Silk Road forums

If you are an accessory to the molestation of a child you should be punished. If you help the producer in any way (emotional, financial, physical, concealment, advice, etc) then you are guilty. It is reasonable to think that if you are paying for CP then some of that money is going to the producer. Since you can not be sure you are taking a great risk assuming it isn't.

So I should stop posting security tutorials here because a pedophile might use one of them in order to protect themselves while they molest children? It is insane to think that helping a producer in any way should be criminal. You probably meant knowingly contributing to a producer. Sure I will grant that it should be illegal to knowingly contribute to child pornography production, at least financially and concealment. I am not so sure that I think it should be illegal to give advice to anyone though, and actually I am pretty sure that it should not be illegal to. I strongly believe in freedom of speech and information. However, when you qualify your statement with knowingly, as I assume you must mean, then you must also admit that although a person may be taking a great risk in assuming that the money they pay for CP is not going to a producer, unless they know that it is going to a producer they are exempt from this. I already have said it should be illegal to knowingly pay a producer of child pornography to molest children, and thus unless I am misunderstanding you we actually are not in too much disagreement regarding this. 

Kmfkewm: Thou doth protest too much. I suspect you grasp tightly to libertarian beliefs in an attempt to justify your own activities. I hope all pedos are as committed to not facilitating the production of CP as you are to your libertarian convictions.

Meh I am not a pedohpile, although I am admittedly sexually attracted to teenagers who are under the age of consent. Not that I have actually done anything with anyone under the age of consent, or have an exclusive attraction to them. In fact most child pornography makes me feel quite sick to my stomach (as far as I can tell from the descriptions anyway), although I do not imagine I would find images of nude children to be inherently upsetting to me. That said I really feel no desire to justify my own actions, I try my best to not partake in actions that cause harm to others and except for minor things (I mean I am not a saint) I find that I succeed at not hurting others. As my actions cause no significant harm to others, I feel that they are inherently justified. And actually, I care quite little about how the majority of people perceive me, due to the fact that I view the majority of people as being either evil or brainwashed.

If one of the pedos does molest (or contribute to the molestation of) a child then I think it would be the perfect time for some of that 'militant libertarianism' we were talking about.

Yes I entirely agree. That is a prime example of something a militant libertarian would use force to halt. If a pedophile rapes a child they should have force used against them, as they are violating the freedom of the child. If a government agency tries to extort taxes from someone, they should have force used against them, as they have initiated force in an attempt to violate the freedom of another person. If someone arrests a person for a drug crime, they should have force used against them as they have initiated force and violated the freedom of another. If a criminal burglarizes a home they should have force used against them as they have initiated force and violated the freedom of others. If someone attempts to harm a person for viewing images they deem to be inappropriate, militant libertarians would use force to stop them, as they will be initiating force in an attempt to restrict the freedom of an innocent. Libertarians would be against all forms of force initiation, and would violently oppose the initiation of force by responding to force initiators with force until the force initiators are incapacitated, dead, or change their tune. The fact that militant libertarianism only opposes the initiation of force inherently means that only those who wish to initiate force against and violate the freedom of others have anything to fear, or any reason to not support militant libertarianism.

Quote from: Fallkniven on January 26, 2013, 08:43 pm

police are lapdogs of the scum of the earth - politicians.

how much is throwing this guy in jail for 8 years going to cost the state?

just for selling weed and shrooms - what a fuckin joke.

It's going to cost the state approximately $75k per year.  This money will be paid to the jail operators who will pay the lobbyists to pay off the politicians.  Everyone wins.  Except the general population.

And the world carries on as it always has...

That is how the slave trade works. I hope I live to see the slave revolution. I will smile and laugh while they drag the DEA agents into their execution chambers.

I suppose I can admit that I have for a long time not been in favor of legalizing the payment for child pornography, but rather only possession and distribution that does not involve a financial transaction. What caused me to change my mind in regards to for profit distribution is largely that it is seen as not immoral by many libertarians. The primary libertarian argument I have heard for why even payment for distribution should be legal, is because the payment is really for the costs of distribution. I have for a long time thought that CP possession and distribution should not be illegal, but then I must ask myself is it right to put restrictions on the people who legally provide CP, that are different from the restrictions put on people who provide other things? It seems that saying distributors of one legal thing must not be paid to compensate for the bandwidth consumed and other costs incurred, is not in line with freedom.

You really don't see the paradox in what you said? You'd still be using force in making people do things you think is right. You'd be using force to ensure kids remained brainwashed and ignorant by clueless parents who would deny them the right to learn about the world they were born into. You keep callously treating  children as chopped liver, no more than the property of their parents with no rights to be free in your world. When I point out the kids should be free from brainwashing you return to the parent's rights as superseding their child's right not to be brainwashed. You outright ignore the kid having any rights at all. You don't give a damn about the intellectual, psychological, and emotional damage done to a child who grows up fearing imaginary foes and eternal damnation while never exposed to other ideas. It doesn't bother you that kids in such circumstances don't learn to think for themselves or question authority and become religious tools enslaved to fictional ideas. You aren't even aware of mental enslavement being just as wrong as physical enslavement. You draw the line at sexual abuse as what a parent should not be "free" to making their kids endure while I include brainwashing as what a parent should not be "free" to make their kids endure because I believe brainwashing to be every bit as damaging as sexual abuse and in some circumstances MORE.

Actually the way I worded my response made it not paradoxical. The thing is I value peoples right to teach whatever they want to their children more than I value children being taught things that I think are correct.

So no, when you keep repeating this as your mantra it makes no sense to me because I believe a child must not be brainwashed in order to be free. Someone never exposed to alternative ideas CANNOT BE FREE. They are not free to make a choice about something they're not aware exists. And really, saying the parents believe I would force their child into eternal damnation by forcing them to learn science so I should respect their bullshit opinion is such a ludicrous argument it's hard to believe you could make it with a straight face. It's not themselves they are fucking up but their INNOCENT CHILD! So their opinion is not equally valid to mine because theirs is based in fiction and mine is based in fact.  Science is rooted in the empiricism of the real world we live in. Religion is not. People are free to make stupid choices, but they should NOT be free to deny their kids the option of choosing NOT to make stupid choices. Is this really that hard to understand?

The thing is even though religious people are wrong about very many things, they have functioned in society for quite some time now, and indeed they are the overwhelming majority of the world. Although more intelligent people are less likely to believe in religions in general, even some very intelligent people have been religious, and there are many religious doctors and scientists even. Hell, some Christians even believe in evolution, but that God started the process. So not every religious person would desire to teach their children nothing of real value. Although I can admit that a significant enough number of them would. But even though I am quite certain that what I believe is right, I can recognize that the people who want to teach creationism are quite certain about what they believe is right as well. So long as they do not force my children to learn Creationism, I don't really care what they teach their children. We could fight with them etc, or we could just mind our own business. That is what is great about libertarianism and horrible about statism, statists believe in one size fits all solutions, the public schools will teach from one curriculum to all of the students, and the curriculum will of course be biased (for lack of a better word?) as pretty much everything is once it gets any significant distance away from math (I don't think anyone disagrees that 1 + 1 = 2??). Even in the US schools they teach children many lies about drugs, I would not want my children subjected to such bullshit. In a libertarian society on the other hand, you are free to have your children taught your beliefs but you are not allowed to force people to teach their children your beliefs and you are not allowed to force people pay for the education of your child.

Quote

I do think directly paying for the production of CP should be illegal, just as I think that the production of CP should be illegal.

Oh? Did you just decide this? I don't recall you ever mentioning you had a problem with this before. What do you mean, please clarify. Are you referring to the paying customers of say, a premium CP website?

I mean I think that if I know someone named Bob, and Bob has a little girl, that I should not legally be able to pay Bob (edit: for -> to create) pictures of him molesting his little girl. to do so would be equivalent to paying someone to murder someone for me, and even though I am not carrying out the murder I am directly funding it. However, if someone sells CP that they did not pay a producer for, and someone sends them money for that CP, I do not think that this should be illegal. This is not funding the molestation of children, this is funding the transfer of data. Unless a clear and direct link can be established between the funds and the molestation of an actual child, with proof given that the payment was sent in order to create new images of a child being molested, then I do not think it is an issue.

Yes please do because it seems just counter-intuitive to me. Pedophiles are motivated by their sexual urges and human sexuality is so fundamental to our biology it would be natural for them to perpetually seek it out. Thrill seekers are bound to get bored after a certain amount of exposure and move on to new forms of thrills. So it doesn't seem to make a whole lot of sense to me.

I will try and get you some citations within the next two days , I am a bit too busy right now to hunt down obscure .pdfs and dig through them

This might be true too, but I also provided good reasons why. Ease of access, more choices, fresh content, and customization. But the reasons are really irrelevant. All that matters is that the CP business model could mimic the adult model and be profitable.

The thing is I don't think that adult pay sites offer these things over filesharing services. To access a pay site you need to sign up, get your credit card out and join. To get the same shit for free from a p2p network, you type in the name of what you are looking for. Pay sites do not have more choices than P2P networks, because P2P networks have almost everything from every pay site + a bunch of amateur shit that is not on pay sites. They have fresh content but only for a small period of time before it makes its way to filesharing sites, and additionally I am not sure what sort of customization you are talking about.

Also I know that legality will not increase demand. I can assure you that nobody who doesn't want to look at CP today, is going to run out and start looking at CP because it has been legalized. I imagine you think that legalizing heroin will lead to a bunch of people running out and trying it as well?

You can "assure" me demand won't increase huh? Based on what? Crypto-religious blind faith? I'm not sure how you can "know" something like that when it's so illogical. What about all the pedophiles that hold themselves back that would then have a green light? What about all the curious people, sadists, libertarians, pornography addicts, voyeurs, non-pedophile philes that were holding themselves back because of how totally illegal and taboo it is and they didn't want to jeopardize their lives? The reality is that there are countless that no doubt hold back. So what's your assurance worth? Your reasoning as to why demand wouldn't increase is flawed.

I said I can assure you that nobody who doesn't want to look at CP today, is going to run out and start looking at CP because it has been legalized.

Just like the heroin analogy. Legalizing heroin WOULD increase demand, at least initially. Of course it wouldn't be coming from those that had no interest before but those already inclined but feared arrest or didn't have access. You'd also have opiate addicts who were taking other illegal or Rx based opiates making the switch to heroin because of the legalized ease of obtaining it. It might not be a huge increase, but the numbers would initially surge just from the act of legalization.

I imagine it would be similar between heroin legalization and CP legalization. The desire for both will not change, which is the only claim that I made. The demand may increase slightly, but I doubt by much.

Fair enough. Let's extrapolate. The for-profit online porn industry worldwide is a 5 billion dollar industry:

http://www.guardianexpressla.com/porn-revenues-exceed-5-billion-world-wide-despite-free-pornography-online-and-rampant-piracy/

Pedophiles account for 4% of the population. Let's assume your stat of more thrill seekers than pedophiles consume CP is true, so let's say 5% are thrill seekers, and let's say 1% account for the various other CP consumer profiles. That gives us a market 10% the size of the adult market of potential consumers of premium CP. Remember, we don't have to factor out P2P users because this is an extrapolation already of only the for-profit adult model.

There's your mechanism. A 500 million dollar market just waiting to be exploited for premium CP producers to milk. And as econ 101 tells us, when you have that sort of demand with those sorts of dollars involved, there will be those willing to take the risk to fill the void to get a piece of the pie especially since the risk won't be THAT great to themselves. Studios are easy to stealth in a home. Yes, it's true that the illegality of production will provide some deterrence. But with the possession and distribution channels fully legalized ready to fill the coffers of the pro producer that provides them content, that's what's known as a STRONG incentive for such producers to go underground and get into the game. Now let me return to my very first post on this subject to explain the rest of the mechanisms of how this would work and why producers wouldn't be at that great a risk, for which you said I was clueless because you were convinced child porn could not be profitable:

And why don't these commercial producers exist today? There are plenty of hidden services, bitcoin, etc. The CP groups that have been operating online for over a dozen years consist of some of the most skilled internet security people in the entire world, it isn't like they couldn't set up a commercial distribution channel. And they already have millions of CP images to boot! But I just don't see it happening. The last group that tried commercializing old images was pwnt by interpol, but at their peak they served 30,000 customers in the entire world, which is a small drop in the bucket compared to the total demand for CP. I think that nobody really wants to risk their entire lives in jail so they can make some commercial CP that will be freely available within days after its commercialization.

"A policy like that would have the real world affect of more pedophiles (or even just unscrupulous opportunists) willing to take the risk of producing it because of the financial incentives while the chances of getting caught would be minimized. Why? Because as soon as it's secretly produced and hits their distribution channels they cash in. Since their distribution channels would be free to possess, distribute, and profit handsomely off it they have no reason to give up who the producer is, and in fact would have a strong financial incentive not to. You could say the public could boycott the stores that carry it, but seeing as to how porn is primarily distributed online these days that doesn't prevent the websites that cater to it from being driven out of business."

The financial incentives for CP are not going to increase if distribution and possession are legalized. In fact they will probably drop if anything, just like the prices for recreational drugs would drop and the cartels would go out of business overnight if drugs were legalized. There are already freely accessable distribution channels for CP that are not going to be shut down any time soon, Tor for one and possibly even more infamously Freenet which is probably one of the biggest CP caches ever. It is very difficult to prove that anyone requested CP from Freenet, because it has strong plausible deniability built into it, and it is very difficult to tell if someone originally inserted content into Freenet as well. The feds have not taken down any Tor hidden services, it is easier to trace them than to prove that someone downloaded anything in particular from Freenet. Also don't forget bitcoin and bitcoin blind mixes, which make getting money from customers and cashing it very secure. It isn't like people with massive access to CP are not aware of these technologies, so where are these huge production studios you are worried about, and where are these commercial CP providers you are worried about? The studios have all been gone since the mid 2000's and the commercial sites are all but extinct as well, even though with with modern technology distributing commercially is easier than it has ever been, there is nobody doing it currently and a few years ago the last group of people doing it were pwnt (and they had 30,000 customers in total, and they were not producers).

"Could be" is not incontrovertible proof is it? I believe there is international law in place that prevents corporations from obtaining items produced under those unethical circumstances, so if they do make their way way to western markets there's no way to determine if they are or aren't. We're not going to punish vendors of products ethically produced because some indistinguishable make it to market are we? If some ephebophile is producing and selling "child porn" that's hard to distinguish from adult porn are we supposed to ban all porn? No.

Do you have incontrovertible proof that someone who pays to view a CP image has caused a child to be molested? Nope. Sure it could happen, but it will not happen in all cases. I could go to a hidden service, download some CP (but I wont because eww), and sell it to you for fifty bucks right now. Did a child get molested because of our transaction? No. Did your demand for CP cause child abuse to occur in this instance? Nope!

There is NO grey area around the absolute fact that purchasing premium CP directly funds and promotes their business model of exploiting children.

It is not an absolute fact though, as I explained above.

