thank you, this is exactly the sort of thing I was looking for. I'll see if I can find it in one of Roger's videos, though if anyone has a specific pointer that would be very much appreciated.
On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 7:57 PM, stn <[email protected]> wrote: > > i think roger dingledine presented some short timeline evidence awhile > back in a video i saw but this is from memory. > > a US university and the DoJ usa tallied tor traffic on their relay and > only found something like 3% "unwanted" traffic. > > that could have included things like copyrighted music sharing. > the study wasn't continued for some reason. > > maybe someone who can correctly recall the event or study can fill in some > blanks and verify but ... > > only 3% "unwanted" traffic. that's easy to take IMO. > > > > > > On Oct 2, 2014, at 7:43 PM, Mirimir wrote: > > > On 10/02/2014 04:35 PM, z9wahqvh wrote: > >> On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 4:24 PM, Mirimir <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >>> On 10/02/2014 01:24 PM, z9wahqvh wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>> Even if (for argument's sake) 99% of Tor users/uses were unqualifiedly > >>> evil, that would say nothing about Tor. At most, it would speak to its > >>> relatively slow uptake overall, and perhaps to the prevalence of evil > in > >>> the world. An anonymity system with a backdoor for outing evil (however > >>> defined) would be unworkable, and would soon die. > >>> > >>> > >> I don't know how to parse "say" in this paragraph. It certainly seems to > >> "say" something about the role of unsurveillable absolute anonymous > >> communications systems and who is going to be attracted to them and why. > > > > If everyone used "unsurveillable absolute anonymous communications > > systems", the prevalence of evil on them would be the same as the > > overall prevalence of evil. Right? Those who play on the supposed > > association of Tor with evil are not friends of freedom. > > > >> It also would seem to raise serious questions about whether such efforts > >> should be supported > > > > If you choose to support Tor, then do. If you don't, then don't. Others > > can make their own choices, based on their principles and values. > > > >> --and, to raise questions raised in other threads here, whether ISPs and > >> other service providers and websites should let Tor relays through. > > > > There are more-effective solutions that don't hurt the innocent. > > > >> Note that if you are correct, you are painting an extremely dark picture > >> of our political future, in which constitutional governance and rule of > >> law become, strictly speaking, impossible. You may think that this will > >> decrease the amount of evil in the world. My reading of world history > >> suggests otherwise. > > > > It should be obvious that I'm no statist. But discussions of politics > > are off-topic on this list. So I'll not address the rest of your post. > > > > <SNIP> > > -- > > tor-talk mailing list - [email protected] > > To unsubscribe or change other settings go to > > https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk > > -- > tor-talk mailing list - [email protected] > To unsubscribe or change other settings go to > https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk > -- tor-talk mailing list - [email protected] To unsubscribe or change other settings go to https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk
