Re: Abuse ticket

[Scott Bennett <bennett@xxxxxxxxxx>]

     On Tue, 17 Mar 2009 03:15:31 +0100 slush <slush@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 2:11 AM, Scott Bennett <bennett@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>>     Wow.  The differences in laws from one place to another makes it
>> difficult or impossible to recommend any single practice for tor users.  In
>> the U.S., censoring the content makes you liable for any content that is
>
>
>This server is in U.S. It is a little problem for me, because I know US laws
>far less than Czech. Im also affraid of hassles about laws, because my
>English is... errr.... :-). On other hand, these techniques (DMCA reguests,

     Nevertheless, if it's in the U.S., you may actually have a better chance
of dealing with this yourself.

>abusive contents) are reasons, why we are closing one exit node after one -
>operators like me are affraid of problems. While I want to keep exit node
>running, I dont know, what I should do to support that.

     That is a valid and recurring point on this list.  It's also one of the
reasons for my suggestions.
>
>Do you know it is good idea to contact EFF? Could it be helpful with this
>way of problem? It is just an idea...
>
     You can certainly try, though I have no idea whether they'll even give
you the time of day.
>
>>     I would suggest in your case that you close port 80 (HTTP) while you
>> contact your provider to find out whether they would accept blockage on an
>> IP address basis.  One thing to keep in mind is that, as far as the tor
>
>
>Blocking what on IP address basis? I probably dont understand, sorry. Btw,

     Blocking the exits to that IP address for port 80.  See the ExitPolicy
statement in the tor man page.  I'd recommend either blocking exits to the
site that complained for port 80 or else blocking port 80n entirely, but for
goodness's sake, do *something* ASAP to avoid the risk of another complaint
getting your relay shut off.  FWIW, I think Andrew's description of how he
has handled such complaints in the past is a great example, assuming you can
get your provider to let you deal with the complaints directly.

>closing HTTP port was joke, because it is the last port I have open :-(.
>
>
>> community is concerned, content-based censorship by an exit node qualifies
>> the exit node for a BadExit flag from the directory authorities.  If you
>> are
>> forced to close the port in order to keep tor running, then your node can
>> still be useful.  But I wouldn't wait for another "abuse ticket" to take
>> some
>> sort of evasive action.
>
>
>Of course, I can run relay node (not exit), but I will take it as my
>failure.
>
     You could also consider [re]opening a number of other ports while closing
port 80 exits.


                                  Scott Bennett, Comm. ASMELG, CFIAG
**********************************************************************
* Internet:       bennett at cs.niu.edu                              *
*--------------------------------------------------------------------*
* "A well regulated and disciplined militia, is at all times a good  *
* objection to the introduction of that bane of all free governments *
* -- a standing army."                                               *
*    -- Gov. John Hancock, New York Journal, 28 January 1790         *
**********************************************************************