Arjan wrote: > > Jim McClanahan wrote: > [...] > > Certainly, protecting > > the network is a priority. Protecting "uninformed or unsuspecting" > > users gets trickier IMHO. I'll admit this is a bit of a hot-button > > issue for me and I may have overreacted. But I think care needs to be > > taken before cavalierly shutting something down to protect uninformed or > > unsuspecting users. I agree with Ringo <[email protected]> when he > > wrote (at Tue, 30 Jun 2009 00:06:01 -0400) "Remotely disabling Tor nodes > > is a slippery slope." > > In my humble opinion, protecting uninformed or unsuspecting users / > relay operators should be a priority.
The discussion was about Tor *clients* not Tor *servers*. I have repeatedly stated I didn't have problems with disabling the servers if that was needed to protect the network. And while I didn't specifically mention "client" in what was quoted above, I did reiterate that protecting the network was important.
