Thomas,
Excellent fellow!
I agree that a little more appearance of coherence would do well for us but one great strength of such ideas as Tor is the absence of formal structure and that should be retained. The idea is available to be put into practice by anyone by themselves without permission. I was thinking of a point of contact for help and information only. The qualified statement of Tor operators's legal position should stand on its own.
Robert
-----Original Message----- From: thomaswhite@riseup.net Sent: Mon, 20 Oct 2014 00:19:40 +0100 To: tor-relays@lists.torproject.org Subject: Re: [tor-relays] exit node experience: abuse over HTTP, stealrat infection
Already working on it (see https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/ticket/13421)
Will involve a lot of outreach and will need to consider lots of jurisdictions but it can be done with a few volunteers over the next few weeks I feel. I may also be proposing on trac a @torproject.org email for such things so if ISPs did want to do a little fact checking they can have an easy point of contact and also allows a central place to reach out to the ISPs.
I feel a central email for such things would garner more respect than the fracture groups assigned using their own personal emails.
-T
On 19/10/2014 23:21, I wrote:
Thomas,
That sounded so reasonable and persuasive that would it be a good idea to have a formal opinion written to give to server companies early on?
They might still be looking at the time it takes to deal with notices or police queries but they must accept that the risks of allowing Tor are miniscule. Perhaps the way around the remaining deterrence is a Tor response 'centre' for them to painlessly redirect irritations to.
Robert
Yes there are safe harbour provisions.
tor-relays mailing list tor-relays@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
tor-relays mailing list tor-relays@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays