[liberationtech] Help test the new Tor Browser!

[Nadim Kobeissi]

I'd just like to add that I'm a DuckDuckGo user myself and that I can definitely vouch for the service.

NK


On 2013-06-24, at 6:50 PM, Mike Perry <mikeperry at torproject.org> wrote:

> Jacob Appelbaum:
>> Jillian C. York:
>>> +1
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 2:38 PM, Cooper Quintin
>>> <cooper at radicaldesigns.org>wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Start page also allows you to generate a url that has certain settings,
>>>> for example this one (
>>>> https://startpage.com/do/mypage.pl?prf=c2a9ee9b20d61e980b6f6cce7026bc91
>>>> )has safe search turned off and no caching for video and image search
>>>> results turned on.  It could be useful to put something like this in Tor
>>>> Browser to avoid search filtering.
>> 
>> It would be great if this was the default home page. I'd certainly be
>> happier with that as the default search engine.
> 
> I don't have anything against porn, and do I strongly believe we should
> make it easy for people to search for whatever they want (hence right
> now, I like the idea of adding a "Startpage (unfiltered)" omnibox item
> rather than changing the default), but I am not sure that I like the
> idea of exposing people to porn who are not looking for it. I worry that
> changing the default *might* do this.
> 
> 
> Two things could tip the scales in my mind either way about the default:
> 
> 1. Can anyone provide concrete examples where the image and/or video
> filters of Startpage/Google (I think Startpage just uses Google's
> filters) have inadvertently censored material that is not porn, and this
> error has persisted uncorrected for a significant period of time?
> 
> I think it is important to weigh this against people being provided with
> porn results if they are not actually looking for porn -- which is an
> important issue of consent, IMO. I am sure there are many Muslim users
> of TBB who do not want to see porn at all, and merely want free access
> to information. The possibility of subjecting those people to porn
> potentially against their will weighs on me a bit..
> 
> 
> 2. The converse is that making people in the Islamic world who *are*
> looking for porn potentially signal this via their omnibox choice isn't
> a great option either, since that choice can leak to disk. I don't think
> it is fair to allow these people to potentially subject themselves to
> government persecution via this choice. :/
> 
> 
> I am open to suggestions on how to balance these concerns.
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Mike Perry
> --
> Too many emails? Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by emailing moderator at companys at stanford.edu or changing your settings at https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech