[tor] Re: Torservers Update

  • From: Moritz Bartl <moritz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: torservers@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Fri, 05 Nov 2010 08:45:56 +0100

Hi Mitar,

Thanks for your comments. I didn't mean to make this look like something
to be forced on volunteers. What I do want is the protection against
being forced to introduce logging, and to make that a reason to shut
down node operation/torservers - not the Tor User Group like
organization behind it.

With Torservers, when you are on the edge between non-commercial and
commercial services, I feel it might be an important argument for those
funding the nodes. This is up to dicussion, I am not a dictator, and I
invite everyone to join the discussion.

> Ho, hold your horses. Really? Why exactly? Node operator does not have
> a right for anonymity and security of Tor? [...]

I understand your argument, but I am very careful when it comes to
traffic originating from the Tor boxes. Tor guarantees anonymity NOT by
keeping its users a secret, and if I reply to complaints explaining Tor,
stating that I do not have any logs, that logs won't help, and that I
cannot block, all this is only valid for real Tor traffic.

> Of course he/she will have to use only those ports he/she allows
> also for others.)

If someone wants to donate a Tor node, the policy is up to them. If
Torservers operates the node (for some third party), it is up to the
third party and not the node operator to decide on the policy. If I use
ports on a Tor exit that are not allowed from the policy, it is clear
that it didn't originate from Tor and as such it is easy to relate to
the person(s) operating the box.

> Hope you will see this e-mail as constructive. It was written as such.

That's what this mailinglist is there for ;-) In the end, it really
isn't my decision to make any more once we form the organization and
vote/discuss this. The more pro and cons we collect until then, the
better we can make a decision.


Other related posts: