* Joel jaeggli (joe...@bogus.com) wrote: > On 11/29/12 23:18 , Joakim Aronius wrote: > > > I am all for being anonymous on the net but I seriously believe that > > we still need to enforce the law when it comes to serious felonies > > like child pr0n, organized crime etc, we can't give them a free pass > > just by using Tor. I dont think it should be illegal to operate a Tor > > exit node but what just happened could be a consequence of doing it. > > The seriousness of crimes that can be committed using anonymization > services should not be diminished. That said the motive I had for > running a tor exit when I did was that speech, and in particular > political organization (dare we call it sedition) are in fact very > serious crimes in many places. R.g. they can result in indefinite > imprisonment, torture, judicial or extra-legal execution and so forth, I > don't consider that unserious.. > > The internet is potentially quite a useful tool for getting your message > out so long as using it isn't holding a gun to your own head. While we > site here with the convenient idea of some legal arbitrage which allows > me to do something which isn't illegal in my own domain to facilitate > something that is quite illegal elsewhere, the fact of the matter is if > you run a service like this you don't get to pick and choose.
I agree. I was about to set up a tor node a few years ago but never got around to it. I send cash to orgs working for human rights in countries with oppressive regimes. I am all for providing anonymized access to help free speech. Perhaps its better with anon access to specific applications like twitter, fb etc and not general internet access. I suspect that the 'free speech' part of the total tor traffic volume is pretty small(?). Cheers, /Joakim
