4 ms·
They knew they'd use it to torture? I highly doubt that. Monitor, perhaps. But that's very different. It's also not exactly specified what they built - was it
by ultramancool 11y ago
They knew they'd use it to torture? I highly doubt that.
Monitor, perhaps. But that's very different. It's also not exactly specified what they built - was it generic and something they might be able to sell to corporations or other governments who want traffic monitoring or something designed only for this purpose?
- jonathankoren 11y ago> They knew they'd use it to torture? I highly doubt that. Well them they've been living under a rock. It's been officially banned for 17 years, and there's literally a wikipedia article about it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Falun_Gong https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Falun_Gong
- ultramancool 11y agoIt's entirely possible they assumed otherwise. Are you trying to say you must assume the worst possible intentions from your customers and that anything less should be illegal? Surely Tor developers could have guessed it would be used for child pornography - should that have stopped them?
- jonathankoren 11y agoYou're dealing with a known actor with a known track record against a known target. It's completely different. At this point it's being willfully ignorant[0] and you're being intentionally obtuse. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willful_blindness https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willful_blindness
- ultramancool 11y ago> You're dealing with a known actor with a known track record against a known target. People with anonymity aren't "known actors"? You could just as easily argue willful blindness with Tor or end to end cryptography devs. And that's how I'm worried that a case like this will be used if it's successful.