On Sat, Feb 11, 2006 at 11:45:32AM -0500, Ashton Vaz wrote: > Seems like a reasonable law. Why are people scared/upset by this? Seems like a reasonable law? Sure, if you've just put down the crack pipe. A reasonable law should *protect* the operator. > Isn't anyone paying attention to this clause - "and with intent to > annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass any person"? It isn't anonymity or If the abusive traffic *seems* to originate from your server, then 1) intent to annoy, abuse, threaten or harass is clearly evident from abuse complaint (emails, web server logs, etc). 2) the originator is suddenly you, until proven otherwise The proof is usually associated with a search warrant, hardware confiscation (the process is so slow you can consider that loss permanent), and plenty of quality time spent with your lawyer, and in court. I can see how this helps making more USians run Tor servers. > anonymizing services that are being targeted, but misuse of anonymizing > technologies. But misuse of anonymizing technologies is habitual. The current anonymizing infrastructure doesn't allow persistent pseudonyms and prestige tracking, so this is an inevitable side effect of providing anonymizing service at all. We could use a law making operators guilty until proven otherwise like another trepanation. -- Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org";>leitl</a> http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature