> If tor can't be designed in a way that strongly > discourages or prevents people from using it for evil, it shouldn't exist. >
In democratic societies, the freedoms that exist are tools without regard to their use. Freedom of speech, as well as all other liberties, can be exercised for good or evil. These tools enrich a democratic society by adding tools to the toolbox, and help bring democracy where there is none, anti-censorship technology in particular. What you propose is analogous to "if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all;" which is merely another form of censorship. ie, Someone said something mean to me when I was a child, so I don't think we should allow people to speak unless it isn't hurtful. Let us step back. Say we blocked "child porn"... What constitutes child pornography? How young is a child? A minor? By what standard of what country or culture? Yours? Greek? Russian? American? French? German? Is it pornographic because you derive sexual pleasure from viewing it, and thus we should ban all photos of children because you could look at a gymnastics or bathing photo and receive gratification? Is it art, or erotica, or is it pornography? Is it a "child" expressing themselves who took a photo, and thus we are censoring their speech? Who is going to define these standards, and how will they be implemented? All of these are hairy questions, and simply not what Tor does or is designed to do. Tor is a freedom-enabling technology, not a censorship technology. There are far too few of the former, and a deluge of the latter. The bottom line is that freedom is inherently exciting, and can be used for good or evil; but once you try to limit it to being used for "good", it ceases to be freedom. Regards, Steve Topletz http://xerobank.com P.S. If you believe that something shouldn't be designed that it prevents/discourages people from using it for evil, I hope you don't have any forks or knives in your home.
