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

Re: Surveillance rules, feature suggestion

To: or-talk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Surveillance rules, feature suggestion
From: Eugen Leitl <eugen@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2007 18:32:52 +0100
Delivered-to: archiver@xxxxxxxx
Delivered-to: or-talk-outgoing@xxxxxxxx
Delivered-to: or-talk@xxxxxxxx
Delivery-date: Sun, 25 Nov 2007 12:33:01 -0500
In-reply-to: <4749AE7C.4050208@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <4749AE7C.4050208@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-to: or-talk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sender: owner-or-talk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11)

On Sun, Nov 25, 2007 at 05:18:52PM +0000, Smuggler wrote:

> The reason why to do this is that those nodes would not provide relaying
> to the "public" and thus imho not fall under the various EU Data

How would you argument in court that middleman nodes don't offer 
services to the public? 

> retention rules.

-- 
Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org";>leitl</a> http://leitl.org
______________________________________________________________
ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Surveillance rules, feature suggestion
  - From: Michael Schmidt
- Re: Surveillance rules, feature suggestion
  - From: Smuggler

References:
- Surveillance rules, feature suggestion
  - From: Smuggler

Prev by Author: Tor appliances
Next by Author: Re: Tor appliances
Previous by thread: Surveillance rules, feature suggestion
Next by thread: Re: Surveillance rules, feature suggestion
Index(es):
- Author
- Thread