 2008 22:11:48 -0500 Kraktus <kraktus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
>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.

     Are the electric utility companies required to block delivery of
electric power to sites blacklisted for child pornography?  How about
telephone companies?  City water and sewer services?  Of course not.
>
>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.
>
     Then why have you floated this non-starter again?  The first time
you brought it up on this list, the technical and ethical problems with
it were pointed out to you at great length.  You were also directed to
the use of "ExitPolicy reject" to deny exit service to sites you don't
like.  It was also pointed out that you are not obligated in any way
to provide exit service at all or even to run tor in server mode.
     The issue is long dead and should not have been reintroduced onto
this list.  By doing so, you have wasted the time of many people, not
to mention the bandwidth involved.  Please cease and desist.  Do not
bring it up here again.  Be advised that trolls are no more welcome on
OR-TALK than in any other forum.  If you have relevant, useful things
to discuss here, please bring them on, but stop wasting our time with
irrelevant things that have already been dealt with and laid to rest.


                                  Scott Bennett, Comm. ASMELG, CFIAG
**********************************************************************
* Internet:       bennett at cs.niu.edu                              *
*--------------------------------------------------------------------*
* "A well regulated and disciplined militia, is at all times a good  *
* objection to the introduction of that bane of all free governments *
* -- a standing army."                                               *
*    -- Gov. John Hancock, New York Journal, 28 January 1790         *
**********************************************************************