Re: [tor-talk] Fwd: Cryptopolitik and the Darknet
On 2/25/16, eliaz <eliaz@riseup.net> wrote:
Elaboration: I said in my previous post that I never quite believed that "there are more good than bad people." I think it's more to the point of upgrading tor architecture to say that I don't feel comfortable relying on "there are more good than bad people" as a justification for the Tor Project's laudable aims. Regardless of numbers there *are* people who will misuse tor, and the article gives good evidence that those people are the ones who employ anonymous content platforms. - eliaz
There is a principle: to give up anonymous publishing for the ~2% of bad actors, you will give up that right for the rest of us as well. Same goes for other rights, not just anonymity. By allowing people to drive on public roads, we accept that occasionally some nutcase will also drive on the roads, run down a pedestrian or cop and or cause a lot of damage to property. It's part of the bargain. Then some people will suggest "time for full time GPS tracking of all vehicles, you know, to stop the crazies", thereby giving up our right to anonymous travel. Once again, you will not stop the crazies, and you give up a basic right, something fundamental to being human, to being in society/ community. There's probably a fancy logical name for this "bad bargain" that "well meaning" humans seem to always want to make. Somehow they are wired differently to me and many others on this list. You see I always ask another question immediately to the thought or suggestion to "give up a liberty" (e.g. anonymous publishing, private phone calls, anonymous travel, pseudonymous travel, freedom of thought, etc), and that question I always ask is "do we lessen our humanity by treating ourselves as children, with cotton wool gloves?" Guns, knives, cars and communication are topical examples these days. I find it mind bending, but some folks actually think mandatory registration, rego plates and licensing, is a great idea for bicycles - you see, some folks on bikes have run into pedestrians, ride fast on footpaths, and if they're being chased on foot by police they can get away, not to mention how dangerous they are to the rider, there's just so many problems with bicycles we could probably raise a good argument to ban them completely - perhaps a govt buy back scheme and a govt financial compensation scheme for stationary exercise bikes to compensate for the health problems which would statistically arise due to the reduction in exercise of the population when bicycles are banned. These are serious problems. We must not be flippant about the dark dangers of cyclists traveling anonymously and dangerously, not to mention their rogue machinery!
On Feb 25, 2016, at 6:48 PM, Zenaan Harkness <zen@freedbms.net> wrote:
There's probably a fancy logical name for this "bad bargain" that "well meaning" humans seem to always want to make. Somehow they are wired differently to me and many others on this list. You see I always ask another question immediately to the thought or suggestion to "give up a liberty" (e.g. anonymous publishing, private phone calls, anonymous travel, pseudonymous travel, freedom of thought, etc), and that question I always ask is "do we lessen our humanity by treating ourselves as children, with cotton wool gloves?"
Yeah. “Reap what you sow.” Interestingly enough, it corresponds to nature overall — Although we try to distance ourselves so so so hard from the notion of ‘we’ being nature these days. Go for a walk in nature; shoot your local heroin dealer. -Benjamin
On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 11:48 PM, Zenaan Harkness <zen@freedbms.net> wrote:
On 2/25/16, eliaz <eliaz@riseup.net> wrote:
There's probably a fancy logical name for this "bad bargain" that "well meaning" humans seem to always want to make.
Faustian Bargain may come close: one made or done for present gain without regard for future cost or consequences. Steve
participants (3)
-
bbrewer
-
Steven Schear
-
Zenaan Harkness