On Mon, May 15, 2006 at 03:36:59PM -0700, Ben Wilhelm wrote: [...] > The line is drawn. The line is that Tor does not censor. That's the only > line that makes sense, because everything else requires subjective > judgement that many would not be able to agree on. I typically argue this from the "can't" point of view, not the "won't". If it were possible detect block evil activities through programmatic means, I *would* be in favor of blocking them. Unfortunately, evil-detection isn't automatable (RFC3514 notwithstanding), and most schemes for blocking are both over-broad _and_ easy to circumvent. Non-automated schemes, as you say, fall for different reasons: you can't make one without putting human judgment in the loop, and once you've done that, you've appointed somebody as a censor, and you've created a mechanism for someone else to take the reigns of censorship in the future. Also, there's the jurisdictional arbitrage problem: which local standards does your hypothetical censor try to comply with? China's? France's? > If you don't want your internet connection to be used anonymously, for > *anything*, then don't run a Tor exit node. Rather, if you're not willing to accept that people may use your Internet connection to do stuff you don't like, don't run an exit node. You don't have to like everything that people do. I don't *want* people to use my software for any number of things, but I believe that the benefits it provides do outweigh the problems. > It's impossible to block > subjects on a case-by-case basis anyway - the exact thing Tor was built > to prove! - and I'd rather not waste our coders' time on that. Hm? I don't think Tor was built to prove anything; I think it was built to further usable online privacy for everyone. :) As for wasting the coders' time, don't worry. We have a long history of ignoring bad ideas. <wink> yrs, -- Nick Mathewson
Attachment:
pgpWpLDuSykXY.pgp
Description: PGP signature