Child pornography blocking again

Eugen Leitl eugen at
Fri Jan 25 08:03:11 UTC 2008

On Thu, Jan 24, 2008 at 10:11:48PM -0500, Kraktus wrote:

> My idea of 'freedom of speech' doesn't include the exploitation of
> children.  What about the freedom of the child to grow up without
> being used for sexual purposes?

I'm pretty sure your mother is a witch. Say, are you married?
Your wife is almost certain a witch, too. Let's water test them both.
> > Kraktus: Disable Tor if you don't like the Wild West it was meant to be.
> Do I want to prevent all bad, even if it means also preventing all
> good?  No, I don't want paedophiles to ruin it for people using Tor to
> protect their personal safety, or a wide variety of other innocent
> purposes.

Right, let's burn all witches, we all will be safe.
> I just want to know if there is a technically feasible way of

Use your brain. Packets have no EVIL bit to test for. Have you implemented
the Shariat filter yet, btw? Don't forget the Scientologists, Mormons, Xtians,
Red China, and sundry other freaks. Clearly, we only may have the lowest
common denominator content available, lest we upset somebody. Why? Because
we can. Why can we? Because somebody gave us the tools. Somebody like you.

See a problem? I sure hope so.

> minimising one of the most harmful things Tor could potentially be
> used for.  I.e., without overloading the Tor network with hundreds of
> separate blacklists.  Do I expect it to be foolproof?  No.  Would it
> still be up to individual exit node operators if they want to use it?
> Yes.

I'm glad you're not in charge of this project.
> And if it's not technically feasible?  Fine, I like Tor anyway, I
> won't stop running an exit node just because of a few perverts, and if
> the ISP does not already have it blocked, I guess at least people
> using that ISP already have access to it.

Eugen* Leitl <a href="">leitl</a>
ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE

More information about the tor-talk mailing list