Am 01.11.2008 um 02:50 schrieb Scott Bennett:
I will also not log even after January 1st. And I am fighting against the law. But I was talking about the last resort, if a court willIn what way? Are you participating in a lawsuit and requesting an injunction against the government to prevent it from enforcing the law until after the court case has been decided? Stashing hand grenades?
The first option, exactly. The injunction was already successful in a way that the data is not allowed to be used, until the final decision is made. And I'm fighting by word of mouth. No grenades, sorry.
Second, the rest of the Tor community would not easily believe that trading off network security for network capacity in this way is a tradeoff they want.How do you know that?Good grief, Sven! Haven't you been reading this list during the last couple of years? The attitudes and reactions presented on this list ought to be enough to convince anyone to take Roger's point for granted.
Oh, so "Tor community" equals the people on the or-talk list? Ok, then I agree. I was talking about the Tor users in general, which is of course not the same.
Third, if Tor tolerates this law because its network architecture resists it, and we let the law survive, then the next iteration of the law will be better adapted to Tor's threat model.If we switch off the Tor nodes, it's like the law was well adaptedfrom the beginning. So at least we gain more time. (If Tor "tolerates"the law or not will not influence legislation.)Not so. First off, no one is suggesting not running tor. The choice many tor *exit* operators appear to be considering is to stop providing *exit* service, nothing else. Most of them would still run tor as a relay.
I don't agree with other people on the list that DR law only affects exit nodes. If the DR law affects Tor, then it affects all kind of nodes.
Secondly, the old adage that it is better to ask forgiveness than to ask permission frequently will not keep you out of jail, while alawsuit to overturn enacted, but uncontitutional, legislation can usuallybe handled without the plaintiff having to go to jail.
Don't spread FUD. Nobody will go to jail because of non-loggin Tor nodes. And the lawsuit is on it's way. There is no either or. But I think you are not arguing against me here. I proposed minimal-logging Tor nodes (in line with the DR law!) instead of switching them off _only_ in case that non-logging Tor nodes turn out to be illegal. So what I propose is supported by your argumentation.
Fourth, we don't want to undermine the effort to make this data retention law go away, by showing "oh, the law isn't so bad".I didn't suggest that. I'm talking about the time _after_ we lost the fight against it.The last I saw posted here, that fight hadn't been lost, so pleasedo not refer to it in the past tense that way. The fight can go on withor without exits in Germany.
Sorry for my imprecise English, I should have written "_after_ we might have lost...".
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature