Re: [tor-relays] Simplifying ExoneraTor

[Geoff Down <geoffdown@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Tue, Jul 7, 2015, at 10:12 PM, Zack Weinberg wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 7, 2015 at 4:50 PM, Geoff Down <geoffdown@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>wrote:
> >
> >  If someone only has an IP address for an incident but no exact time,
> >  they barely have the basis for a complaint, let alone something more
> >  formal like a prosecution.
> > What is the relevance of the relay's status at any time other than that
> > of the incident?
> 
> That's just the point I'm trying to make.  If the relay's status at
> the (past) time of the incident was different from the relay's status
> at the (present) time of the investigation, that should be immediately
> obvious when you look at its page; it should not be a thing buried in
> a details screen.
> 
> zw
 But Exonerator at present (and as proposed) requires a datestamp to
 produce any output at all. An investigator will input the datestamp of
 the incident.
You still have not explained why you think an investigator will want
easily to be able to access the status at some other time (other than
pure curiosity) - any more than they would want to know e.g the user of
a dynamic IP at some time other than that of an incident .
Regards,
Geoff

-- 
http://www.fastmail.com - A fast, anti-spam email service.

_______________________________________________
tor-relays mailing list
tor-relays@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays