News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Cisco’s Attempt to Dodge Responsibility for Facilitating Human Rights Abuses. Parent comment

Re:Cisco’s Attempt to Dodge Responsibility for Facilitating ... by jonathankoren on Tuesday April 19, 2016 @08:03PM (#11531443)
> 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

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Cisco’s Attempt to Dodge Responsibility for Facilitating ... by ultramancool on Tuesday April 19, 2016 @08:30PM (#11531540)
It'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?

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Cisco’s Attempt to Dodge Responsibility for Facilitating ... by jonathankoren on Wednesday April 20, 2016 @12:30AM (#11532264)
You'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

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Cisco’s Attempt to Dodge Responsibility for Facilitating ... by ultramancool on Wednesday April 20, 2016 @12:43PM (#11535684)
> 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.

[ Parent | on HN ]