Some legal trouble with TOR in France +

[User 165]

On May 15, 2006, at 6:17 PM, glymr wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: RIPEMD160
>
> User 165 wrote:
>> On May 15, 2006, at 5:37 PM, Anthony DiPierro wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Remember that by default Tor *does* censor.  Port 25 is blocked
>>> by default.  Why is this?
>>
>> I don't think that deciding which ports to allow has anything to do
>>  with censorship.  Censorship refers to content, not method.
> I think this line of discussion is irrelevant anyway, because saying
> 'we don't censor' yet you are censoring censorship? The bigger issue
> is that there is so many zombie machines, this is not about censorship
> of email but simply a defense against a very large attacker whose
> activities would impact the exit nodes.

I guess I would like to prevent censorship on tor, you're right.  I  
would prefer it if exit nodes operators were prevented from any sort  
blocking based on source, destination or content, and have  
SafeLogging hardcoded to true in release versions.  I would like the  
C, I, and A, as well as anonymity to be unquestioned with regards to  
tor.  There are other ways to get information about the connections,  
but it would be nice to say that you cannot get that information or  
perform any sort of censorship or compromising of the integrity of  
data sent through or availability of any destination on the internet  
using tor itself.  I thought this was the whole point of tor.   It  
should try to attain the same neutrality as a large backbone router,  
at least as much as is possible.  I don't want to have to worry that  
I'm actually connecting to the site I think I am.  That's why I don't  
like RedirectExit .

User 165
user165 at neomailbox.com


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PGP.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 478 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.torproject.org/pipermail/tor-talk/attachments/20060515/8171ed7e/attachment.pgp>