But you don't even seem aware that the market forces of supply and demand happen completely organically, no matter the industry, irrespective of if the vendors have access to industry numbers. The supply and demand curve is the most basic and essential concept in economics. Are online businesses not suppose to see how much additional profit they bring in when demand of their product increases? Are they not suppose to have access to how many uniques and page impressions they get a day and see those numbers go through the roof? Are they not suppose to invest those increase profits on expanding, whether it be infrastructure investments, technology improvements, or fresh and unique content all for the purpose of capturing a larger piece of the much expanded revenue pie? Are potential CP premium producers suppose to sit back while watching the present businesses expand and not think that these guys are rolling mucho dough so they need to get in? Supply and demand market forces have been around as long as markets have been around and during much of history, vendors never had access to accurate industry stats.

I never argued that CP distribution should be entirely regulated to private information retrieval protocols, but it is just a thought experiment for you so you can see that you are not really concerned with the demand for CP but rather are simply against CP in general. If the demand for CP can be perfectly obfuscated, and the demand for CP is the only reason to keep CP possession and distribution illegal, then if CP is distributed with PIR it shouldn't be an issue,

Quote from: kmfkewm on January 23, 2013, 01:07 pm

But what about the innocent kids you want to force to be exposed to information that puts them at a substantially higher rate of burning in eternal hell fire!! It is almost like different people have different opinions (some stupid) and belief systems (some stupid)! Maybe everybody should be free to follow their own belief system and have their own opinions, so long as they do not infringe upon the rights of others to do the same??

ROTFL. What it really boils down to is that you value the freedoms of deranged parents to victimize their kids through a total immersion in brainwashing while I value the rights of the innocent kid to not be thoroughly brainwashed. Since you pretty much agree with the value I place on science and facts over mythology and bullshit then that's what it comes down to. No matter how much you try to dress it up and justify it otherwise, there's no other way around it. You value the freedom of the parent over the mental health of the kid. Deal with it. 

I value the freedom of people to do what they think is right over my ability to force them to do anything other than not force others to do what they think is right.

First of all how many of those several million CP images are actually of decent enough quality that connoisseurs would care to watch, let alone pay to watch? My guess is a small fraction. Thrill seekers perhaps for the novelty don't mind trudging through 15 year old shitty images but regulars, just like in adult porn, would be all about seeking fresh content with the best quality that uses the latest technologies. This is where the demand for new content would be that could exact a price should its distribution and possession become legal. 

Well the big Eastern European production studios used only professional photographers with cutting edge equipment of the time. I have no idea what the quality of the 'average' CP is though. I don't imagine that it is mostly extremely low quality though. Anyway the production of new CP could still exact a price if distribution were handled securely. Although the content will leak immediately to P2P networks. I do think directly paying for the production of CP should be illegal, just as I think that the production of CP should be illegal.

Really? Sounds far fetched and counter-intuitive to me but if you can back it up with proof I'll be happy to concede this point.

I will try to dig up a link to a typology of CP offenders I read once. Googling around a little didn't find it for me, but I can probably still dig it up. I don't believe it listed the prevalence of each type of CP offender though. I can also likely find several other citations for the somewhat counter intuitive claim that pedophiles are not the most common CP offenders, although this will entail me digging through google and a bunch of .PDFs. So in short when I get more free time I will get your citations and post back with them, and until that point in time feel free to not believe me . CP offenders are a pretty diverse bunch and certainly pedophiles are in their ranks, however the comprehensive typologies include a lot more offender types. Curious people, sadists, libertarians, pornography addicts, voyeurs, non-pedophile philes (infantophiles, hebephiles, ephebephiles) ((although this is somewhat of a stretch as most people incorrectly lump them together with pedophiles regardless, and some people don't even consider jailbait to be CP)) and a lot of other things I cannot immediately recall.

Curious offenders may search for CP not because they have any sexual attraction to children but rather out of a desire to see what the big deal is all about. They usually are busted with a few images, sometimes even in their caches and not even saved. Thankfully they are not very commonly arrested as law enforcement do make some attempts at focusing resources to people with larger collections and people who search for more disturbing materials / materials more indicative of being a child molester. However sometimes these people get tangled up in the web when they use P2P programs, as they don't realize the images they downloaded are being served from their computers, and thus they have been elevated from the bottom of the target list to a much higher position as a distributor. Libertarian offenders are pretty similar to curious offenders, although their driving motivation to look at CP is because the government restricts them from doing so. They pretty much have the same pattern as the curious offender. Sadists who are not pedophiles may still be attracted to hardcore child pornography, it is not the age of the victim that they find attractive but rather the suffering inflicted upon the victim. Sadists who view/distribute CP are the highest priorities for law enforcement, and they signal their status by having collections of largely 'hurtcore' CP. They are more likely to use security measures to protect themselves, and to be parts of a community as well (people who are parts of a CP community are also higher priority targets for LE than people who do not engage in networking). Pornography addicts may view CP even though they are not pedophiles, because they become addicted to looking at taboo images. Their progression may be similar to that of the stereotypical drug addicts, starting with softcore legal materials and working up to extreme legal materials prior to moving into illegal materials of increasing extremity. This is a very common sort of offender, and they are often big collectors and as such pretty high priority targets of law enforcement. They are also very vulnerable to law enforcement operations as they tend to use P2P networks (making them distributors in many cases, often unintentionally) and limited security measures. A voyeuristic offender may view CP due to a desire to see people who have been covertly recorded in sexual situations. They would be more attracted to the fact that a spy cam recorded someone in a bathroom naked than they would be to the fact that the person it recorded naked was underage. And of course there are the various other age related philes, pedophiles only being attracted to children from ages 2 to 12 but CP encompassing all pornography of anyone under 18. Law enforcement put the highest priority on people who view infant porn, and the least priority on people who view jailbait porn (which is often freely distributed even through otherwise legal amateur sites, with very little law enforcement attention given to the viewers/distributors or producers for that matter in the case of self created CP). Since in common speech pedophile means anyone attracted to anyone under 18, and technically child porn means porn with anyone under 18 in it, this can seem like kind of a stretch.

Again P2P networks do not offer the most efficient means to find and browse content. This is why adult websites can still charge a premium right now. They can offer better quality content than what you'd find on average on p2p. And they can offer highly specialized and catered content instantly without having to resort to seeking it out. So you insist on continuing to compare apples and oranges. Your argument that legality would not increase demand is just not compelling.

Websites can still charge a premium now for adult porn because a lot of old people and internet noobs don't realize they can get the same exact shit for free. Also I know that legality will not increase demand. I can assure you that nobody who doesn't want to look at CP today, is going to run out and start looking at CP because it has been legalized. I imagine you think that legalizing heroin will lead to a bunch of people running out and trying it as well?

I think we need to distinguish between just "child sex abuse" and "child sex abuse AND exploitation through CP". I believe the latter is far worse for the victim than just molestation because it exploits and exposes the child to the world through CP. I maintain that the increased levels of demand and demand for premium content streams of CP would increase the amount of exploitation. This is just simple supply and demand and common sense.

You are going to need to show me the mechanism by which this will happen. The people who produce CP have their own reasons for doing so, and only the commercial producers (who are essentially extinct, and who would still be breaking the law by producing anyway), attention seekers (who produce for the props they get from the CP community) and exclusive content seekers (who produce CP to satisfy the membership requirements of private producer only communities) seem open to the formation of a supply and demand relationship.  A very small percentage of the children who are molested on photo/video, are molested for the primary purpose of child pornography production.

Really poor analogy. For your analogy to work it would have to be the distillers that produce the alcohol to be blamed as the purveyors of immoral behavior just like the producers of child porn. My argument is not that consumption of child porn is a catalyst for the consumers to go out and rape children they wouldn't otherwise have raped. Again, it's that the increased demand for CP increases the sexual exploitation of minors to meet that demand. It's really quite simple. There's a direct causal relationship. What you're describing is incidental and dependent upon other factors. By consuming alcohol you're not enabling someone else drinking alcohol to engage in vehicular manslaughter. By paying for CP you are directly enabling producers or potential producers of premium CP to produce it.

