Posted by: Anonymous Coward
on June 24, 2006 04:59 PM
An excellent point. If I may play devil's advocate for a moment though: the person who is providing the service is, more or less, allowed to be a dictator, benevolant or otherwise. If he provides the bandwidth and the server, shouldn't he, as a provider, have as much power in his realm as he pleases?
I've heard it mentioned before that first amendment rights protect freedom of speech, but they do not require others to give you a soap box. I think that is really what the IRC issue is about. However, pushing registration out to Tor is taking things too far, IMHO -- if you want control of your own server, either ban Tor altogether, or *do the registration yourself*. It's not Tor's job to track and ID your users for you, nor to help you administer access to your server. If you want to wield more power, you are perfectly capable of redesigning your own services to cope.
Examples include:
- Muting all non-authenticated users, so that they can watch conversations, but not participate. This essentially forces them through your registration process.
- Not allowing non-authenticated users to change their name (to prevent<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/nick spamming).
- Throttling the rate at which non-authenticated users may<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/join rooms.
- Otherwise restricting the flow of non-authenticated users, in order to make the service somewhat useful for legitimate anonymous types, but near impossible to use for abusers.
Learn about Linux
Download Linux
Get Linux help
Re:A flawed attack
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on June 24, 2006 04:59 PMI've heard it mentioned before that first amendment rights protect freedom of speech, but they do not require others to give you a soap box. I think that is really what the IRC issue is about. However, pushing registration out to Tor is taking things too far, IMHO -- if you want control of your own server, either ban Tor altogether, or *do the registration yourself*. It's not Tor's job to track and ID your users for you, nor to help you administer access to your server. If you want to wield more power, you are perfectly capable of redesigning your own services to cope.
Examples include:
- Muting all non-authenticated users, so that they can watch conversations, but not participate. This essentially forces them through your registration process.
- Not allowing non-authenticated users to change their name (to prevent<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/nick spamming).
- Throttling the rate at which non-authenticated users may<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/join rooms.
- Otherwise restricting the flow of non-authenticated users, in order to make the service somewhat useful for legitimate anonymous types, but near impossible to use for abusers.
#