Martin Fick <mogulguy@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > --- On Wed, 8/31/11, Fabian Keil <freebsd-listen@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Martin Fick <mogulguy@xxxxxxxxx> > > wrote: > > > > > --- On Mon, 8/29/11, Matthew <pumpkin@xxxxxxxxx> > > wrote: > > > > https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/08/why-ip-addresses-alone-dont-identify-criminals > > > > > > > > > > > > If you run an exit relay, consider operating it in a > > > > Tor-friendly commercial facility instead of your home > > > > to make it less likely that law enforcement agents will > > > > show up at your door. > > > > > > Hmm, I am surprised by the EFFs advice here. > > > > > > It it is legal as they claim, shouldn't they be > > > heralding us to run an exit node at home and not > > > be intimidated by ignorant law enforcement? And > > > that they will help defend us in case of an > > > issue? > > > > > > After all, they are recommending open wireless > > > access points from individuals: > > > > > > http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/04/open-wireless-movement > > > > I think getting raided due to running a Tor exit node at > > home (or even remotely) is a lot more likely than getting > > raided due to running an open wireless access point. > > Tell that to this guy: > > http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/24/unsecured-wifi-child-pornography-innocent_n_852996.html > > That raid sounds worse than any tor related raid I have > read about in any country, Sure, but I see no reason to believe that the fact that the offending requests were (supposedly) made through an open WAP instead of a Tor exit node made a difference. The country probably did, though. Given that there are (probably) a lot more open WAPs than there are Tor exit nodes and that open WAPs can't be easily abused from other parts of the world, the risks still seem a lot lower to me. Fabian
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ tor-talk mailing list tor-talk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk