[tor-relays] Question regarding ethical torrent blocking

[torix at protonmail.com]

Dear Conrad,

It seems to me that there is an ethical difference between being forced to cut off torrent traffic and cutting off certain traffic because you object to the content.

--torix

Sent with [ProtonMail](https://protonmail.com) Secure Email.

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
On July 15, 2018 12:23 PM, Conrad Rockenhaus <conrad at rockenhaus.com> wrote:

> Hello,
>
> I was going to ask someone off-list, but the amount of abuse and DCMA complaints I have received now have been so much that I have decided that the best action to take is to set an exit policy. I run a couple of exit nodes and I have people apparently using them to torrent, which we ask people politely not to do through Tor....but the policy gets ignored I guess. Anyway, I'm receiving a sufficient amount of complaints to where I'm worried that my service may be terminated unless I take action, which would affect the greater good.
>
> So the question is - I run the default exit policy. I don't like being the arbiter of what goes through and what doesn't. Is it okay, ethically, from a free speech standpoint, to reach this point to where we say "we need to block this content from transversing my node" in response to legal complaints from others? Are others implementing these blocks and do you feel that such a block doesn't violate any ethical norm to provide uncensored access to the Internet?
>
> I'm just curious on what thoughts on this are. I know how to technically perform the block, I guess I feel like we're one of the last bastions against censorship on the Internet and people do torrent legitimate stuff. I don't consider pirating Fallout 4, The Elder Scrolls V, Sweetbitter, and The Evil Within 2 to be protected speech FYI... my worry is just blocking the legitimate uses of bittorrent.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Conrad Rockenhaus
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.torproject.org/pipermail/tor-relays/attachments/20180720/b83f9631/attachment.html>