On 04/29/2013 11:38 PM, Joe Btfsplk wrote: > On 4/29/2013 4:18 PM, mirimir wrote: >> On 04/29/2013 08:29 PM, Chris Patti wrote: >> >>> OK, you're right. That's a bad idea - what about clearly labeling >>> the pedo >>> sites as pedo sites? >> Maybe Tor-optimized-Firefox needs a default "safe browsing" plugin. >> >> Also, maybe at least some pedo, etc .onion sites would voluntarily label >> themselves. Except for the trolls, I can't imagine why sites would want >> attention from those who despise them. >> > I'm not quite sure for whom the protection from undesirable sites is > mainly intended - children / teens, using Tor?
I was thinking mostly about protecting Tor ;) > If I do a search w/ StartPage, Ixquick or even Google, if an unsavory > result appears, I just don't click it. I've also never been redirected > from say, Fidelity Investments or EFF.org, to a porn or pedo site. It's not so straightforward with .onion sites, especially on forums and wikis. There's considerable rickrolling on some sites. > Is it a huge issue to avoid these sites, or is it just the idea that > some using Tor can access these sites? For some, it apparently is, no? > There are plenty of other anonymous proxies, even daisy chaining them, > or first using another site that masks IPs, before using proxies; using > public hotspots while wearing a ski mask, that could be used to access > illegal sites / material. Tor isn't the only anonymity game in town. Yes, this is a perennial issue for all systems that provide anonymity and takedown-resistant hosting. But that doesn't make it less of an issue for the Tor Project, and for exit-relay operators in particular. _______________________________________________ tor-talk mailing list [email protected] https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk
