[Author Prev][Author Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Thread Index]

Re: Some legal trouble with TOR in France +


On May 15, 2006, at 11:27 PM, crackedactor@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

We are paying with "fear" (if you run a Tor EXIT) of arrest and prosecution, for many more mere accusation, just for even running a Tor server or a Tor client is enough to keep many away from the Tor network. Just take a look at the mail for our French EXIT server raided last week.

I think if there was some sort of Exit node filter list in use, with whoever (or whatever) providing the block lists, then the owner would be in a much worse position because there could be a claim that he didn't do all that was possible to disallow the use of his exit node for nefarious purposes. Once you say that you are going to provide that level of "protection" (i don't agree that it is protection, or even a morally good thing to try and do), then you become liable for the failure of that protection.

I believe we should take a lead, and offer the EXIT servers protection from some mis-use of this variety and the users protection from possible "walking into" or being "tricked into" UNKNOWINGLY downloading a web page wtih this subject matter on it.

Thanks for watching out for my well being, but really, YOU SHOULDN'T. (REALLY!)

This is WHY I suggested the use of EXIT node filter lists, whatever the EXIt node wants, and with clients getting the option to specify the EXIt node also protects them by using specified list(s) at minimum to protect them.

I don't like the idea of filter lists. I don't even like the fact that ip ranges and addresses can be entered in the ExitPolicy - I would rather just see the private nets blocked automatically. (I do understand why they are there, and understand their necessity in private tor nets, though). I don't like the RedirectExit parameter either (but I understand the reason, just the same). When you start using exit filters for whatever reason, however "good" you think the reason is, it allows someone else to use it for a reason that you won't consider "good".

I do understand the difficulties we will be getting ourselves into. But it is cheaper for us ALL if the police get to give us a set of block lists for child porn than them chasing us all, all over the network. Ok so they will come back with more than just child porn... thats when we have to draw the line! Our EXIt servers just refuse to allow them to be used.

Appeasement has been tried before, and usually doesn't get the desired result, just ask Neville Chamberlain...

Wouldnt it have been better in the first place to have censored out the child porn, then hold the fort? Then the incentive (as publically expressed by politicians) to attempt to intercept eveything would be VERY much reduced.

No, and no it would not.

</ $0.02>

User 165 user165@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Attachment: PGP.sig
Description: This is a digitally signed message part