[tor-talk] "the bad Tor like CP or drugs"
> Of course, I hope its only on the bad Tor like CP or drugs I must say that I am uncomfortable with the sweeping, unqualified, blanket condemnation that is "the bad Tor like CP or drugs". (And I would be rather surprised if I were to be the only here who feels this way.) Let me be clear: I would not dispute the characterization of at least much and likely even most of what would fall under your categorization as vile, repugnant, reprehensible and reprobate. I think that anyone with the most minimal level of conscience and decency would have to agree with that much. I am afraid, however, that the matter is not as simple and black and white as your statement would imply. Perhaps I would best first point-out that laws vary, sometimes wildly, by jurisdiction. A given substance or activity can be legal in one jurisdiction while being illegal in another. Moreover, and perhaps more fundamental and germane here, is the question of whether morality, ethics, reason and societal good always align with the Law and the ways in which it may be enforced. I would argue that in /many/, perhaps even /most/ cases, the aforementioned values do, to varying degrees, align with the Law. But certainly not in all /cases/. In the case of drugs, perhaps it will suffice for now to cite the following. Last I heard, there were people suffering miserably, in many cases from /terminal/ conditions, who insist that the only drug that brings them any real relief is one that (at least in their jurisdiction) either (a) does not enjoy the blessings of the Law at all or (b) has restrictions that legally prevent said sufferer from obtaining the dose that is necessary to bring him relief (or at least sufficient, consistent, sustained relief). (In the case of a /terminal/ patient experiencing excruciating pain, does it make sense for concern over addiction to be a priority?) While I am not able to cite any actual data here, I would suspect that such cases account for at least some percentage of the commerce in illicit drugs that is carried-out under the cover of Tor. As for "CP" (i.e., "Child Pornography"), it is with trepidation that I even step into what is understandably such a fraught topic. But it cannot be avoided. For I am convinced that the hysteria that surrounds and informs this area not only results in any number of instances of injustice but also, in many cases at least, does nothing and sometimes /worse-than-nothing/ to actually protect vulnerable children and adolescents. Perhaps the first thing to be pointed-out here is just how /extremely/ broad and often patently subjective, arbitrary and capricious the category known as "CP" is. In many cases, an image that was /produced/ legally can be deemed illegal to /possess/, /distribute/ or /publish/ based on what amounts-to the criminalization of mere /thought/. Take the example of a photo of a child modeling a swimsuit or even /any/ article of clothing. If done for the purpose of advertising the item being modeled, such an image could be perfectly legal to produce. And, if also done for the same advertising purpose, perfectly legal to publish as well. But the very same image-- one that was produced legally-- if published or even merely /possessed/ in a context in which it could be argued that the purpose was its usage "for sexual gratification", could be legally actionable. This, even in the absence of any credible evidence that the possessor, publisher or distributor (a) ever /acted-upon/ such /feelings/ with any actual child or adolescent or (b) presents any threat of doing so. Basically, one can be prosecuted and jailed merely for the charge of having committed the victimless "crime" of deriving "sexual gratification" from the mere /viewing/ of an /image/, an /inanimate object/. Likewise, with regard to non-sexual child or adolescent nudity. In both cases, a determination and judgment of an individual's mere /thoughts/ can determine whether or not he will be prosecuted for the mere possession, publication or distribution of an image that was /produced legally/ by a completely unrelated third-party. (And obviously, I am not talking here about any mere question of copyright violation.) Then there is the case of DRAWN, cartoon-style images of what are clearly FICTIONAL characters. These (and in some cases, at least, even mere WRITTEN works of what is clearly complete FICTION and FANTASY), in many jurisdictions, fall, to varying degrees, under the legal rubric of "CP". (Including in many nations that pride themselves on being secular, liberal democracies.) Regarding any of the types of material or usages of said material that I have cited above, remember that the question here is not what you, or I or anyone else may think of them, per se*. Rather, the questions are (a) whether said materials and usages of said materials should be /criminalized/ in the way that they presently are in many jurisdictions, and, (b) whether the use of a technology such as Tor to circumvent
Re: [tor-talk] Tor E-mail gateway - how to transfer messages from the Tor Network ?
> On 07/24/2017 11:07 PM, Random User wrote: > > My impression was that all of the major free email providers required a > > valid phone number in order to sign-up. I would find it quite > > interesting if Yandex does not. On Tue, Jul 25, 2017, at 07:35 PM, Mirimir wrote: > Neither VFEmail.net nor Cock.li require phone numbers. Thanks, I appreciate that info. and I'm sure that it can be useful to others as well. I think you would agree, though, that as much as those two email providers may have to offer in their own right, neither could be considered "major". One consideration, I believe, with lesser-known email providers is that mail sent from them and/or mail from addresses with their domain are more likely than mail sent from one of the "Big Guys" to get caught in spam filters. As always, a trade-off. -- tor-talk mailing list - tor-talk@lists.torproject.org To unsubscribe or change other settings go to https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk
Re: [tor-talk] Tor E-mail gateway - how to transfer messages from the Tor Network ?
On Sat, Jul 22, 2017, at 06:03 PM, Katya Titov wrote: > Yandex has a light version that works without JS. The others require it. Thanks. Come to think of it, what about a valid phone number? Did you have to provide one? My impression was that all of the major free email providers required a valid phone number in order to sign-up. I would find it quite interesting if Yandex does not. > You now owe me 5 minutes of internet. I appreciate it but you certainly didn't have to. -- tor-talk mailing list - tor-talk@lists.torproject.org To unsubscribe or change other settings go to https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk
Re: [tor-talk] Tor E-mail gateway - how to transfer messages from the Tor Network ?
On Sat, Jul 15, 2017, at 06:07 PM, Katya Titov wrote: > Yandex, GMX and ProtonMail all work well. Would you know if any of those are functional without JavaScript? -- tor-talk mailing list - tor-talk@lists.torproject.org To unsubscribe or change other settings go to https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk
[tor-talk] Tor Browser 6.0.5 Released Early
Hi, Late last week ( no later than 17 September) my Tor Browser updated itself (after prompting me) to 6.0.5. Yet, the changelog ( /tor-browser_en-US/Browser/TorBrowser/Docs/ChangeLog.txt ) gives the release date as September 20th (future date). Likewise, a September 12th email sent to the Tails-dev list with the subject, "New release schedule for Tails 2.6", begins, > So Mozilla has decided to delay the upcoming Firefox release until > 2016-09-20, so the upcoming Tor Browser (6.0.5) is delayed as much, and > hence Tails should follow suit. I'm just wondering what accounts for TB 6.0.5 being released at least several days ahead of the date announced (20 Sept.) -- tor-talk mailing list - tor-talk@lists.torproject.org To unsubscribe or change other settings go to https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk
Re: [tor-talk] getting Tor to be default browser
> > On 16-09-04 14:50:23, Dave Warren wrote: > > > I also feel that adding legitimate traffic to Tor is a net positive to > > > the network (since capacity is not currently an issue), if only to > > > prevent the perception that all of Tor is evil bad people doing evil bad > > > things. > On Sun, Sep 4, 2016, at 23:51, No Spam wrote: > > Yes but the biggest Problem are Malicious Gateways that may try to > > steal Credentials or put Malware in you[r] Downloads On Mon, Sep 5, 2016, at 11:45 PM, Dave Warren wrote: > This is why god invented HTTPS and HTTPS Everywhere. Unfortunately, the number of sites that offer HTTPS for content other than financial transactions and the like is, while growing, still relatively small. (And, obviously, when it comes to sites that maintain a .onion mirror, the number is tiny.) What is your basis for saying that HS .onion sites are "likely harder to attack" than "public HTTPS" sites? And, concerning your assertion that, "staying within the tor network has benefits.", can you name some of these benefits? -- tor-talk mailing list - tor-talk@lists.torproject.org To unsubscribe or change other settings go to https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk
Re: [tor-talk] proxy servers compatible with tor and proxychains
On Fri, Aug 19, 2016, at 05:23 AM, grarpamp wrote: > > Proxy lists often contain ones no longer, or never were, working. > You'll just have to search for lists and scan through them. > And with the flux in proxies, each hop in your chain adds more > chance of a broken path. Keep in mind that free is hardly ever free... > it's either an adversary, cracked or used unbeknownst. Nor have heard > of free+tor friendly. Might be better served to pay a cheap vpn with btc. > If one's purpose is to be an ass, remember other users have higher needs. Could you elaborate on that last sentence. It is not clear to me what you meant. Thanks. -- tor-talk mailing list - tor-talk@lists.torproject.org To unsubscribe or change other settings go to https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk
[tor-talk] "Your Firefox is out of date"
Hi, When opening Tor Browser 6.0.3 (GNU/Linux) just now, I was alarmed to get the following message: "Your Firefox is out of date. Please download a fresh copy.", along with a button labeled, "Get Firefox". I did not click the button and will wait before doing anything to hear from others about this. I have been using Tor Browser for years now and do not recall ever getting such a message before. It is clearly different from the normal update messages. -- tor-talk mailing list - tor-talk@lists.torproject.org To unsubscribe or change other settings go to https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk
