[tor-talk] google

[mick]

On Tue, 20 Aug 2013 23:35:39 -0400
William Conlow <wmconlow at gmail.com> allegedly wrote:

> I'm a bit of a newb at this (all of it). But this email thread
> (tor-talk) is completely unencrypted, right? And it has to be that
> way?
> 
It doesn't /have/ to be that way, but it is much more convenient (and
useful to a much larger population) if it is structured that way.
Arguably tor-talk (and/or other tor related lists) could be hosted on a
hidden service, encrypyted (by a key trusted by a large group - which in
itself is non-trivial to manage). But why? Usage of tor is not in
itself illegal in the US (or in many other jurisdictions). Tor's
designers and the relay operators (I am one) all want to see tor
widely used so why hide discussion about it? Having a publicly readable
archive of such discussion allows anyone interested in tor to follow
earlier discussions and make up their own minds about whether they
would wish to use tor. Hiding discussion would deny interested parties
that right and would end up in futile "choir preaching".

Best

Mick
---------------------------------------------------------------------

 Mick Morgan
 gpg fingerprint: FC23 3338 F664 5E66 876B  72C0 0A1F E60B 5BAD D312
 http://baldric.net

---------------------------------------------------------------------

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.torproject.org/pipermail/tor-talk/attachments/20130821/7e6d7564/attachment.sig>