[tor] Re: FDCServers (Fwd: Re: 1Gbit Hosting in EU)
- From: grarpamp <grarpamp@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: torservers@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2011 05:11:43 -0500
They could be looking to just cover their legal butts. ie: Sure,
go ahead, run Tor, so long as torservers is standing up and being
the active respondant, so they can then legally point the finger
at you. Up until they start taking heat from their own upstream.
I need to reread the topic again, but in the US, for example with
DMCA, I think the carrier can in fact let you live (by taking the
agnostic, hands off, third party approach), so long as you are
interacting directly (cc: carrier) with the complainant, even up
to and including court battles the complainant would need to shut
you down. Excepting of course any actions lodged directly by the
complainant against the third party carrier. I actually think "hands
off" is the smart position for the carrier to be in, but few seem
to operate that way.
For the cases where a potential hoster does not outright welcome
Tor by name when pointing them to torproject.org... sending them
common examples of the 'abuse' scenarious you expect and how they
will be 'handled' by torservers as the 'responsible' party might
help.
You can also say something like "torservers is prepared to sign a"
release, indemnification, acceptance, memorandum of understanding,
etc.
Either that or put them on the short term, pay and get booted, plan :)
Which is actually bad practice as it would leave more of a bad taste
regarding Tor, as opposed to being upfront, and nobody wants that.
Other related posts:
