Thus spake grarpamp (grarpamp@xxxxxxxxx): > > Let's say everything goes according to plan, and we manage to get an > > IP allocation that allows us to handle abuse directly at a very high > > capacity Tor node, and we use it to run the default policy and send > > the BayTSP and MediaSentry complaints to /dev/null. > > The goal of being independant should NOT be so things can be sunk > to /dev/null as a game. While certainly fun, that lacks due diligence > and is unprofessional at worst and would only serve to accelerate/inflame > possible future issues. > > Lest it be needed in the future, one should at least determine and > file with each case that: Of course, this is how one deals with normal abuse complaints. I find it helpful to give a 3-4 paragraph explanation of Tor, followed by a one paragraph recommendation of how the abuse complaintant can improve their specific situation without deciding that Tor needs to go away, or that they need blood and vengeance via origin IP address. However, the BayTSP+mediasentry spams arrive at the rate of 100+ per day when you exit at full gigabit speed. You must automate a response, if you are to respond at all. As I said before, this won't be taken well. Eventually a human will notice that you are responding but nothing about the situation is changing. They will report you, and you may be sued. As I said, even if you win, these organizations will just change the law so you lose next time: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-20014468-38.html Perhaps you missed it (TL;DR?), but once again, my point was only that I believe that this whole exercise is futile and dangerous against the content industry. We must wait until they realize that suing people is not a revenue model that works on the Internet. Until then, angering them risks a law that criminalizes anonymity. -- Mike Perry Mad Computer Scientist fscked.org evil labs
Attachment:
pgpeAnKEbcOrr.pgp
Description: PGP signature