On 10/28/2013 01:30 PM, Simo wrote:
On Mon, 2013-10-28 at 10:02 -0700, Jonathan Wilkes wrote:
----- Original Message -----
From: Simo <s...@ssimo.org>
To: Bill Cox <waywardg...@gmail.com>
Cc: freedombox-discuss@lists.alioth.debian.org
Sent: Monday, October 28, 2013 8:37 AM
Subject: Re: [Freedombox-discuss] Dumb idea: Alternative to Tor that promotes
good behavior
On Sun, 2013-10-27 at 13:26 -0400, Bill Cox wrote:
What do you guys think?
You are a great censor!
Do you run a tor exit-node?
No, I can't and probably wouldn't indeed.
Me neither...
The more important point to take away is that Tor's current design
puts an enormous responsibility on the owner/operator of the
exit-node. I don't agree with Bill's approach either but I'd suspect
that most people would find it very difficult to directly support
basic principles of free speech when watching what tends to get
requested through their own machines.
I do not disagree, yet Bill's proposal is a censor's dream.
My rule is simple, whenever someone says something about "illegal
material" replace it with "dissident material" ... in most cases you
come up with a great censorship tool, assuming it can be made to work in
the first place.
I think the main point I'm getting at is that potential node operators
must do a risk analysis of running the node, and if the risks to them
can be made lower then the kinds of arguments Bill has put forth get
much easier (in a practical sense) to counter.
You're rule is philosophically sound regardless of those risks, so it
doesn't really address the point of why one type of overlay would be
preferable over another. I admire the current exit-node operators
because they are brave enough to take on the risks, but I'd prefer a
design where one doesn't have to be that brave in order to add key
support to the infrastructure.
-Jonathan
_______________________________________________
Freedombox-discuss mailing list
Freedombox-discuss@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/freedombox-discuss
