Re: [tor-relays] exit node experience: abuse over HTTP, stealrat infection

[Thomas White <thomaswhite@xxxxxxxxxx>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Yes there are safe harbour provisions.

When it comes to civil issues, for example DMCA (Digital Millennium
Copyright Act) issues, it is worth considering DMCA title 11 Online
Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act (OCILLA USA Law) as
the spirit of this piece of legislation is reflected in treaties with
countries such as the UK and EU too. It refers to a "safe harbor" for
online service providers (OSP's) liability provided they meet specific
requirements. An exit node operator, assuming UK law was to abide by
its treaty obligations would not be liable for holding (or
transmitting unknowingly) infringing material but the statue makes
clear that it must not be for financial gain. Under EU law (since in
this respect US treaty law is overruled by national laws) in order for
the copyright holder to successfully prosecute a criminal case or
recover damages in a civil case, there must be proof of knowledge of
the infringement and that the infringement was intended for commercial
gain which is not the case for most exit operators.

Although not directly applicable, most EU laws have common traits and
developments. UK law itself is surprisingly under developed in the
area of computer copyright and the Copyright, Design and Patents Act
of 1988 as amended is interesting in its antiquated terminology but
the law itself is quite clear on what has to be proved in a
prosecution case, so simple threats of action do not mean they have a
case you must answer.

(some excepts above from a mail I sent ORG earlier this month)

- -T

On 19/10/2014 21:24, mikael ball wrote:
> 
>>> That is not a sound approach:
> 
>> I think it is.
> 
>>> ii) in some legal systems this may mean you can be held 
>>> responsible for the traffic that is routed via your node.
> 
>> Example? In Germany you might (or might not) be responsible for 
>> traffic you relay. But not relaying part of the traffic doesn't 
>> change a thing, legally.
> 
> i remember reading somewhere [1] that if you run a server that 
> carries mail and you don't choose where it goes or who it comes 
> from, the server is protected from some DMCA complaints by the
> DMCA "safe harbor" terms (us code title 17 Chapter 5 Â 512).
> 
> this might only apply in the US and it may not be entirely
> correct, but it does lay out that if you censor where the traffic
> goes to or comes from, you surrender some rights.
> 
> mikael ball
> 
> _______________________________________________ tor-relays mailing 
> list tor-relays@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
> https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
> 
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (MingW32)
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=2ZS1
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
tor-relays mailing list
tor-relays@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays