full-disclosure - Re: blocking tor is not the right way forward. It may just be the right way backward.

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20060611011302.GB4775@darkover.org>
Date: Sun Jun 11 02:12:27 2006
From: rodrigob at darkover.org (Rodrigo Barbosa)
Subject: Re: blocking tor is not the right way forward.
	It may just be the right way backward.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Sat, Jun 10, 2006 at 12:58:13PM -0800, Eliah Kagan wrote:
> On 6/9/06, Rodrigo Barbosa wrote:
> While you're correct
> that administrators have the right to try to block tor, doing so will,
> if it becomes popular, result in users' privacy rights being violated.
> And yes, the ability to live in society without everybody and his
> cousin having my personal information *is* a right, and if it is
> impossible for me to exercise it, then that right of mine is in a
> state of being violated.

You are confusing matters.
No one is proposing to outlaw Tor. Or even to track users back.
If someone want to force Tor users to identify themselves before
using a site, I'll be against it. But anyone is free to stop
Tor users from using their networks/servers.

Those are two (three?) totally different issues.

> On 6/9/06, Rodrigo Barbosa <rodrigob@...kover.org> wrote:
> >What rights do you have over other people's networks and sites ?
> None--a tor user does not have the *right* to unfettered access to
> otherwise blocked sites (though the tor user's right to privacy is
> eroded when a large enough number of sites block tor and other
> anonymization methods).

No. You can remain as anonymous you want. You just can't use those
sites.

Lets consider a completely unrelated and different situation to
iluatrate it. I too defend the right to buy stuff at a supermarket
without providing any means of identification. On the other hand,
I don't defend the right to buy absolutely anything (weapons etc)
without providing identification.

> >What rights do you have to circunvect the decisions they made ?
> Total--a network administrator has no right to make decisions about
> how users are to behave. Users are free to behave in any way that is
> legal and does not contradict any of his/her contractual obligations.
> And circumventing tor blocking is legal. And "terms of use" on sites
> are not contracts.

You are, again, wrong. Unless you start paying to use my site, I have
every right to tell you what and how you can access it, as long as
my terms are legal. If I say you can only access my web server using
Lynx, that is all the right you have.

The basic point where you whole argument is flawed is that you consider
you have any right to do anything regarding a publicaly avaliable
resource. Lets consider a software license, like the GPL. It is also
not a contract, the say way a "terms of use" on a site isn't. Do you
think you have the right to violate the GPL just because it is not
a contract you have signed ?

If you want others to respect you right to anonymity, then you better
start respecting the right of others to run their sites (and not YOUR
site) as they seem fit.

This is, by the way, my last post on this subject. I'm really sick
of this. If there is one thing I hate, are fanatics.

- -- 
Rodrigo Barbosa
"Quid quid Latine dictum sit, altum viditur"
"Be excellent to each other ..." - Bill & Ted (Wyld Stallyns)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFEi24epdyWzQ5b5ckRAiCDAJ96KiAWFMSaZthTNGxy5PJbSVZl+wCfXU21
LipDMrVIUFqwJheh7SPZh1c=
=AEPj
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----