Annyoing "security" policy

[zebedee]

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.

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?

No.
I would say that that would be a foolish thing for them to do, as foolish as many other ways they could reveal themselves.

but the undernet does not exist to provide communications for political dissidents

A sad day for freedom.

You really think the Undernet is the last bastion of freedom?

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.

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?

No.

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.

Meanwhile my stalker continues to attempt to break into my channel or to cripple it by taking advantage of TORs and netsplits.

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.

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.

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?

[SteveC]

You really think the Undernet is the last bastion of freedom?

Undernet may not be the last bastion, but if everybody says "someone else can do it" then nobody will. It's easy to point at someone else and suggest he does it.

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.

I see that we have a very different understand of what networks should provide and what not. Personally, I have ran a Tor node for some time when things in Egypt escalated to provide support for dissidents.

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.

Undernet could modify its server and add a little delay of 5 seconds before you can join any channel. That should be enough time to identify a Tor user and put a cloak on him. With this simple modification, your ban would keep all Tor users out while other channels can let them in. Isn't that a useful solution where both sides win?

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?

Why are you using "or"? Is a useful chat network and a secure anonymous chat network mutually exclusive? With my above suggestion, both sides can co-exist; the channel operator would be in control.
And please, don't make the mistake to use criminals, terrorists and stalkers as an argument. This can be done against any method of communication: e-mail, IM-chats, Facebook, Twitter, forums, phones, meeting face to face and so on.
Politicans love to beat that horse when they try to enforce censorship on a medium. "What, you don't support us? This means you support criminals, terrorists and stalkers!".

[MrEen]

I see that we have a very different understand of what networks should provide and what not. Personally, I have ran a Tor node for some time when things in Egypt escalated to provide support for dissidents.

I see that you think yours is the correct/proper/only(?) way things should be done. Obviously not everyone agrees, including the group that runs Undernet and/or those they hand off the workload to.

Is a useful chat network and a secure anonymous chat network mutually exclusive?

In the case of Undernet, yes. There are a lot of other networks, some of which may offer what you seek, or you could start your own. It wasn't that long ago that Undernet implemented user names providing (some) security for the average user from DoS attacks, etc.

P.S. Can a mod fix the spelling error in the thread title? I find it quite annyoing!

[SteveC]

I see that you think yours is the correct/proper/only(?) way things should be done. Obviously not everyone agrees, including the group that runs Undernet and/or those they hand off the workload to.

Not really. But I cannot really understand the reasoning behind it when it's easy to implement a solution that both sides can use. Just let the channel operator decide who should be allowed to join. A little delay and a cloak is all that'd be needed.

In the case of Undernet, yes. There are a lot of other networks, some of which may offer what you seek, or you could start your own.

Honestly, that's quite a shame in my opinion, but ok. I am using other networks occasionally, some of which do not mind Tor (Freenode being the biggest I think) when I have the time to hang around and chat.

It wasn't that long ago that Undernet implemented user names providing (some) security for the average user from DoS attacks, etc.

Pardon me, but how can usernames protect from Undernet getting DoS'ed? I know registered nicks from other networks and those are mostly used to protect your nick and/or join channels which require a registered nick. Unless Undernet's implementation differs here I don't understand how it protects the network.