Yes, you're right, currently. This wasn't meant to be a way to avoid server confiscation at *this* time. But if Tor node operators get a more official acceptance somedays, there could be a way to handle this a better way (i hope). Think on professional service providers, they get the chance to *cooperate*, not just get cut off. What 'cooperation' means in detail, who knows... Until there is more *legal certainty*, we have to go a stony way to promote this. But we can try to generate more goodwill. The plausibility of the Tor operator raises and falls with *how* he's doing such things. So the point i was up to still remains: Transparency on Tor usage at all levels of the infrastructure. The hosters/providers shouldn't get known about the Tor usage by bad surprise only, then it gots blacklisted by AUP sometime, until no one remains! There's a need for Tor (and anonymity in general) and a part of the society knows it. But we have to find the right and open way to it, we loose otherwise.. So operating Tor servers in administrative secret could benefit the latter. Greets Am Freitag, den 14.09.2007, 18:43 +0200 schrieb Florian Reitmeir: > On Fri, 14 Sep 2007, BlueStar88 wrote: > > > They want you as customer, but only if they're able to evaluate the > > possible risks. This is understandable. But on this open play, i could > > imagine, they have the chance to succor your business and probable are > > able to explain to the officers, *before* they take your server off... > > maybe its hard to understand, but the officers _always_ _have to_ take the > machine offline. > > Because they don't know if you are telling the truth, their only chance to > verify this is by looking at the host&harddrive. -- BlueStar88 <BlueStar88@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil