Re: [LUG] [OT] Simple peer-to-peer web censorship avoidance

Philip,

At the risk of trivialising your point, I bow to a greater tinfoil hat than my own.

S

On 10 February 2014 15:34, Philip Hudson <phil.hudson@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On 9 February 2014 18:14, Simon Avery <digdilem@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> The risks of abuse [...] are

> huge and I doubt I need to spell them out here of all places. I'd rather my
> front door stayed intact and not smashed down by the anti-terorist /
> anti-drug / anti-hacking / anti-abuse / anti-pedofile police because my IP
> had been associated with same.

There's a major flaw in your reasoning.

Forgive me if this is teaching my grandmother to suck eggs, but here's
the truth table for material implication ("if-then"):

p | q | p => q
-------|-------|------------
t | t | t
t | f | f
f | t | t
f | f | t

Where p is "I'm (reasonably suspected of being) a serious lawbreaker"
and q is "Agents of state coercion smash down my door and seize or
destroy my property".

It's that third line in the table that's the problem. You don't have
to be guilty (or reasonably suspected) for violent coercive action to
be taken against you. You may simply disagree with those who control
coercive force agents, or you may have embarassed them publicly, as
when SIS agents recently destroyed hard drives at the Guardian.

In other words, state violence is by no means exclusively reserved for
well-founded law enforcement actions under due process and the rule of
law, nor exclusively directed at those who commit (or are reasonably
suspected of committing) serious crime.

So not running proxies and exit nodes is no guarantee of safety.

Refuse to be terrorised.

--
Phil Hudson http://hudson-it.no-ip.biz
@UWascalWabbit PGP/GnuPG ID: 0x887DCA63

--
The Mailing List for the Devon & Cornwall LUG
http://mailman.dclug.org.uk/listinfo/list
FAQ: http://www.dcglug.org.uk/listfaq