Should we not buy diamonds because they could be blood diamonds? Should we not buy shoes or electronics or anything else from Asian countries because they could have been produced by slaves in sweatshops? Your argument is that we should outlaw diamonds, shoes and electronics because otherwise people might buy them and fund immoral activity, leading to even more immoral activity. My argument is that we should punish the people who are doing immoral things and leave the innocent people who are not hurting others alone.

Not really sure what your point is with this metaphor. Just because the exact figures with regards to the demand for CP is obfuscated doesn't change the reality that increased demand for fresh and premium content CP would increase the supply. Is this really bad metaphor some sort of joke?

The thing is that the increased demand would be impossible to determine if distribution took place only over a properly designed PIR infrastructure. If zero people or a million people are downloading CP from the PIR network, nobody would be able to tell.

Lately this place has been awash with members registered a month or two ago and who think it is their right to dictate how the forums should be run. Most of these people have no idea what DPR is about, or that he built SR and these forums on Libertarian/Agorist principles. Hell, most of these twits I have conversed with lately don't even know what Libertarianism or Agorism is.

Libertarianism - An extreme laissez-faire political philosophy advocating only minimal state intervention in the lives of citizens.

There is no exact definition of Libertarianism but this one sums it up nicely, and I can assure you the minimal state intervention referred to here has nothing to do with intervening with an individual's right to speak freely. It has more to do with practical implications i.e. roads, hospitals, rubbish removal etc.

Agorism - a revolutionary libertarian political philosophy that advocates the goal of bringing about of a society in which all relations between people are voluntary exchanges by means of counter-economics, thus engaging in a manner with aspects of peaceful revolution.

This does not have much to do with free speech but it is important to know that Samuel Edward Konkin III developed the Agorist philosophy with libertarian ideals in mind.


Recently there has been a lot of discussion about the censoring of these forums, a discussion I don't recall seeing when I first came here (mid to late 2011). It has always been a given that this place is completely free, no intervention from higher powers, unless, like in the case of roads and hospitals in the real world, it is practical (spam threads). That is what makes SR such a great place, truly unique in today's PC world. This is not just something I feel strongly about, I have no doubt my views were and I believe still are the majority held view.



One of the worst words ever coined in the English language is offense/offensive, as it's often used to deny people their use of language. However I must say I find it incredibly offensive when someone who has not even been here a few months wants to dictate to members and mods alike what we can and can't discuss here. These people obviously heard about a place they can 'score' and are treating SR as just that, another place they can score.  (Am I the only person who can see a direct correlation between recent SR coverage on Fox News and a sudden influx of censorship loving lemmings?) They have no idea what members and DPR are talking about when they talk of a revolution, they most likely just pass it off as commies or hippies talking shit. However, when I see someone regged in dec2012 attempting to dictate the 'character' of these forums, I can laugh and move on. Yes, I find it offensive, but that does not mean I have to be angry about it (pity is much nicer than anger). I am in no way forced to read what they have said nor do I need to respond, if I do that's my choice.


Some more discussion of free speech can be found in this thread, which was unfortunately locked (oh the irony) by a moderator after they left me a weak backhanded jibe in it, classy stuff: http://dkn255hz262ypmii.onion/index.php?topic=110677.0



So my message, to anyone who is unhappy with some of the subjects discussed in these forums, or to the lack of censorship/moderation, is that these forums are not for you, and for you to come in here and try and change the community to one that denies free speech is rude and pathetic. I am an atheist, I don't go to church groups and confront them about their beliefs I don't agree with, or demand they renounce their faith, so why come to a forum founded on Libertarian principles/ideals and call for censorship? As I have said before people who advocate censorship or more state control in general are the reason why we have to buy/sell drugs anonymously in the first place, for shame.


I would very much like to hear from DPR regarding the recent 'censorship for the good of the community' mantra being employed by our mods lately, I don't believe the original DPR (many believe he sold SR to another entity, understandable if true) would approve.


