-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 07/18/2013 12:02 PM, krishna e bera wrote:
On 13-07-18 11:51 AM, mick wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jul 2013 10:49:46 -0400 Tom Ritter tom@ritter.vg 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?
Many US ISP's are motivated simply by the bottom line. I can tell you personally that abuse departments are swamped with all sorts of legal demands and copyright complaints. Abuse complaints and especially the nasty legal demands from gov have gotten worse over the years.
A tired abuse admin will often take the easy way out and get rid of a customer that generates little income and lots of complaints while high end customers are granted a bit more leeway, but even there dealing with legal complaints can make a good deal unprofitable.
- --- Marina Brown
_______________________________________________ tor-relays mailing list tor-relays@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays