Eugen Leitl 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.
>
Agre
Kraktus wrote:
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 w
On 26/01/2008, F. Fox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Kraktus wrote:
>> On 25/01/2008, F. Fox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> Kraktus wrote:
On 25/01/2008, Eugen Leitl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I just want to know if there is a technically feasible way of
> Use your brain. Packets have
On 26/01/2008, maillist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Some f:ing paedophile is responsible for loosing all my computers and
> scaring my better half. Thanks a lot.
I am sorry to hear that.
> If theres going to be some directory controlled exit-policies then count
> me in (if I'm going to ever run
On 26/01/2008, Dominik Schaefer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Kraktus schrieb:
>> Tor already has censorship hooks. Tor nodes are already in
>> control of their own exit policies. Certain ports are already
>> blocked by default.
> It is (technically and legally) a whole different thing to filter b
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Kraktus wrote:
> On 25/01/2008, F. Fox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Kraktus wrote:
>>> On 25/01/2008, Eugen Leitl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I just want to know if there is a technically feasible way of
Use your brain. Packets have no EVI
Kraktus schrieb:
Tor already has censorship hooks. Tor nodes are already in
control of their own exit policies. Certain ports are already
blocked by default.
It is (technically and legally) a whole different thing to filter based on
ports or to filter based on content.
Content-based filtering
On Jan 26, 2008 4:06 PM, maillist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Some f:ing paedophile is responsible for loosing all my computers and
> scaring my better half. Thanks a lot.
Some f'ing paedophile is responsible for being a pervert, but the
invasion of your home, the home of an innocent person, is
Kraktus wrote:
> On 26/01/2008, Eugen Leitl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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
>> CENSORS
On 26/01/2008, Eugen Leitl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 f
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.
> I'd have entitled it 'Directory-dis
On Jan 26, 2008 12:46 PM, Kraktus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Really, if I'd known my message was going to evoke this sort of response,
> I'd have entitled it 'Directory-distributed variables for exit lists'.
It would have been better if you had, but you would have still
received a negative respo
On 25/01/2008, F. Fox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Kraktus wrote:
>> On 25/01/2008, Eugen Leitl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I just want to know if there is a technically feasible way of
>>> Use your brain. Packets have no EVIL bit to test for.
>>
>> I'm pretty sure my suggestion is better than
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Kraktus wrote:
> On 25/01/2008, Eugen Leitl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> I just want to know if there is a technically feasible way of
>> Use your brain. Packets have no EVIL bit to test for.
>
> I'm pretty sure my suggestion is better than an RFC
On 25/01/2008, Ben Wilhelm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If you can solve all those problems, there might be something to it, but
> I personally do not believe that those problems are solvable.
>
> -Ben
'Defining your problem is half the solution.'
No, I can't solve them all right now, but thanks
Kraktus wrote:
On 25/01/2008, Eugen Leitl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I just want to know if there is a technically feasible way of
Use your brain. Packets have no EVIL bit to test for.
I'm pretty sure my suggestion is better than an RFC April Fools' Joke.
Actually, I disagree - the April F
On 25/01/2008, Eugen Leitl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I just want to know if there is a technically feasible way of
>
> Use your brain. Packets have no EVIL bit to test for.
I'm pretty sure my suggestion is better than an RFC April Fools' Joke.
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 wi
On Thu, 24 Jan 2008 22:11:48 -0500 Kraktus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>On 24/01/2008, Paul Henning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Child Pornography is not the cancer killing Tor. Nor is it bandwidth
>> leeches. The cancer killing Tor are the people who want to make it like
>> the rest of the in
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Gregory Maxwell wrote:
(snip)
| I'd also argue that the ability of people to use tor to access those
| kinds of sites is actually beneficial. It allows private individuals
| to seek them out in order to report them with reduced risk of being
| mista
On Jan 24, 2008 10:11 PM, Kraktus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I just want to know if there is a technically feasible way of
> minimising one of the most harmful things Tor could potentially be
> used for.
Nope.
> And if it's not technically feasible? Fine, I like Tor anyway, I
> won't stop runn
On 24/01/2008, Paul Henning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Child Pornography is not the cancer killing Tor. Nor is it bandwidth
> leeches. The cancer killing Tor are the people who want to make it like
> the rest of the internet. Why even have Tor is we make filters an
> exceptions? Why not just, use
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Karsten N. wrote:
(snip)
| Child porn is very very bad, but is it not a task for tor, to remove
| this kind of stuff. If someone would to do something against this
| stuff, please help the justice.
