[tor-relays] UK Exit Node

Thomas White thomaswhite at riseup.net
Sun Jul 6 18:14:48 UTC 2014

Hash: SHA1


First of all thank you for running an exit. I run a large series of
exits in the Netherlands
and I am a UK citizen. Having experienced many troubles, including
server seizures, I decided to move the servers to a jurisdiction I am
not living in or plan on living in as if there is legal trouble, you
want to put up as many layers as protection as you can. That means
even if my node in NL is seized and I could face a conviction
(theoretically), because it is not illegal in the UK there is nothing
that the government can do to force me over there under the concept of

Furthermore, running a Tor exit at a residential address is a very,
very bad idea. I speak from experience here after encountering UK
police already and their version of "knock and greet" is at 4am with
the door taken off when they don't realise it is an exit node. You
want to separate your traffic from that of your exits wherever
possible because assuming you were asked in court if you ever used
your own exit, it would be conceivable that ANY traffic from that exit
server COULD have been yours if you've used or were on the same IP as
it. This is of course not the case if you don't use the same
IP/residence for your personal traffic.

Also, on the topic of blacklisting IPs I find it a bad idea both
morally and legally. Most believe morals would dictate blocking child
porn/peer to peer is a good act, but this is the same guise
governments have used to overextend their reach and so I don't block
any traffic regardless of how questionable it is. The second reason is
because of your legal liability in the UK as my solicitor has advised
me; by blocking one set of IP's you are then accepting control to
filter and moderate the traffic of your servers and therefore you
don't have the same (full set of) safe-harbor provisions protecting
you. It then becomes a trivial matter for law enforcement to come to
you and order you block more sites without a court order.

So overall, freedom of speech and the right to read are inherently
against the idea of blocking content merely because the overwhelming
majority of people believe it should be blocked. Freedom isn't free if
it isn't totally free.

- -Tom

On 06/07/2014 08:51, Sanjeev Gupta wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 6, 2014 at 3:39 PM, Michael Banks <c at starbs.net> 
> wrote:
>> The block lists are very limited, i.e P2P, lists of known 
>> blackhats/paedophiles, unallocated IP ranges and most 
>> importantly: government-owned address and anti-tor addresses
> True, and I agree with your definition of malicious.
> My concern is that it is not either my place, or yours, to define 
> what is good or bad for the Random User to visit, _IF_ we are 
> offering a Tor relay.  Our intentions in using this list, in 
> particular, are not relevant.  After all, the Govt of China also 
> claims to be shielding its users from known bad guys.
> We are against such censorship, so why should we add our own 
> blocks, without warning, without anyway for the user to even know 
> we have such a block?
> _______________________________________________ tor-relays mailing 
> list tor-relays at lists.torproject.org 
> https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays

Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (MingW32)


More information about the tor-relays mailing list