[tor-talk] evidence that Tor isn't "amoral"?
lara.tor at emails.veryspeedy.net
Mon Jul 13 09:29:17 UTC 2015
After rereading the answer I realize it might sound sarcastic. It's not
> Quite interesting. After reading the replies in this thread, I now
> agree that the true definition of amoral is a good description of Tor.
Reading philosophy, even introductory works, can make wonders in the
understanding of the world around us. Just don't dive into texts older
than say 50 years.
> As an exit node operator, I do think of myself as being an impartial
> conduit for Internet traffic.
Right. You think. The others have the same position. Yet people are far
from perfect. This is why security and anonymity should be in the design
and not in the policy.
> I personally believe Tor does more good than harm by allowing people
> in repressive regimes access to information. I realize I can't
> control what people choose to do with that access - I can only to
> provide the means to use the Internet freely.
Belief spells religion and leads to dogmatism. So it should be avoided.
The answer is "we don't know".
Repressive regimes use almost perfect tools like rubber hose cryptography.
Also repressive regimes have a rather good control over the information.
That is what allows them to be represive. And it is far easier to locate
an individual in one hundred than in one hundred million. Hence those
are already marked.
More information about the tor-talk