zlacker

Probably worth thinking through why this isn't done already: firstly it's a lot of work, and secondly the cross-network accountability is very short on choices. After a certain point you have to decide whether you want to cut off a majority of the internet or put up with it.

It also requires de-anonymisation (so you can identify who the bad actor actually is!) - you wouldn't be allowed a Tor exit node on this network, for example.

>>pjc50+(OP)
> Probably worth thinking through why this isn't done already: firstly it's a lot of work, and secondly the cross-network accountability is very short on choices. After a certain point you have to decide whether you want to cut off a majority of the internet or put up with it.

It also requires de-anonymisation (so you can identify who the bad actor actually is!) - you wouldn't be allowed a Tor exit node on this network, for example.

I think that "because it is a lot of work" can't be a reason for not taking preventative measures against something you own that is performing harm on another party.

As far as available technologies, "it isn't perfect" does not mean it isn't better.

If an automated ride-sharing service has customers who are shooting guns out their windows and damaging property, then maintaining the anonymity of the attackers is not a reason to permit them to engage in this behavior.

If Tor is permitting criminals to use the Tor tool, itself, to do harm to others, then it is up to the Tor project to remedy this. If I, as a network operator, do not want them damaging my network, then that is my choice. If I, as a customer of a network operator inform the network operator that I am willing to accept Tor and all liability, then this exception can be written into a contract.