[Full-disclosure] Re: blocking tor is not the right way forward. It may just be the right way backward.
Jeffrey F. Bloss
jbloss at tampabay.rr.com
Fri Jun 9 18:51:44 BST 2006
Michael Holstein <michael.holstein at csuohio.edu> wrote:
First, I'm a long time supporter of Tor and a staunch advocate of
anonymity and privacy.
I also believe your interpretation of the Internet is a bit...
> We're not talking about authenticated websites here (perhaps I should
> have made that more clear), nor are we talking about using TOR, etc.
> for malicious purposes.
> For the purpose of this (largely theoretical) argument, I meant
> "publicly accessible, non-authenticated websites".
And you're trying to justify unrestricted access to those public places
based on what amounts to a "discrimination" argument. A fallacious
Choosing to be anonymous isn't something you are, it's something you do.
A conscious choice, not an unavoidable consequence of your state of
being like race/color or sexual orientation. Consequently, it's a
quality that has no moral or legal protection.
Operators of public places certainly *do* have the right to regulate
access based on the conscious choices their prospective patrons. A
restaurant, for example, can restrict access with an arbitrary dress
code along the lines of "suit and tie". They can even enforce that
policy according to time of day if they wish.
Operating a "public access" entity doesn't mean you abdicate all your
rights to limit access, it only means you're obligated to not limit
access based on certain criteria. You still have every right to set
non-discriminatory standards, and enforce them as you see fit as long
as the practice doesn't breach the rights of your patrons.
Now what beside a clothing choice, is Tor? :)
Hand Crafted on Fri. Jun 09, 2006 at 13:27
Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend.
Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read.
-- Groucho Marx
Full-Disclosure is hosted and sponsored by Secunia.