um, no?
they raided his house because of child pornography.
that he had a Tor node and that fact got him off the hook is the part that needs more analysis. How do we know he doesn't operate the node for the very purpose of watching kiddy porn go by? Shouldn't everybody interested in child pornography operate their own exit node just for this purpose? Keep the kiddy porn collection in RAM for viewing whenever, then give the police the in-RAM-kiddy-porn-deleter password...
I understand that ghkbrew (and MANY other people here, not picking on you) subscribe to the idea that there should be untraceable currency, perfect privacy delivery mechanisms, etc.
But there are other people who live in the same democratic country that like the idea that somebody who bombthreats can be found.
I understand the issues on both sides, and I don't mind there is a spectrum of beliefs and a discussion. But it's so annoying when people write posts slanted like yours that they don't acknowledge the obvious "other side".
I read/heard something that David Mamet said, that he learned from the study of Jewish law (but it would apply everywhere) that in order for you to have the basis to discuss an argument with the other side, you need to be able to state the other side's argument in a way that the other side would not disagree with, then you get to make your point.
I thought that was a nice idea.
they raided his house because of child pornography.
that he had a Tor node and that fact got him off the hook is the part that needs more analysis. How do we know he doesn't operate the node for the very purpose of watching kiddy porn go by? Shouldn't everybody interested in child pornography operate their own exit node just for this purpose? Keep the kiddy porn collection in RAM for viewing whenever, then give the police the in-RAM-kiddy-porn-deleter password...
I understand that ghkbrew (and MANY other people here, not picking on you) subscribe to the idea that there should be untraceable currency, perfect privacy delivery mechanisms, etc.
But there are other people who live in the same democratic country that like the idea that somebody who bombthreats can be found.
I understand the issues on both sides, and I don't mind there is a spectrum of beliefs and a discussion. But it's so annoying when people write posts slanted like yours that they don't acknowledge the obvious "other side".
I read/heard something that David Mamet said, that he learned from the study of Jewish law (but it would apply everywhere) that in order for you to have the basis to discuss an argument with the other side, you need to be able to state the other side's argument in a way that the other side would not disagree with, then you get to make your point.
I thought that was a nice idea.