To the mods, I have not been abusive nor have I broken any rules with this post. It is in the correct sub-forum, no need to be moved. I do not want this thread locked, ever, let the community decide when it is irrelevant and it will be buried accordingly. If it is derailed or if someone becomes abusive/breaks rules so be it, but don't deny the good guys their say because others broke rules.


tl;dr?

In short - Laissez-faire


Peace out homies

I have not had any posts censored despite having several controversial ones. That said I agree with this, censorship should be limited to spam not controversial topics. I hate censorship. DPR and admins and mods can do whatever the fuck they want of course, but I vote strongly against censorship.

edit: oh yeah limetless actually did delete several of my threads in one day :rolls eyes: . To be fair I was indeed trolling in several of the ones made in response to his censorship .

Do it the same place you access these forums with Tor.

Seriously, Tor is Tor. it's end-to-end encryption and whether you're accessing the forum or you're  accessing Silk Road, it doesn't look any different to the ISP/WiFi. That's the whole idea behind Tor; anonymous browsing.

On the other hand, being at a public public place where someone might look over your shoulder and see the screen, or you acting weird trying to hide your screen. . . not to mention possibly raising some flags by accessing Tor on their WiFi network (which they might be blocking for all you know) - that's a classic example of the kind of self-sabotage overly paranoid thinking can do.

look, you're on Tor right now because you're on the forum. Just go to Silk Road the same way. For god's sake don't go out to a public place using a borrowed/stolen computer (not sure what you mean by it having no connection to you...) to buy drugs online.

Tor is not invulnerable and using WiFi from random locations is recognized as a good technique for increasing your anonymity. Using WiFi from locations in a pattern can help a little, but if the feds want you and they know that you are going to connect to WiFi at one of a dozen locations the next time you use the internet for something and they can trace you, they will be able to get you if they try. If you use a neighbors WiFi it does give you the advantage of strong unlinkability if you quit using that access point and wireless adapter prior to the police getting to it, but it doesn't help a whole lot if you consistently use the same access point as wireless signals can be traced quite easily while they are being sent. I can't even recall a single case where the feds traced someone through the internet if they always connected from a new random access point and only kept online for brief periods of time. But again, there are several cases where they got people who fell into patterns of access points, and there are a lot of cases where they got people using neighbors WiFi.

Another advantage of using hacked/open WiFi is that it hides the fact that YOU are using Tor (ie: it gives you membership concealment). This can be really good for security, particularly if you are a vendor, but again the level of protection it provides you depends strongly on how randomly you use access points and how long you use any given access point. You also need to worry that someone might notice you on their wireless network and call the police, I have not heard of someone identifying this through technical means but there are stories of people calling the police when someone in a car parks in front of their house while on their laptops. So you do need to be careful with not looking suspicious while using open/hacked WiFi networks.

They do need a warrant to listen to the voice or view/listen to communications payload data in general. They also need a warrant to remotely turn on your phones camera or microphone to spy on you (the feds have done this to various targets, particularly mafia stores I have heard about). However, they do not need a warrant to track your geospatial positioning, nor do they need a warrant to gather the list of numbers/IP addresses that you communicate with (or the list of numbers / IP addresses those numbers/IP addresses communicate with, etc). Also, they are possibly able to use traffic classifiers and DPI in order to circumvent their ban on directly viewing your communications, for example they may be able to determine the content you are viewing or even words and phrases you say with only packet timing / size information, which is obtainable without a warrant.  Some commercial services that sell classifiers that can look for illegal content in internet traffic at the ISP level, make the argument that if they can prove only illegal information flows can possibly be intercepted, that it is not unconstitutional to warrantlessly analyze traffic for illegal content in a dragnet fashion. I believe this has not been decided decisively by the courts, although of course it has law enforcement support. In such a case legal communications would not be identifiable, but inherently illegal communications (ie: CP) would be instantly detected at the ISP and justify getting a warrant for a full wiretap.