[tor-talk] Tor and solidarity against online harassment

[Jonathan Wilkes]

Hi Gregory,Do you stand in solidarity with the Tor devs against online harassment?  A wish to refrain from deflecting a conversation isn't exactly the same thing.

I stand in solidarity with the Tor community against online harassment.  I also wish to point out that I have noticed online harassment of women is particularly ferocious.  It shouldn't be tolerated here or in any free software community.  Thanks for the clear stance in the blog post.

Best,Jonathan


     On Thursday, December 11, 2014 5:29 PM, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell at gmail.com> wrote:
   

 On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 10:07 PM, Roger Dingledine <arma at mit.edu> wrote:
> I'd like to draw your attention to
> https://blog.torproject.org/blog/solidarity-against-online-harassment
> https://twitter.com/torproject/status/543154161236586496
>
> One of our colleagues has been the target of a sustained campaign of
> harassment for the past several months. We have decided to publish this
> statement to publicly declare our support for her, for every member of
> our organization, and for every member of our community who experiences
> this harassment. She is not alone and her experience has catalyzed us to
> action. This statement is a start.
>
> I'd love to get your feedback on this post, and your thoughts on how to
> turn it into something more. This is a bigger struggle than just Tor's
> piece of it.

The intensity of the language such as "Further, we will no longer hold
back out of fear or uncertainty from an opportunity to defend a member
of our community online", immediately caused people in two different
communities I'm a member of to express concern that this was basically
a declaration of war and that the Tor Project and the signing parties
might engage in activities like releasing backdoored software in an
effort to return fire.

I was only able to respond that I didn't think that was the case, but
nothing in the document provides a strong basis to support that... and
also pointing out that these people could always be coerced and so
that risk exists regardless of any statements of intent, and so we
must audit and count on the auditing of others.

A counter argument given was that the auditing by others is not
worthwhile when they are also part of the "war".

Is there a similarly strong statement that the software will never be
intentionally backdoored by the same parties that I can point people
to?  I don't wish to deflect from the serious concern about online
harassment, but it seems this statement can easily be misconstrued
(perhaps maliciously) as a statement of abandoning prior values.
-- 
tor-talk mailing list - tor-talk at lists.torproject.org
To unsubscribe or change other settings go to
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk