[Author Prev][Author Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Thread Index]

Re: Re: Safe destinations

> I would not like _one_ list as it could be single point of failure. E.g. someone could be
> threatened or required by a court to remove a site from the white-list.

I agree that having a central list is highly problematic, because several sites will request
to take them off that list. But I also think that the Tor network will benefit from such a
list in the long term by having more exit nodes that at least allow many po****r sites.
It might even stimulate people to try out running an exit node and turn it into a less restricted node later on.

> When there is a new development in e.g., Iran and new free-speech blogs appearing every
> day, these blogs should be accessible though TOR from day one.

Sure, and they of course still should be. I don't think the number of "open" exits will drop,
and in theory there's more available bandwidth because other exit nodes take all the
"heavy" traffic (search engines and the like).

> > Some exit operators would likely switch to safe-mode, reducing the
> > total amount of universal-exit capacity but if the safe list included
> > enough high traffic sites it would probably more than offset the loss
> > and arguably anyone who switched was likely to quit in any case.

I must say that I like the idea behind this.


www.posta.ro - Romanias first free webmail since 1998!

 - powered by www.posta.ro