I feel like you are SO missing the point.
Making Tor block morally horrible things does not involve telling exit
notes to block traffic to known porn sites.
The porn sites with the boobies that someone might hit on port 80 on
the public internet represent the Catholic Church of porn,
metapho
I'm not sure if this applies but -
[1]http://thenextweb.com/asia/2013/08/01/vietnam-adopts-regulations-to-
ban-internet-users-from-sharing-news-reports-online/
Sustain
On Sun, Sep 1, 2013, at 05:43 PM, Jon Gardner wrote:
>
> On Aug 28, 2013, at 5:09 PM, Roger Dingledine wrote:
>
> > On Tue, A
On Aug 28, 2013, at 5:09 PM, Roger Dingledine wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 11:12:01PM +0200, Tor Exit wrote:
>> Why is it so bad if a Tor exit operator tries to match the use of
>> their node with their own moral beliefs?
>
> I really would like to support this if I could.
I appreciate you
On 8/31/13, t...@t-3.net wrote:
> This thread did go goofy and bad (and off-topic, given the subject in
> the emails). It seems clear that there are important reasons Tor could
> never begin examining/taking direct responsibility for/filtering the
> content that flows through it (as opposed with d
This thread did go goofy and bad (and off-topic, given the subject in
the emails). It seems clear that there are important reasons Tor could
never begin examining/taking direct responsibility for/filtering the
content that flows through it (as opposed with disallowing specific
ports, which is d
On 08/30/2013 08:05 PM, Andrea Shepard wrote:
[snip]
If I were going to work on filtering by technical means, it'd be filters to
keep neo-Puritans like you out of my life, thanks.
Well said. This whole thread is example 87653478965432 of the
"censorship is A-OK if I don't like it" mindset.
On 08/31/13 08:27, grarpamp wrote:
>
> Hopefully all the plaintext protocols will die soon and some replacement
> for the CA cert model is agreed upon so that there isn't much left to bet
> on exitwise but the dest ip:port working.
> ___
> tor-relays ma
>> This is why we need to implement extended exit flags for exits that want
>> to run post-exit filtering/enhancement policies, say for example
>> "noporn"
>> that way we can get all the religious groups dumping their tithes into
>> not just beaming reruns of the 700 club around the world, but a
I think that's part of the joke
On Sat, Aug 31, 2013 at 12:32 AM, Andrea Shepard wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 31, 2013 at 12:27:22AM -0400, grarpamp wrote:
> > On 8/30/13, Andrea Shepard wrote:
> > > On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 11:08:34AM -0500, Jon Gardner wrote:
> > >> Then why have exit policies? Exit n
On 8/30/13, Andrea Shepard wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 11:08:34AM -0500, Jon Gardner wrote:
>> Then why have exit policies? Exit nodes regularly block "unwelcome"
>> traffic
>> like bittorrent, and there's only a slight functional difference between
>> that
>> and using a filter in front of t
On Sat, Aug 31, 2013 at 12:27:22AM -0400, grarpamp wrote:
> On 8/30/13, Andrea Shepard wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 11:08:34AM -0500, Jon Gardner wrote:
> >> Then why have exit policies? Exit nodes regularly block "unwelcome"
> >> traffic
> >> like bittorrent, and there's only a slight funct
On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 11:08:34AM -0500, Jon Gardner wrote:
> Then why have exit policies? Exit nodes regularly block "unwelcome" traffic
> like bittorrent, and there's only a slight functional difference between that
> and using a filter in front of the node to block things like porn
There's a c
On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 11:12:01PM +0200, Tor Exit wrote:
> Why is it so bad if a Tor exit operator tries to match the use of
>their node with their own moral beliefs?
I really would like to support this if I could.
Specifically, I'd love a way for exit relay operators to only allow
people to do
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 08/28/2013 11:36 AM, The Doctor wrote:
> On 08/27/2013 05:12 PM, Tor Exit wrote:
>
>> Why is it so bad if a Tor exit operator tries to match the use
>> of their node with their own moral beliefs?
>
> Exercising one's moral beliefs can censor other
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 08/27/2013 05:12 PM, Tor Exit wrote:
> Why is it so bad if a Tor exit operator tries to match the use of
> their node with their own moral beliefs?
Exercising one's moral beliefs can censor others. It would make it
implicitly okay for exit node o
HTTP-without-porn should be called BurkaHTTP. I'm sure there's a backronym
that will fit…
On Aug 28, 2013 4:15 AM, "mick" wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Aug 2013 19:34:13 -0700
> Andy Isaacson allegedly wrote:
>
> >
> > If only there were a separate TCP port for HTTP-with-Porn and all the
> > pornographers
On Tue, 27 Aug 2013 19:34:13 -0700
Andy Isaacson allegedly wrote:
>
> If only there were a separate TCP port for HTTP-with-Porn and all the
> pornographers used it, then an exit policy for "HTTP-without-porn"
> would be possible. But alas, we don't even have vague agreement on
> what constitute
On Wed, 28 Aug 2013 07:22:16 +0200
Andreas Krey allegedly wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Aug 2013 23:12:01 +, Tor Exit wrote:
> >GET /index.php?file=../../../../../../../etc/passwd
> >
> > Why not employ similar techniques on a Tor exit? We can be 100%
> > sure about the malicious intent.
