[tor-relays] new relays
tor at t-3.net
tor at t-3.net
Mon Sep 2 05:48:59 UTC 2013
I feel like you are SO missing the point.
Making Tor block morally horrible things does not involve telling exit
notes to block traffic to known porn sites.
The porn sites with the boobies that someone might hit on port 80 on
the public internet represent the Catholic Church of porn,
metaphorically-speaking. The truly terrible stuff is hidden to where
you as an exit node operator would never be able to simply block it by
IP address or domain name.
It seems clear that it would require designing into Tor the ability to
inspect the content of its packets in the unencrypted form, plus be
able to be configured to identify and reject files with certain
identifiable signatures. This capability would have to be implemented
in all nodes, in order to detect the reject-files should they come
from the .onion sites.
That kind of capability would damage Tor's anonymity at the technical
level (</understate>).
If someone believes that making a G-rated Tor is a good idea, they
must not be considering the wisdom behind why it was designed the way
it was, with each node not knowing the nature of the data it passes.
The same technical characteristics which protect the investigators and
whistleblowers and "rights of humanity" will also by their nature
protect the boobie-watchers. Think about this, understand this.
It is not about the concept of anonymity and privacy, it's about the
technical requirements necessary to provide it in the face of the
hostile environment we have now.
On Sunday 01/09/2013 at 5:48 pm, Jon Gardner wrote:
>
> On Aug 28, 2013, at 5:09 PM, Roger Dingledine <arma at mit.edu> wrote:
>
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 11:12:01PM +0200, Tor Exit wrote:
>>>
>>> Why is it so bad if a Tor exit operator tries to match the use of
>>> their node with their own moral beliefs?
>>
>> I really would like to support this if I could.
>
> I appreciate your kind and well-reasoned response, Roger.
>
> For those others who, through (unkind, often poorly spelled, and
> logically flawed) mockery and name-calling, hypocritically demanded
> censorship of the very idea that individual liberty necessarily
> involves individual moral responsibility, I have composed a poem.
>
> A few puerile punks would use Tor
> To browse for big boobs, nothing more
> "Rights of humanity"
> Was just false piety
> So bit by bit all the web closed the door.
>
> If you want to use Tor for immoral things, go ahead--it will obviously
> accommodate you--but please stop pretending to speak for those of us
> who run Tor nodes because we actually care about human rights and
> liberty, and aren't just using those nice catch-phrases as a cover for
> licentiousness and mindless self-gratification. You're a large part of
> the reason that Tor is "technology non grata" in so many places, to so
> many people that would otherwise fully support its mission.
>
> Hugs,
> Jon
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> tor-relays mailing list
> tor-relays at lists.torproject.org
> https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.torproject.org/pipermail/tor-relays/attachments/20130902/10468e8c/attachment.html>
More information about the tor-relays
mailing list