[reformatted, snipped, and top-posting fixed.] On 15 May 2006 23:59, Nick Mathewson wrote: > > 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. On Mon, May 15, 2006 at 11:59:37PM +0100, Tony wrote: > Please define 'evil activities' Murder, child abuse, top-posting, and posting one-line replies to long messages without snipping irrelevant portions. ;) No, seriously, I can't do any better than your dictionary or your favorite ethicist. That's the point I was trying to make. Right and wrong are not things that a single person or groups can decide for the rest of the world, and they're certainly not something that software can detect. That doesn't mean that there's no such thing as right and wrong; it means that you shouldn't enforce moral judgments at the network layer. Sorry if I wasn't clear, or if it seemed like I was advocating censorship. And we have now drifted completely away from Tor. For penance, I resolve that my next posts will be technical or project-related. If I ignore future political stuff, that's why. :) yrs, -- Nick Mathewson
Attachment:
pgpv3akqYhNtT.pgp
Description: PGP signature