German data rentention law

[Sven Anderson]

Am 01.11.2008 um 02:50 schrieb Scott Bennett:

>> I will also not log even after January 1st. And I am fighting against
>> the law. But I was talking about the last resort, if a court will
>
>     In what way?  Are you participating in a lawsuit and requesting an
> injunction against the government to prevent it from enforcing the law
> until after the court case has been decided?  Stashing hand grenades?

The first option, exactly. The injunction was already successful in a  
way that the data is not allowed to be used, until the final decision  
is made. And I'm fighting by word of mouth. No grenades, sorry.

>>> Second, the rest of the Tor community would not easily believe that
>>> trading off network security for network capacity in this way is a
>>> tradeoff they want.
>>
>> How do you know that?
>
>     Good grief, Sven!  Haven't you been reading this list during the
> last couple of years?  The attitudes and reactions presented on this
> list ought to be enough to convince anyone to take Roger's point for
> granted.

Oh, so "Tor community" equals the people on the or-talk list? Ok, then  
I agree. I was talking about the Tor users in general, which is of  
course not the same.

>>> Third, if Tor tolerates this law because its network architecture
>>> resists
>>> it, and we let the law survive, then the next iteration of the law
>>> will
>>> be better adapted to Tor's threat model.
>>
>> If we switch off the Tor nodes, it's like the law was well adapted
>> from the beginning. So at least we gain more time. (If Tor  
>> "tolerates"
>> the law or not will not influence legislation.)
>
>     Not so.  First off, no one is suggesting not running tor.  The
> choice many tor *exit* operators appear to be considering is to stop
> providing *exit* service, nothing else.  Most of them would still run
> tor as a relay.

I don't agree with other people on the list that DR law only affects  
exit nodes. If the DR law affects Tor, then it affects all kind of  
nodes.

>     Secondly, the old adage that it is better to ask forgiveness than
> to ask permission frequently will not keep you out of jail, while a
> lawsuit to overturn enacted, but uncontitutional, legislation can  
> usually
> be handled without the plaintiff having to go to jail.

Don't spread FUD. Nobody will go to jail because of non-loggin Tor  
nodes. And the lawsuit is on it's way. There is no either or. But I  
think you are not arguing against me here. I proposed minimal-logging  
Tor nodes (in line with the DR law!) instead of switching them off  
_only_ in case that non-logging Tor nodes turn out to be illegal. So  
what I propose is supported by your argumentation.

>>> Fourth, we don't want to undermine the effort to make this data
>>> retention
>>> law go away, by showing "oh, the law isn't so bad".
>>
>>
>> I didn't suggest that. I'm talking about the time _after_ we lost the
>> fight against it.
>>
>     The last I saw posted here, that fight hadn't been lost, so please
> do not refer to it in the past tense that way.  The fight can go on  
> with
> or without exits in Germany.


Sorry for my imprecise English, I should have written "_after_ we  
might have lost...".


Regards,

Sven

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 2415 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.torproject.org/pipermail/tor-talk/attachments/20081101/803eb055/attachment.bin>