<br><b><i>phobos@rootme.org</i></b> wrote:<blockquote class="replbq" style="border-left: 2px solid rgb(16, 16, 255); margin-left: 5px; padding-left: 5px;"> On Mon, Sep 10, 2007 at 04:43:17PM -0700, torified00@yahoo.com <br><br>I am not a lawyer, but I believe by doing this you're actually opening<br>yourself up to more liability than you'll ever correct.<br>https://tor.eff.org/eff/tor-legal-faq.html.en#ExitSnooping is<br>effectively what you're doing.<br></blockquote>> affirmatively monitor, log, or disclose Tor users' communications<br><br>I am not monitoring the communication as such, neither am I logging it. The point is that an automated process filters out content that is questionable by my moral standards. <br><br>If the users were to be made aware that their connections can be filtered, but not sniffed per se (think in the line of an EULA) then we'd stand a good chance of cleaning up tor's act. Reading up on the German guys discussing how many times they've had
their equipment seized leaves me with a slightly bad feeling - we are not telling tor operators that there's a good chance this might happen to them.<br><br>Let me put my standpoint in a little analogy. Gun vs. Tor.<br><br>Tor = Gun (both a neutral tool, that has both positive and negative uses)<br>Bad Tor User = Murderer (someone doing something wrong)<br>Tor node operator = Guy holding the gun for the murderer (?)<br><br>If I have the ability to pull the gun away in time (ie: filter the content) and if I'm successfull 90% of the time, it's better than if I'm unsuccessful all of the time. Right?<br><br>D.<br><p> 
<hr size=1>Be a better Heartthrob. <a href="http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=48255/*http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/_ylc=X3oDMTI5MGx2aThyBF9TAzIxMTU1MDAzNTIEX3MDMzk2NTQ1MTAzBHNlYwNCQUJwaWxsYXJfTklfMzYwBHNsawNQcm9kdWN0X3F1ZXN0aW9uX3BhZ2U-?link=list&sid=396545433">Get better relationship answers </a>from someone who knows.<br>Yahoo! Answers - Check it out.