Re: Blocking child pornography exits

[Scott Bennett <bennett@xxxxxxxxxx>]

     On Sat, 21 Jul 2007 04:49:17 -0400 "Ron Wireman" <ronwireman@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

>On 21/07/07, Scott Bennett <bennett@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>>      On Sat, 21 Jul 2007 03:26:22 -0400 "Ron Wireman" <
>> ronwireman@xxxxxxxxx>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >I'm not sure what you mean.  While it is not the intent of the EFF,
>>
>>      Well, because you top-posted, rather than inserting your comments
>> into the message to which you responded, it's not clear to me which part
>> of that message you didn't understand.
>>
>> >tor is frequently used for all sorts of nefarious and perverted
>> >purposes relating to child pornography.  The EFF takes measures to
>>
>>      I'm curious to know how you have determined that to be the case.
>
>
> It seems rather self evident to me.

     Well, it isn't, unless perhaps you've been using tor yourself to view
such web sites.  You would need to have process logs from a large enough
number of exit servers (or their ISPs) in order to find out the addresses
of sites accessed via tor.  Then you would have to look at those sites
yourself in order to find out what was on them.  I'll grant that you could
do reverse DNS lookups to eliminate places (e.g., NY Times web site) that
obviously aren't what you're looking for.  If you had ISP logs, then the
full HTTP requests would be there, which would save you some time and would
show exactly which pages had been fetched from each site.
     But unless you already had a list of the kind of sites you're worried
about, you could spend hundreds of person-years checking out all those web
sites.
>
>>block spam, which is less of a problem than child abuse, so it should
>>
>>      Please give an example of how either EFF as an organization or the
>> tor software project blocks either spam, a form of pollution of USENET
>> newsgroups, or massmail, which is what you most likely meant.
>
>
>By default, tor blocks exits to port 25.

     Not AFAIK.  It blocks exits for whatever ports you tell it to block exits
for.  The sample torrc that comes with the package has several example lines
that you can uncomment or that you can simply use as examples for syntax when
writing your own ExitPolicy statements.  One of those may be an "ExitPolicy
reject *:25", but it starts out, IIRC, having only an "ExitPolicy reject *:*"
statement uncommented for those who want to dabble in running a middleman-only
server.
>
>AFAIK,
>> neither EFF as an organization nor its tor project do anything of the
>> sort.  The closest thing I can think of that the tor project does is to
>> redistribute someone else's package (i.e., privoxy) as part of a self-
>> installing software bundle that includes tor, privoxy, and TorButton
>> for MS Windows systems.  But that's just a courtesy convenience for
>> Windows users, the vast majority of whom are not particularly savvy
>> about installing or maintaining networking software packages.  privoxy
>> is not produced by the tor project.
>>
>> >also take measures to block child pornography.
>>
>>      Again, you're are suggesting that an anonymizing software project
>> take
>> on a several-hundred-million-dollar-per-year morality (or law, depending
>> upon
>> what country you live in) enforcement project.
>
>
>It's not about morality; it's about protecting children.  I didn't ask
>anyone to create any sort of anonymizing network, but since the tor group
>did, it's incumbent upon them to make sure it's used properly and that
>includes insuring it isn't used to harm children in the U.S. or elsewhere.

     On the contrary, it's like anything else:  take personal responsibility
for your own actions.  Don't look at child pornography web sites.  If
you are concerned about exits from your tor server, then establish an
appropriate exit policy.  If that means you decide to "reject *:*" (i.e.,
not run an exit server, then so be it.  I don't know why you have thus far
failed to set up an exit policy that you consider to be appropriate.

>Otherwise, all they've done is unleash a paedophilic monster in a Chuck E.
>Cheese restoraunt.

     How so?  Does Chuck E. Cheese provide free Internet access?  I'm sorry,
but you've lost me here.  I don't see how viewing web sites through tor
turns criminals loose in restaurants.
>
>     Look.  You have the tool to set your own exit policy in the ExitPolicy
>> statement(s) in the torrc file.  If you think that's too much work, then
>> don't
>> run an exit server.  Your exit policy is your responsibility.  Don't
>> expect
>> others to figure out what sort of policy you want and then to expend
>> enormous
>> amounts of resources to implement it for you.
>> >
>> >On 7/21/07, Scott Bennett <bennett@xxxxxxxxxx > wrote:
>> >>      On Sat, 21 Jul 2007 03:03:40 -0400 "Ron Wireman" <
>> ronwireman@xxxxxxxxx>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >Why doesn't the EFF implement an option like 'no_exit_cp="YES"' for
>> >> >server configurations that would allow people to block child
>> >> >pornography?  I wish to run a tor exit node but, having been molested
>> >>
>> >>      Surely you jest!  It is not a function of the tor project to
>> >> periodically
>> >> search and evaluate the entire worldwide web to maintain a data base of
>> >> sites
>> >> that do not meet your requirements.  If there are sites for which you
>> wish
>> >> to
>> >> deny exit service, then you are welcome to put them into your
>> ExitPolicy
>> >> statements in your torrc file yourself.  That's why the ExitPolicy
>> statement
>> >> exists, i.e., so that you can establish your own exit policy.
>> >>
>> >> >as a child, will not do so until such a feature exists.
>> >>
>> >>      Laziness?
>> >> >
>> >> >Thanks.
>> >> >
>> >>      No hay de que. :-)
>> >>
>>      And, seriously, please don't top-post.  It makes the thread difficult
>> to follow.

     Looking back through the above, I see four times that the use of
the ExitPolicy statement has been pointed out to you.  You appear to
have ignored it and are still demanding that someone else do it for
you.  I've had enough, so no more replies from me on the matter.

                                  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         *
**********************************************************************