[0] http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/inde...
The UNHRD is nothing like universally accepted. For example, Muslim countries considered that it violates their idea of what human rights are, so they made their own Islam-friendly human rights declaration [0]. That's like 1/4 of the world population rejecting your universal human rights at the outset.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cairo_Declaration_on_Human_Rig...
That's a feature.
We don't have a single entity that can prescribe and dictate specific rulings in specific scenarios under the diverse range of city, state, and nation laws the world contains.
Acting like the UDHR was ever meant to be something so specific is asinine.
"The Declaration was the first step in the process of formulating the International Bill of Human Rights, which was completed in 1966, and came into force in 1976, after a sufficient number of countries had ratified them."
> The UNHRD is nothing like universally accepted.
Except by most states the world over it is and has been for decades.
"Some legal scholars have argued that because countries have constantly invoked the Declaration for more than 50 years, it has become binding as a part of customary international law."
> For example, Muslim countries considered that it violates their idea of what human rights are, so they made their own Islam-friendly human rights declaration [0]. That's like 1/4 of the world population rejecting your universal human rights at the outset.
Except they didn't reject the UDHR at the outset. Nobody did, not one member of the UN voted against.
"Of the then 58 members of the United Nations, 48 voted in favor, none against, eight abstained, and two did not vote."
Furthermore, The CDHR came what 14? years later? Likely after the radicalization of islam that took place during that period. I mean hell, back in the 60s/70s muslim women were wearing miniskirts.
In fact, the simple fact that the CDHR exists tells me that,
a) the UDHR is working as intended as it allows its existence, and b) the UDHR got things mostly right if a religous entity feels the need to disavow it and make their own.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human...
A paragraph later in the wiki-article you copied from, this is opinion is immediately refuted. Instead the buck stops at constitutions and the like.
It's a declaration of interests. It is heavily stressing the word law, which is very much not an inherent value, that the term competing interests should be hard to shrug off. I am not going to write a fully fledged critique in a HN comment about this monumental document, but it's always going to be a two edged sword.
For one funny bit see this paragraph:
> Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.
Which is asymmetric, not to say utterly useless, without provision about where to leave to. I forgot what GP's point was :(
This is basic stuff and doesn't work in a vacuum you can safely assume we live on the same planet that happens to have mostly open borders.
Regarding the customary international law thing it was not refuted at all. It says that it does not constitute international law for the USA, and does not constitute domestic law for some [citation needed] other countries - likely because of the vague at times wording.
The fact some nations dispute it doesn't make it any less customary international law, hell it's kind of the definition otherwise it would just be international law.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Customary_international_law
Customary is just that, it doesn't have to be upheld but it can be used as a moral guide to defining and shaping other laws.
For example, "This right may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising from non-political crimes or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations."
I thought it was pretty clear that Tor is for everyone.
can be used by all camps
and
only people in the "libertarian" part of the political spectrum can use it
Additionally, the organisation that controls it don't control the content or who can use it. They continue to improve it and maintain it for the purposes of maximizing anonymity and preventing the type of 'control' that you seem to think they're capable of.
When has the Tor Project ever excluded anyone based on ideology?
If Tor is to remain as an acceptable thing to run and use, the Tor Project can't outwardly espouse ideology that drives away the normal users that allow Tor users to blend together. Those browsing Tumblr over Tor, shitposting on Reddit, watching YouTube, etc are key to retain so as to normalize the use of the Tor Browser Bundle.
And even so, note that that is not the same as blocking 0.15% of users, which is impossible.
I dunno about opposite, but certainly in opposition on certain points: http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/inde...
"Article 25.
(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control. (2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection."
Obviously, this means taking from those who have to give to those who have not, which is pretty strongly opposed by the right-libertarians.
a bunch of the others also conflict with right-libertarian principles; like article 24 limits working hours and says I should get some paid vacation and 26 says elementary education should be free (and compulsory)
Right-libertarians generally don't believe that you have a right to any of those things if nobody else wants to give those things to you.
Generally this is talked about as the conflict between positive vs negative rights, or human rights vs property rights.
I mean, you could come up with some version of "human rights" that doesn't include the right to food, shelter and medical care... but you could also come up with a definition of libertarianisim that includes some form of welfare for everyone. I personally know several people who identify as libertarians who also support universal basic income...
I'm just saying, that's not how those words are usually used. Usually 'human rights' includes some kind of positive rights, and usually 'libertarian' means 'primarily focuses on property rights'
https://medium.com/@virgilgr/tors-branding-pivot-is-going-to...
As I understand your argument you were saying that Tor's rebranding-- emphasizing human rights advocacy-- could ironically make it more difficult to operate nodes in countries that have a poor track record on human rights. You gave some examples of Asian countries which took firm stances against corruption, for example, but which also took stances against western ideals of human rights. The implication being countries which might allow Tor to enhance whistleblowing capabilities might reject Tor if it is closely associated with human rights activities.
That said, your article is 2+ years old so there should be substantial data on your claim by now. What does it show? Has Tor usage diminished measurably in those countries due to their rebranding, or not?
As a point of comparison, look at the nodes for Ethereum, which, IMHO, is a even more disruptive idea than Tor.
https://team.carto.com/builder/e70677d5-1111-40a8-9e19-f27da...
Ethereum is a much younger project than Tor, and explicitly eschews the human-rights / internet-freedom branding, even though it will obviously be incredibly useful for those purposes.