(snip)
If he wants to find a place to help:
http:/
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Paul Henning wrote:
(snip)
| Kraktus: Disable Tor if you don't like the Wild West it was meant to be.
(snip)
Heh, this reminds me of a joke from a while back:
WWW doesn't mean World Wide Web. It means Wild Wild West. =xoD
- --
F. Fox: A+, Network
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Nils Vogels wrote:
(snip)
| * Who would be the authority to decide what goes in the list and what
| doesn't?
(snip)
Moreover, who could be such an authority, without risking serious felony
jailtime?
- --
F. Fox: A+, Network+, Security+
Owner of To
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Oh, for the love of God, no!
My position:
1.) Filters don't work; ask any teenager.
2.) I loathe filters of any kind, purely on principle; once you start
filtering for one thing, filtering for others becomes an easier jump.
3.) If filtering is d
Kraktus kirjoitti:
On 24/01/2008, Ben Wilhelm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
* Cries of "you're blocking child porn, why not also block warez/hate
speech/freenet/political propoganda that I don't like"
Warez is bad, but it hurts people's wallets,
Warez is bad? I disagree. Sharing is cari
Ben Wilhelm kirjoitti:
And, the biggest problems to my mind:
* If the blacklist is stored in a downloadable form of any kind,
effectively making a *list of child pornography sites*
:D:D:D you are right... we are doing this in finland _A LIST OF CHILD
PORNOGRAPHY SITES_ by the police and
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
Kraktus wrote:
> Okay, here's my idea: Suppose exit servers included the term 'reject
> cp_blacklist' in their torrcs. If it worked well, it could be
> included in the default exit policy.
as already proven for email services blacklists suck (ju
Eugen Leitl schrieb:
> I'm certainly stop running Tor and switch
> to a different project if vigilantes ruin
> a yet another perfectly good tool.
>
> Don't like content? Filter it in your client.
> Problem is undecidable? Tough titty. Go offline,
> or learn to live with it.
Same opinion!
Child
Kraktus wrote:
Warez is bad, but it hurts people's wallets, not innocent children, so
it's more of an economic crime than a crime against humanity. In
other words, blocking child porn is more worth the effort.
One could easily argue that the transmission of child porn doesn't hurt
children a
On Thu, Jan 24, 2008 at 07:38:14AM -0500, Kraktus wrote:
> Okay, here's my idea: Suppose exit servers included the term 'reject
...
> I realise, of course, there are problems with this.
Why do you keep trolling this stinker of an idea?
...
> Is this idea even feasible?
I'm certainly stop runnin
Child Pornography is not the cancer killing Tor. Nor is it bandwidth
leeches. The cancer killing Tor are the people who want to make it like
the rest of the internet. Why even have Tor is we make filters an
exceptions? Why not just, use the internet. I mean, Tor's anonymity is
weak anyway, so is th
On 24/01/2008, Ben Wilhelm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Kraktus wrote:
>> I realise, of course, there are problems with this.
>
> * Use of effort that could be spent other places
True. Then again, we occasionally get people saying they won't run
exit servers if there isn't an easy way for the to
On 24/01/2008, Nils Vogels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Just a few thoughts on this:
>
> * Who would be the authority to decide what goes in the list and what
> doesn't?
The same directory authorities that distribute the list of Tor nodes.
Hopefully they would all agree, though obviously there wou
Kraktus wrote:
I realise, of course, there are problems with this.
* Use of effort that could be spent other places
* Possible legal liability issues
* Cries of "you're blocking child porn, why not also block warez/hate
speech/freenet/political propoganda that I don't like"
* Every single pro
Just a few thoughts on this:
* Who would be the authority to decide what goes in the list and what
doesn't?
* How can you be sure that you are using the Authentic CP-List, instead of
the one that comes from The Great Wall and contains whitehouse.gov?
--
Simple guidelines to happiness:
Work like
Okay, here's my idea: Suppose exit servers included the term 'reject
cp_blacklist' in their torrcs. If it worked well, it could be
included in the default exit policy.
cp_blacklist could be a variable rather than an explicit IP address or
hostname. The IP addresses and hostnames included in that
38 matches
Mail list logo
