Re: Is "gatereloaded" a Bad Exit?

[Chuck Filson <tor@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

I don't think that "tor" should be dictating what ports must or must not be open on an exit node. This is after all a voluntary operation. 

If people want to send unencrypted data, they will do so with or without these 5 nodes. Shutting them or others down as exits will not make up for users that don't bother to secure their data.

I will do my little bit to show my disagreement with the actions that have been taken by taking 'goodeid' offline until such time as cooler heads resolve this situation without jumping to unfounded conclusions.

Chuck

On 2011-01-30, at 11:54 PM, Mike Perry wrote:

> Thus spake morphium (morphium@xxxxxxxxxxxxx):
> 
>> 2011/1/30 Damian Johnson <atagar1@xxxxxxxxx>:
>>> The five relays Mike mentioned have been flagged as BadExits [1].
>>> Adding them to your ExcludeExitNodes isn't necessary. -Damian
>> 
>> That was really dumb, as it puts a lot more load on the Nodes that
>> support encryption, and, as was mentioned before, _every_ operator
>> could sniff.
> 
> There is no rational reason to carry the unencrypted version of a
> service but not the encrypted version, except to log data. So unless
> these 5 nodes were all just playing their favorite lotto numbers in
> their exit policy, they were being jerks.
> 
> I am aware that every operator can sniff regardless of policy. Every
> operator can do a lot of things. The fact that even good exit policies
> can do bad things is not a necessary condition for allowing bad exit
> policies.
> 
> Frankly, this in-your-face selfishness of *only* accepting the
> unencrypted data because "fuck it, that's the only data I want to log"
> just rubs me the wrong way. Not one of those 5 had legit contact info.
> Two of them actually bothered to fill out the field, but filled it in
> with a fake email address. 
> 
> All of them just wreak of disrespect for us, for the network, and for
> our users. Essentially, it's that disrespect that earned them the
> BadExit flag.
> 
> If this means that sending the message to them means we take out a few
> irrational actors in the process, that's fine. I don't much want
> people playing lotto in their exit policies either. They can stick to
> middle node and put their lotto numbers in their contact info. I
> promise that it will work just as well.
> 
>> I will change my Exit Policy now to something like 80, 6667, 21 and if
>> you BadExit it, you'll loose another fast node.
> 
> *sigh*. And so the cat herding begins. Are you really protesting this
> policy decision with civil disobedience? Really? Fighting for Great
> Justice everywhere, eh?
> 
> Do you have a rational reason why we should allow people to carry the
> unencrypted version of a service but not the encrypted one, other than
> "Well, they could be bad actors even with a good policy!"
> 
> Or is it just because you feel that someone told to do something and
> you don't much like being told what to do, regardless of the
> reasoning?
> 
> I forbid you from jumping in the nearest lake!
> 
> I also forbid you from taking your freshly-gimped exit node in for a
> swim with you!
> 
> 
> -- 
> Mike Perry
> Mad Computer Scientist
> fscked.org evil labs

***********************************************************************
To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx with
unsubscribe or-talk    in the body. http://archives.seul.org/or/talk/