On 30 August 2017 at 14:45, Jon Tullett <jon.tull...@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Jon - in certain respects we have now hit the nub of the issue, repeated twice / in two similar ways: Version 1: Ethical stuff gets murky awful fast, and is so full of > strawmen. You're opposed to censorship? You must be pro-terrorism. > Burn the witch! Version 2: > Should [being a corporation] privilege [a corporation's] access to good > security and communications technologies, above that of (say) an individual? > > Well, that's an interesting discussion. I'm actually not sure how I'd > answer it Yep. Very murky. I've already sedimented my position on this a few years ago - my Twitter bio and other bylines have read "Everybody Deserves Good Security" for maybe a decade - but I'll be interested to see what you come up with. Elsewhere: > [...]That's what Krawetz is > bringing up by pointing out what he sees as Tor's denunciation of one > type of content where it has scrupulously avoided that in the past. > Yep; this is something I ascribe to the Tor Project acting to counterbalance a prior few years of being mute on such topics. As context to the bigger debate of "the ethics of technology", I tend to ignore it as window-dressing, in as much as I don't see IANA or IETF or W3C trotting out denunciations of $GROUP for their $BAD_USE of DNS, TCP/IP or HTTP/S. The "mea culpas" in that space have stopped with the various service providers (Google, Cloudflare) rather than the technology providers. Tor in a sense has the rare distinction of being both. Meh. - alec -- http://dropsafe.crypticide.com/aboutalecm -- tor-talk mailing list - tor-talk@lists.torproject.org To unsubscribe or change other settings go to https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk