That stinks.
Linode has the same policy WRT exit relays.
If they get too many abuse complaints, they ask you to stop running a relay. The way US law is structured, I can't actually blame them for this.
However they don't care if you're running a middle node. Your bandwidth/VPS, your call. A *lot* of people run bridge nodes there, myself included.
-Chris (Running an exit relay in the US cost effectively seems quite difficult)
On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 11:51 AM, mick mbm@rlogin.net 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.
Mick
Mick Morgan gpg fingerprint: FC23 3338 F664 5E66 876B 72C0 0A1F E60B 5BAD D312 http://baldric.net
tor-relays mailing list tor-relays@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays