> No, because Tor is a tool for anonymizing Web traffic, and it's not against the law to use the Web anonymously.

Should we stop promoting Tor when this inevitably becomes illegal?

> Should we stop promoting Tor when this inevitably becomes illegal?

It depends.

Is your goal to never work with the state, or do you intend to reconcile with it at some point?

If you never intend to obey laws, then yes. You should stop promoting Tor if Tor becomes illegal.

If you intend to get the law changed back in your favor, then you should continue promoting Tor if Tor becomes illegal.

Up to you.

I intend to be moral. This can coincide with obeying the law and with breaking it.

Then figure out whether promoting Tor is moral and do it. Don't ask someone else for your morals.

I'm just pointing out the inherent contradictions in claiming that black markets are evil.

Are you saying the right to share information without surveillance is on the same footing as the right to sell drugs? And even then, is it wise to address your disagreement with a law by creating a GitHub repo that details your plan to break it?

I'm not advocating compliance here. I'm just challenging this idea that we can beat the state through technical prowess, or that we should do it without being pressed into extraordinary circumstances. It's not just unwise, it's (regarding the "technical prowess") flat incorrect.

Drugs are a canary in the coal mine. If you lack the ability to share drugs over a medium without surveillance, then you know that you lack the ability to share information over a medium without surveillance. If you can't say "mail me three marijuanas please" without somebody listening in, then you can't say anything without somebody listening in.

There is no such thing as a system that provides privacy only for legal activities. Therefore if you want to fight for the freedom and ability to share information without surveillance, then you must design systems that can, incidentally or otherwise, be used to share drugs (and you must fight attempts to surveil existing systems.)

Here here!

Yeah, stop volunteering to be a canary.

Why should the right to share information be on a different level than selling drugs? You can sell (share) powerful information. You can share information that would cause far, far more damage than any drugs will.

it is a p2p-market which might offer anonymity. It is a medium, nothing more nothing less.

The readme advertises the project as a black market, as does the name.

EDIT: jlgreco, I can't reply to you, so I'll respond here.

> So the purpose isn't the problem, just the name? If Tor were instead named "Thing-to-subvert-the-state-omatic", would you then oppose efforts to popularize it?

The Silk Road was a black market, so 2.0 would need to be pretty explicit that it's NOT a black market to overcome that-- but it's not. It seems pretty intent on carrying that legacy.

I wouldn't call Tor the "Thing-to-subvert-the-state-omatic"; I'd call it the "Thing-to-avoid-surveillance-omatic." This, in keeping with the history of the Silk Road, I'd call the "Thing-to-sell-drugs-omatic."

So to be clear, do you oppose this because of what it facilitates, or do you oppose it because of what the author indents it to facilitate?

If the author gave it all of the same properties and abilities, claimed that he intended it to share knitting patterns, named it "Yarn Road", and never mentioned a single thing about drugs, would it bother you?

Apparently I can reply now.

> would it bother you?

To a degree, yes. I'm in favor of virtual markets and currencies, but because they can increase the opportunities for lawful commerce and reduce the role of rent-seekers-- not mask illegal activity. His messaging is certainly what I find most bothersome, but I still wouldn't throw my weight behind a system that offered no means of regulation. Likewise, I wouldn't agree with a system that includes total passive surveillability either. There needs to be a considered balance.

I certainly would not play out my policy disagreements through system design, which is how this strikes me. It's far too risky, and certain to get your software (and life) shut down in the long run.

So the purpose isn't the problem, just the name? If Tor were instead named "Thing-to-subvert-the-state-omatic", would you then oppose efforts to popularize it?