zebedee wrote:The undernet has not "successfully managed to silence the voice of someone who is suffering under a dictatorship." The management have elected to deny access to clients connecting via TORs to protect the integrity and utility of their own network.
No.SteveC wrote:What if said dissident drops Tor and connects "normally?". People doing that get arrested, interrogated, jailed and even executed if caught by dictators in e.g. China, Iran, Syria and so on. Would you say that does not matter?
I would say that that would be a foolish thing for them to do, as foolish as many other ways they could reveal themselves.
zebedee wrote:but the undernet does not exist to provide communications for political dissidents
You really think the Undernet is the last bastion of freedom?SteveC wrote:A sad day for freedom.
zebedee wrote:If you (the reader, not any particular poster) are sufficiently concerned about this, you might see fit to set up an alternative IRC network specifically intended for political dissidents and everyone else who you cannot distinguish from them, using TORs to access it. Expect to have problems with trouble makers.
No.SteveC wrote:Are you seriously suggesting that someone who is already having a hard time because he's fighting for freedom builds a complete IRC network because Undernet does not want to support him?
I am seriously suggesting that if you feel that freedom is having such sad days that the existence of an IRC network that accepts TORs is a valuable defence of the free world, and there genuinely are no other IRC networks in existence that accept TORs, then YOU PERSONALLY should take responsibility and build a complete IRC network.
zebedee wrote:Meanwhile my stalker continues to attempt to break into my channel or to cripple it by taking advantage of TORs and netsplits.
One of our current bans is *!*@*tor*, it helps but it is not a complete solution and we still have breakins which are typically dealt with promptly by the system detecting them and spitting them out of the undernet.SteveC wrote:Yet you support the global ban, even though it's rather useless to you and you keep being stalked.
What is so bad about letting a channel operator set a ban on *!*@tor and give them the freedom to decide, instead of treating everybody as a criminal/abuser? zebedee can ban them for his channel, while other ops are free to let them join their channels.
Again, I am just asking to cloak Tor users so chanops can decide if they want them banned or not.
Is the purpose of the undernet to provide a useful chat network or is it to provide a secure anonymous chat network for dissidents, even if it incidentally provides the same service to criminals, terrorists and stalkers?