The OP I saw said:
The Wau Holland Foundation can currently only reimburse via wire transfer.
This seems to be end-of-story in terms of who, in the end, is ultimately getting liability/risk, and points to practically no chance at anonymity within our currently hacked banking system. It's not related to taxation or what organization may or may not be trusted. It's about what information is being gathered from the system by 3rd parties for possible use tomorrow.
There's another perspective to this as well. Speaking objectively and without knowledge of the organization involved, and nothing personal intended. It may be worth noting that certain presumably-Tor-hostile and well-funded agencies are known to infiltrate the tech organizations/efforts which they wish to weaken, and influence them from the inside. In this context, seeing Tor's exit node operators being offered cash via bank transfer is waist-deep into creepy.
On Wednesday 18/09/2013 at 7:38 am, Tom Ritter wrote:
create or work with a trusted organization who is willing to shoulder liability, risk, and expense of investigating the legality and tax consequences, and then actually executing, reimbursing people through anonymous means.It's not easy. May not even be possible. But there is a rigid but not inflexible framework of tax law that must be worked within. IMO, this is net gain. Excited to see it happen, and congrats to all whose hard work has brought it here. _______________________________________________ tor-relays mailing list tor-relays@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
On 18 September 2013 08:10, tor@t-3.net wrote:
The OP I saw said:
The Wau Holland Foundation can currently only reimburse via wire transfer.
This seems to be end-of-story in terms of who, in the end, is ultimately getting liability/risk, and points to practically no chance at anonymity within our currently hacked banking system. It's not related to taxation or what organization may or may not be trusted. It's about what information is being gathered from the system by 3rd parties for possible use tomorrow.
Sure, right now. But he said:
On 17 September 2013 14:27, Moritz Bartl moritz@torservers.net wrote:
The Wau Holland Foundation agreed to be one of the organizations willing to handle the money and pass it on to other entities, be it single operators or organizations. Both Torproject and Wau Holland Foundation checked with their lawyers to see if this turns into a problem about liability, and it looks like it does not. We're open for more organizations to join in to manage the reimbursement process, but this is what we've got for now.
So from my perspective, if, say, the Bitcoin Foundation came forward and said "Our lawyers are cool with reimbursing anonymous people via Bitcoin, and we're cool shouldering the accounting/taxation burden." - then it might happen. But ultimately there is accounting, taxation, and legal liability that must be shouldered by someone. So far only Wau Holland has stepped up. But it's not to say someone couldn't.
-tom
On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 08:10:25AM -0400, tor@t-3.net wrote:
The Wau Holland Foundation can currently only reimburse via wire transfer.
This seems to be end-of-story in terms of who, in the end, is ultimately getting liability/risk, and points to practically no chance at anonymity
Think bigger -- for example, if you run a bunch of fast exits you can coordinate with your favorite non-profit charity (EFF, CCC, etc) for them to get a monthly wire transfer from Wau Holland because of ("on behalf of") your relays.
Moritz, does the current contract approach support (allow) this idea?
To reiterate, this is not meant to be a money-making opportunity for relay operators. It's great that many people have found ways to run relays cheaply, and that is and needs to remain a big part of what the Tor community is about (and how the Tor network is as large, diverse, and sustainable as it is). But that said, the biggest "cost" in running very large exit relays is generally not the monetary cost for bandwidth and hosting, so if we can make that less of a burden for people who otherwise want to put in the rest of the effort, that sounds to me like a great thing to try.
--Roger
On 09/19/2013 12:06 AM, Roger Dingledine wrote:
The Wau Holland Foundation can currently only reimburse via wire transfer. This seems to be end-of-story in terms of who, in the end, is ultimately getting liability/risk, and points to practically no chance at anonymity
I don't think exit relay operators are in a position to have anonymity in the first place. It is fine if you manage to pay for and run your relay anonymously, but I doubt it will survive more than a few LEA inquiries where they end up with a fake name instead of a real contact.
How is the method of transferring funds relevant to liability or risk in that respect? What method of transfer would change anything about that?
Think bigger -- for example, if you run a bunch of fast exits you can coordinate with your favorite non-profit charity (EFF, CCC, etc) for them to get a monthly wire transfer from Wau Holland because of ("on behalf of") your relays. Moritz, does the current contract approach support (allow) this idea?
Yes, certainly it does. We have brokered similar 'deals' for people in the past, mostly because they want the legal protection of an organization for their exit. That's how many of the CCC relays work also.
On Wed, 18 Sep 2013 08:10:25 -0400, tor@t-3.net wrote:
The OP I saw said:
The Wau Holland Foundation can currently only reimburse via wire transfer.
This seems to be end-of-story in terms of who, in the end, is ultimately getting liability/risk, and points to practically no chance at anonymity within our currently hacked banking system. It's not related to taxation or what organization may or may not be trusted. It's about what information is being gathered from the system by 3rd parties for possible use tomorrow.
I suspect the methods of value transfer can be added to in the future.
There's another perspective to this as well. Speaking objectively and without knowledge of the organization involved, and nothing personal intended. It may be worth noting that certain presumably-Tor-hostile and well-funded agencies are known to infiltrate the tech organizations/efforts which they wish to weaken, and influence them from the inside. In this context, seeing Tor's exit node operators being offered cash via bank transfer is waist-deep into creepy.
On Wednesday 18/09/2013 at 7:38 am, Tom Ritter wrote:
create or work with a trusted organization who is willing to shoulder liability, risk, and expense of investigating the legality and tax consequences, and then actually executing, reimbursing people through anonymous means.It's not easy. May not even be possible. But there is a rigid but not inflexible framework of tax law that must be worked within.
Bitcoins, until they're banned, from the entity receiving the bank transfer and delivering a middle finger to whoever's askin'. :P
IMO, this is net gain. Excited to see it happen, and congrats to all whose hard work has brought it here.
+1.
Best, -Gordon M.
tor-relays@lists.torproject.org
-
Gordon Morehouse -
Moritz Bartl -
Roger Dingledine -
Tom Ritter -
tor＠t-3.net