[Author Prev][Author Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Thread Index]
Re: [tor-talk] blocked exit node IP because of spam
On Sun, Jul 1, 2012 at 11:48 PM, grarpamp <grarpamp@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Do NOT penalize those who need multiple random unlinked accounts
> by blocking ip's, making up nym systems, etc. Penalize the accounts
> that act up. They are the bad ones, not the former.
It's this kind of thinking that will result in the web continuing to be largely
read-only for Tor users.
People running services that block Tor aren't blocking Tor because they
Hate Freedomâ, or because they can't help but staying up at night
trying to come up with ways of screwing people over.
Blocking tor isn't trivial, especially to do it well... and many of
the people who have been involved with blocking tor at major
sites are themselves Tor supporters and bridge/relay operators and
only block tor when it is clear that they must.
They block write access from Tor because when an abusive user
is blocked their inevitable recourse to evade the block is Tor (if
not their first choice). After the umpteenth occurrence of
whatever antisocial jerkwad assaulting the site via tor it simply
has to go.
Arguing that a problem doesn't exist is unconvincing to people
who are dealing with it, arguing that blocking tor is ineffective
or involves unacceptable tradeoffs is unpersuasive to people
who have made the changes and measured the results.
One of the great forces which makes online communities
viable and not all trivially destroyed by a few byzantine
troublemakers is that the cost of excluding people is low,
but when tor makes the cost of evading the exclusion
nearly zeroâ the balance is upset.
Even captchas are a pretty weak tool: Commercial services
will solve them for pennies each, and targeted trouble
makers aren't deterred by them at all.
Perhaps most importantly, â this has been the ongoing
approach used by the Tor community and it is demonstratively
ineffective: Write access via tor is frequently inhibited.
And yes, sure, there are cases where nym use doesn't
solve things. But there are a great many where it does.
> I would actually donate much more to Tor/EFF project if I could
> earmark it for a formal emissary to talk with some of the sites
> I've seen implementing bad policy. And hopefully report back to me
> with the positive results ...
The Tor project absolutely has done this in the past.
Though as far as I can tell it has not hat much success except in
areas where the Tor prohibitions are sloppy (blocking read access,
blocking relays instead of just the relevant exits).
> Exactly! And when I can't use these sites in perfectly good,
> responsible, creative and nice ways... because they have implemented
> crap blocking policies... it pisses me the fuck off.
> Anonymous != evil.
> That is what we need to be teaching.
You're making a grave error to characterize the people who've
made different calls than you have as foolish or insensitive.
I'm sure it's true in some cases, but even the well informed
frequently make the dispassionate, considered, and
rational decision to block write access from Tor.
tor-talk mailing list