On 13-07-18 11:51 AM, mick wrote: > On Thu, 18 Jul 2013 10:49:46 -0400 > Tom Ritter <tom@xxxxxxxxx> allegedly wrote: > >> Sending this out, as I suspect I am not the only person running a node >> on SiteValley, as they have pretty good bandwidth for pretty cheap. >> >> I had inquired in the beginning if they allowed Tor, and they said >> yes, but if we get too many abuse complaints we'll shut it down. So >> maybe 4 or 5 abuse complaints later they did indeed give me the >> ultimatum to shut it down or get shut down. So I made them give me a >> new IP address, and made it into a middle node. (The new IP was >> because I was thinking of making it a bridge.) > > Hmm. Pretty crummy AUP. And /very/ crummy treatment of a customer. > > I wonder if we are going to see more of this sort of thing now. I > think the tor network needs greater geographic diversity. Makes me wonder if there is some kind of legal pressure being applied to American ISPs to disallow Tor and similar services and infrastructure. Or perhaps owners of some ISPs are polarizing toward the PATRIOT act side especially after the Snowden thing. Are other ISPs changing their AUP and ToS in similar ways?
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ tor-relays mailing list tor-relays@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays