It does not have the effect of defending, nor the effect of endorsing.
It does have the effect of meaning that some bad guys will get away, but that is how we as a society have agreed that our justice system should work. This is not a de facto defence of crime, nor endorsement.
Imagine how much easier catching bad guys would be if we did not require warrants before searches. Would you accuse someone who insisted that warrants were necessary of in effect endorsing or defending crime?
This is the real world, not a cop movie. We don't get to catch all the bad guys, and we don't get to break the rules to try to catch all the bad guys.
Recognition of this reality is neither a de facto defence nor a de facto endorsement of crime. People calling for proper conduct and moderated response to crime are not, unlike the internal affairs guys or judges who throw out cases for technicalities in movies, secondary antagonists.
I don't mind if you disagree with me when I say that in this case there is a line that should not be crossed without great care. That is a statement of opinion. Justice is an imprecise art, disagreement is to be expected. What I do have an issue with is you accusing me of endorsing or defending the crime, in a "de facto" manner or otherwise. I simply am not, and with this particular crime allegations like these can be incredibly damaging. It is not a joke to me, I have to take it seriously.
B) You haven't shown that there is something gained by letting child porn traders go, which is worth the cost. With due process, courts and warrants, we know what the upside is -- it's not clear what real benefit Tor provides us in exchange for letting this kind of activity go on. (Well, to me it's clear what the supposed gain is, and that it's not a fair trade)
it's not clear what real benefit Tor provides us in exchange for letting this kind of activity go on
How about letting people in countries like Iran and China have a fighting chance of getting the word out about what's really going on there? Does that count?
How about letting people who are being stalked by creepy ex-spouses or ex-significant others have a chance of doing things online without being tracked? Does that count?
How about letting people who are afraid of reprisals speak inconvenient truths without being silenced? Does that count?
Basically you are saying these kinds of benefits aren't worth the chance of letting someone distribute child porn using Tor. That seems ridiculous to me.
I never said you endorse it. I said the position which you take has the effect of endorsing it. At the least, the position you appear to support requires a person to ignore this particular crime, or accept it as a necessary consequence. So far you have not explained why this particular feature is something society should accept.
In my opinion saying that there is something so valuable to be preserved that we should countenance the perpetration of a crime to achieve it, is endorsing that crime as a necessary component of the goal. People who endorse due process admit that allowing criminals to escape justice is a necessary feature, and in some sense are endorsing a system where some criminals avoid capture. So are free speech purists endorsing the necessity of a means for conveyance of child porn, so as to facilitate other speech.
That's not the same as saying that free speech purists endorse the porn itself, only the necessity of the freedom to transmit it.
It does have the effect of meaning that some bad guys will get away, but that is how we as a society have agreed that our justice system should work. This is not a de facto defence of crime, nor endorsement.
Imagine how much easier catching bad guys would be if we did not require warrants before searches. Would you accuse someone who insisted that warrants were necessary of in effect endorsing or defending crime?
This is the real world, not a cop movie. We don't get to catch all the bad guys, and we don't get to break the rules to try to catch all the bad guys.
Recognition of this reality is neither a de facto defence nor a de facto endorsement of crime. People calling for proper conduct and moderated response to crime are not, unlike the internal affairs guys or judges who throw out cases for technicalities in movies, secondary antagonists.
I don't mind if you disagree with me when I say that in this case there is a line that should not be crossed without great care. That is a statement of opinion. Justice is an imprecise art, disagreement is to be expected. What I do have an issue with is you accusing me of endorsing or defending the crime, in a "de facto" manner or otherwise. I simply am not, and with this particular crime allegations like these can be incredibly damaging. It is not a joke to me, I have to take it seriously.