Sorry, could not help myself. But just try some other shoes. «I support freedom, but…» is what Stalin, Hitler and any guy worse than Obama said when started imprisoning people. Bill, my message isn't against you at all. I read it twice, but I'm too stupid to know how to phrase it differently. Take it as a contemplation based on your text. If I find this message as a piece of broken paper on the sidewalk I have the same thoughts.
Bill Cox: > - Most of my node traffic seemed to be people watching video. I > support freedom, but they can get their porn and illegally shared > videos elsewhere. Who makes the law? Law abiding means good? > - An online meeting of mostly blind individuals was griefed by a Tor > attacker, who crashed most blind users's computers using known > crash words. Maybe the problem is the lack of software. Incompetent design is usually the issue. Yet people need someone to lynch. Hitler gets mentioned often when flames start, but his reign of terror is far better documented than Stalin or Mao. Because the German politicians dragged the people into a very distructive war, somebody had to pay. The winners of that war applied the same reasoning as yourself. Which amplified the problems. The Germans felt bad about their sittuation. And somebody had to be guilty. It's hard to point the finger at oneself. So a minority was demonised as the source of all evil and not the lack of education and the political indifference. So a Holocaust was born. > - A web site of mine was hacked by a Tor user. See above. Own incompetence is good enough to punish somebody else? Sure! > I want to support free speech and other Internet freedoms, but You want your freedom. Nobody other's. Don't kid yourself. This does not mean you are obliged to think this way. Just try. > unfortunately the world has lots of people who enjoy ruining it for > everyone else. Would it be possible to reduce the griefers by > having a A rapist seems to thing precisely the same thing when someone interferes. Sure, when thinking about self, one can be so much ethicaly higher than another human. > social network of Tor based secret identities? If I could ding a That is precisely what Tor offers right now. > griefer's reputation after he attacks my web site or trashes a > meeting, that might discourage Tor-based griefing. If I could > specify But I can bet you would be displeased if that person happens to knock at your door some day to give you a piece of his mind. > OpenDNS-like settings for traffic I allow to be routed through my Tor > node, I could get a lot of the illegal video sharing and porn off my > router. If I could specify that only people of a certain level of STASI guys used to do the same thing. Somehow white middle class christians had the impression that was bad. But those guys were just paying the rent and bills. At least most of them. Sometimes I wonder who is more perverted, the porn obsessed or the voyeur watching that one through the window. > reputation can route data through my node, I'd feel better about the > encrypted traffic I help route. So, in the end, history's monsters were just people like others. Reading this I sense that there are far worse individuals who just can't catch enough power to do what they would like to do. -- 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
