Re: Blocking child pornography exits

["Michael_google gmail_Gersten" <keybounce@xxxxxxxxx>]

> > > 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
> > > as a child, will not do so until such a feature exists.
>
> you can't run a completely open anonymous router network without being
> a conduit for child abuse and other evils.
...
> Here is one such list: http://squidguard.shalla.de/shallalist.html

Alright, so how do you define child pornography?
Are you saying that this un-elected, un-appointed group should be
given arbitrary blockage authority over the whole internet, for every
country?

>  For any action, there may be many possible results, and it seems to me
> that if one of the evils is overwhelming, it is artificially hedging the issue
> to say you have no responsibility for it.

You claim that Child Pornography, whatever that is, is an overwhelming
evil. What if there are others? Who defines an overwhelming evil?

So, if you have an action like "We'll have central monitoring of every
internet connection made", and there's one overwhelming evil that
comes out of it, that it is unacceptable to not take responsibility
for it? "We're fighting terrorists, protecting the country".

Tor is, among other things, fighting back against that.
Are you really saying that you want to put a different
agency/group/goal in charge of doing the same thing? "You can't talk
to them -- they're [ ] Terrorists [ ] Child Pornographers [ ] Evil
skinheads [ ] Enemies of the state [ ] Trouble makers [ ] Out to
overthrow the oppressive natural government inherited from God, Lord
protect us all" (check one).

The game is "Selectively block who you can talk to."
Strange game. The only winning move is not to play