5 ms·
I'm betting on the hostile governments. Yes, that was very clear. I wish I could be amoral like you. The worst case is, "run this tool and a government comput
by wladimir 15y ago
I'm betting on the hostile governments.
Yes, that was very clear. I wish I could be amoral like you.
The worst case is, "run this tool and a government computer somewhere silently puts your name on a list"
Not always a problem. If enough people use the tool (which will be automatically the case as more ends up in the firewall), it's impossible to distinguish the people that use it for serious purposes (like anti-govt activism) or less serious purposes (like trolling anonymously or watching porn...).
- tptacek 15y agoWhat's amoral is recognizing that dictatorships have a structural advantage in the contest over circumvention tool vulnerabilities but aggressively papering over that fact because it doesn't fit a congenial narrative about geeks saving the world. Even circumvention tool authors --- I'm guessing I know more of them than you? --- will tell you that's not an uncommon pathology.
- wladimir 15y agoEven with a structural disadvantage it may make sense to fight back. Yes, it's risky. But whether it's worth it, is everyone's own (moral, not engineering) choice. And I don't have any illusion that just geeks can "save the world", but they can at least provide support in some areas, such as allowing journalists to communicate with activists. So you think the world would be a better place without any circumvention tools?
- tptacek 15y agoI think you are militantly avoiding my point. Also, it's amusing that you think we're going to continue to discuss this after you called me "amoral".