The solution seems simple to me. Anyone using huge
amounts of bandwidth should be required to run a tor
router.
Chris Palmer wrote:
----- Forwarded message from John Gilmore
<gnu@xxxxxxxx> -----
From: John Gilmore <gnu@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2005 15:40:18 -0700
Subject: [E-IP] Broadband Reports: Tor Network
Bogged Down by P2P
http://www.broadbandreports.com/shownews/68438
Some time ago our security regulars broke down the
logistics behind
Tor, an anonymity tool from the Electronic Frontier
Foundation. It was
designed for whistle-blowers, political dissidents,
researchers, and
others concerned about exchanging information
without authoritarian
backlash. Sadly network performance is being
jeopardized by
file-traders looking to evade the RIAA.
File traders have been reconfiguring their Bit
Torrent clients to take
advantage of the network. Unfortunately the Tor
network wasn't
designed with high volume porn transfer in mind, so
the activity is
slowing it down to a crawl. The likely result will
be the EFF running
against the grain of their mandate, and restricting
network use.
...
John
----- End forwarded message -----
Bah, I see no problem with using it to evade the
RIAA. sure, it sucks
for us Tor people who use it for what is was
intended for. It just
means we need more nodes, and we need to grow more
to support this
demand. I'm all for giving the finger to "the man."
It's time for Tor to expand, not regulate. And if
expansions isn't
possible, just let it suck! I can't imagine many
fileshare people will
cleave unto dial-up speeds with their broadband...
Once they learn that
it sucks to use Tor, they'll stop. We need
knee-jerk decisions in this
project like we need knee-jerk political actions...
But, that's just my $0.02
__________________________________
Start your day with Yahoo! - Make it your home page!
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs