3 ms·
Good news? If LE can deanonymize pedophiles with malware they can deanonymize dissidents with malware. The capability is the problem, if it wasn't, we wouldn't
by wcummings 12y ago
Good news? If LE can deanonymize pedophiles with malware they can deanonymize dissidents with malware. The capability is the problem, if it wasn't, we wouldn't need Tor.
As much as people don't want it to be true, this is an all or nothing situation. Tor is secure for everyone, or no one.
You've got to crack a few eggs to make an omelet...
- sliverstorm 12y agoIt's a blunt tool though. If 99% of the time it is used for evil that might suggest we should try to come up with a more precise tool, rather than declaring that all the human suffering it causes is automatically justified by having a safe harbor for dissidents.
- minimax 12y agoThis is not a Maude Flanders "won't someone think of the children!" type issue. This is bad guys actively and horrifically abusing children. It's a good thing the LEAs are going after them with technologically sophisticated countermeasures. Good for them and we're all better off for it.
- wcummings 12y agoThere's no middle ground. Tor enables activists, journalists, marginalized groups etc, as well as pedophiles, drug dealers and all sorts of criminals. You can't have one without the other. It's either censor-resistant or its not. It sounds like you don't think the trade off is worthwhile, which is not an unfair opinion, it's just important to acknowledge there's no middle ground here.
- rohit89 12y agoI'm a little wary of having a 100% bullet-proof tool given its potential for abuse. I also feel that anonymity should incur a certain cost. It shouldn't be as simple as simply firing up tor if you want to leak launch codes. It should be one step of a process (like losing a tail) rather than some magic cloak of invisibility.
- wcummings 12y agoThere is no middle ground, though.