Some legal trouble with TOR in France +
user165 at neomailbox.com
Mon May 15 23:29:44 UTC 2006
On May 15, 2006, at 11:27 PM, crackedactor at supanet.com wrote:
> We are paying with "fear" (if you run a Tor EXIT) of arrest and
> prosecution, for many more mere accusation, just for even running a
> Tor server or a Tor client is enough to keep many away from the Tor
> network. Just take a look at the mail for our French EXIT server
> raided last week.
I think if there was some sort of Exit node filter list in use, with
whoever (or whatever) providing the block lists, then the owner would
be in a much worse position because there could be a claim that he
didn't do all that was possible to disallow the use of his exit node
for nefarious purposes. Once you say that you are going to provide
that level of "protection" (i don't agree that it is protection, or
even a morally good thing to try and do), then you become liable for
the failure of that protection.
> I believe we should take a lead, and offer the EXIT servers
> protection from some mis-use of this variety and the users
> protection from possible "walking into" or being "tricked into"
> UNKNOWINGLY downloading a web page wtih this subject matter on it.
Thanks for watching out for my well being, but really, YOU
> This is WHY I suggested the use of EXIT node filter lists, whatever
> the EXIt node wants, and with clients getting the option to specify
> the EXIt node also protects them by using specified list(s) at
> minimum to protect them.
I don't like the idea of filter lists. I don't even like the fact
that ip ranges and addresses can be entered in the ExitPolicy - I
would rather just see the private nets blocked automatically. (I do
understand why they are there, and understand their necessity in
private tor nets, though). I don't like the RedirectExit parameter
either (but I understand the reason, just the same). When you start
using exit filters for whatever reason, however "good" you think the
reason is, it allows someone else to use it for a reason that you
won't consider "good".
> I do understand the difficulties we will be getting ourselves into.
> But it is cheaper for us ALL if the police get to give us a set of
> block lists for child porn than them chasing us all, all over the
> network. Ok so they will come back with more than just child
> porn... thats when we have to draw the line! Our EXIt servers just
> refuse to allow them to be used.
Appeasement has been tried before, and usually doesn't get the
desired result, just ask Neville Chamberlain...
> Wouldnt it have been better in the first place to have censored out
> the child porn, then hold the fort? Then the incentive (as
> publically expressed by politicians) to attempt to intercept
> eveything would be VERY much reduced.
No, and no it would not.
user165 at neomailbox.com
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 478 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
More information about the tor-talk