On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 11:08:34AM -0500, Jon Gardner wrote: > Then why have exit policies? Exit nodes regularly block "unwelcome" traffic > like bittorrent, and there's only a slight functional difference between that > and using a filter in front of the node to block things like porn There's a considerable functional difference: an exit policy is a defined list of specific hosts and ports to accept/reject, and it's advertised in the exit's descriptor. Your client can just pick a different exit node if the connection it wants to make is not permitted by a given exit's policy. A "porn filter" is inherently fuzzy and unpredictable, so couldn't be implemented without breaking clients trying to use that node. Filtering traffic other than as declared by your exit policy should and will get your exit the BadExit flag. > (which, come to think of it, also tends to be a bandwidth hog like > bittorrent--so it doesn't have to be just a moral question). If someone has > a problem with exit nodes blocking things like porn (or bittorrent, or...), > then they probably should not be using Tor. LOL > The very idea of Tor is based on moral convictions (e.g., that personal > privacy is a good thing, that human rights violations and abuse of power are > bad things, etc.). So Tor is most definitely not neutral, nor can it be-- > because, if it is to exist and flourish, those moral convictions must remain > at its foundation. One cannot on the one hand claim that human rights > violations are "wrong" while on the other hand claiming that pornography What the epic fucking fuck? You want to censor *porn in general*, even aside from the arbitrary age line? What's wrong with you? > (especially child porn) is "right." If one wants further proof that Tor has a > moral component, one has only to visit http://www.torproject.org, click the > "About Tor" link, and notice the discussion points. Why, yes, some of us are actually consistently against enforcing thoughtcrimes. What a concept! > I doubt that anyone could convince the Tor team to add "...for unfettered > access to pornography..." as a bullet point under "Why we need Tor." I don't write the web site, but I'd be all in favor of it. The Anti-Sex League is as pernicious as the rest of the damn censors. > The Tor devs go to great lengths to try to keep "evil" governments from > using Tor against itself. Why not devote some effort toward keeping "evil" > traffic off of Tor? Because the whole point is to build a censorship-resistant infrastructure that doesn't wire your notions of 'evil' into the network. > Given the fact that "we need more relays" is the common mantra, it seems to > me that if the Tor community could come up with a technical answer to > address at least some of the most egregious abuses of Tor--things like child > porn, or even porn in general, that either have nothing to do with Tor's > foundational mission, or (like child porn) are antithetical to it--the result > would be greater public support for the technology, and a wider deployment > base. If I were going to work on filtering by technical means, it'd be filters to keep neo-Puritans like you out of my life, thanks. -- Andrea Shepard <andrea@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> PGP fingerprint (ECC): BDF5 F867 8A52 4E4A BECF DE79 A4FF BC34 F01D D536 PGP fingerprint (RSA): 3611 95A4 0740 ED1B 7EA5 DF7E 4191 13D9 D0CF BDA5
Attachment:
pgpREvciV6CgL.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ tor-relays mailing list tor-relays@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays