Re: Surveillance rules, feature suggestion

[Smuggler <smuggler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Eugen Leitl wrote:
> 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? 

Well, simple:
Backbones etc. are excluded from the data retention laws. As well as any
networks that are not available to the general public (like university
networks as well company networks).
By having middleman-only nodes (or better, second hop only nodes) those
would not be part of the "public" network but only infrastructure.
That means that those nodes would not have to log at all. AND they wont
be target to raids because those nodes would not be part of any records
at all if all other nodes in the chain are also non-logging.
It would allow German operators to continue running Tor nodes (second
hop only nodes) and other non-logging jurisdictions can provide entry
and exit nodes. However some german node operators might choose to do
entry/exit at their own risk.

- --smuggler
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFHSdjMOMmnRrmEoQkRAsuWAKC+WcAEMBWk4AZQCgQczCCgvlEIUgCcDp+U
oiy8ZhYbcL6kR2NTWhGQmKU=
=nVDm
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----