Child pornography blocking again

Kraktus kraktus at
Sat Jan 26 20:37:56 UTC 2008

On 26/01/2008, Eugen Leitl <eugen at> wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 26, 2008 at 12:46:46PM -0500, Kraktus wrote:
>> Really, if I'd known my message was going to evoke this sort of response,
> Really, if you want any other sort of response, DON'T SUGGEST IMPLEMENTING
> CENSORSHIP HOOKS IN TOR in future. Thanks so much.

Tor already has censorship hooks.  Tor nodes are already in
control of their own exit policies.  Certain ports are already
blocked by default.

This would simply provide Tor nodes with another tool to
control what leaves their nodes.  And if Tor nodes didn't want
to use it, they wouldn't have to.

>> I'd have entitled it 'Directory-distributed variables for exit lists'.
> It doesn't matter how you call it, it still stinks.
> Of course suggesting paedophilia in a anonymity forum is the
> equivalent of Godwin's law. Basically, you lost in the moment
> you mentioned it.
> --
> Eugen* Leitl <a href="">leitl</a>

Wasn't there a child porn hidden service at one point in the past?
So it's not like this was never a real issue.  Not that this would
have any impact on the ability to run child porn hidden services,
but still.

Really, I'm not saying that you, as a Tor user / node operator /
whatever you are, are a paedophile, or personally responsible
for people engaging in paedophilia.  If so, then I, as someone
who believes the benefits still outweigh the disadvantages, and
subsequently run an exit node, am just as guilty.  But, if I could
prevent my exit node from being used to access CP, without
preventing it from also being used to access a plethora of good
things, surely I would.

More information about the tor-talk mailing list