>
> No,
On Tue, 27 Aug 2013 23:12:01 +, Tor Exit wrote:
>GET /index.php?file=../../../../../../../etc/passwd
>
> Why not employ similar techniques on a Tor exit? We can be 100% sure about
> the malicious intent.
No, you can't be sure. That request could quite well be totally legitimate;
you are
On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 11:08:34AM -0500, Jon Gardner wrote:
> Then why have exit policies? Exit nodes regularly block "unwelcome"
> traffic like bittorrent, and there's only a slight functional
> difference between that and using a filter in front of the node to
> block things like porn
The exit
On 13-08-27 05:12 PM, Tor Exit wrote:
>>> The Tor devs go to great lengths to try to keep "evil" governments from
>>> using Tor against itself. Why not devote some effort toward keeping "evil"
>>> traffic off of Tor?
>
> I agree. Why not block the most obvious abuse? All professional Apache
>
>> The Tor devs go to great lengths to try to keep "evil" governments from
>> using Tor against itself. Why not devote some effort toward keeping "evil"
>> traffic off of Tor?
I agree. Why not block the most obvious abuse? All professional Apache
webservers install a module named 'mod_secure'
On Tue, 27 Aug 2013 11:08:34 -0500
Jon Gardner allegedly wrote:
> On Aug 22, 2013, at 11:56 AM, mick wrote:
>
> > Tor is neutral. You and I may agree that certain usage is unwelcome,
> > even abhorrent, but we cannot dictate how others may use an
> > anonymising service we agree to provide. If
A mechanism which empowers detecting and
stopping what you and I consider to be
'evil' could be harnessed and used to
target non-evil things, and that's
where the problem is.
Let's pretend that tomorrow, Tor gained
the ability to filter out evil images.
Shortly thereafter, governments might
start
On 08/28/2013 12:08 AM, Jon Gardner wrote:
> Then why have exit policies? Exit nodes regularly block "unwelcome" traffic
> like bittorrent, and there's only a slight functional difference between that
> and using a filter in front of the node to block things like porn (which,
> come to think of
On Tue, 27 Aug 2013 11:08:34 +, Jon Gardner wrote:
...
> Then why have exit policies?
To keep spammers at bay (or getting your exit blacklisted);
to keep traffic at bay (bittorrent), to keep law harrassment
at bay (again bittorrent, others as well).
> Exit nodes regularly block "unwelcome" tr
On Aug 22, 2013, at 11:56 AM, mick wrote:
>> The other thing that I am weighing is just a moral question regarding
>> misuse of the Tor network for despicable things like child porn. I
>> understand that of all the traffic it is a small percentage and that
>> ISPs essentially face the same dil
oject.org
Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2013 1:02:12 PM
Subject: Re: [tor-relays] new relays
On 22.08.2013 15:45, a432511 wrote:
> I just spun up 2 relays (1 exit, 1 non-exit) in Amsterdam using
> DigitalOcean as the VPS provider. It's been up for about 8 hours now.
Thank you and good
On 22.08.2013 15:45, a432511 wrote:
> I just spun up 2 relays (1 exit, 1 non-exit) in Amsterdam using
> DigitalOcean as the VPS provider. It's been up for about 8 hours now.
Thank you and good luck!
> While in the
> future there may be a precedent that grants safe-harbor status to TOR
> exit node
On Thu, 22 Aug 2013 08:45:33 -0500
a432511 allegedly wrote:
>
> I just spun up 2 relays (1 exit, 1 non-exit) in Amsterdam using
> DigitalOcean as the VPS provider. It's been up for about 8 hours now.
> Here was the message I sent to them regarding the servers:
>
I have three DigitalOcean VMs.
Am 2013-08-22 17:28, schrieb Lukas Erlacher:
> You could put a censoring proxy in front of your exit node. But that
> would defeat the purpose of Tor entirely...
... and will eventually lead to your relay being flagged as a bad exit node.
Tampering with exit traffic is strongly discouraged [1].
You cannot make Tor resistant to "evil usage". Evil usage is defined
by your personal morals on one level, and by governments via the laws
the enact and prosecute on the other level.
Tor's raison d'etre is to allow people to use the internet freely when
their personal morals and their government's
32 matches
Mail list logo
