Re: Some legal trouble with TOR in France +

[User 165 <user165@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

<$0.02>

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