On 27/09/2007, Stephen Bain <stephen.bain(a)gmail.com> wrote:
No, but with that analogy you've basically
described an ISP. Being a
TOR node is more like unwrapping the packages, then rewrapping them,
putting your own address on the back and sending them on.
--
Stephen Bain
stephen.bain(a)gmail.com
The ISP gives you one of the addresses it owns, no? Tor exit IPs are
well-published. It is not hard to check if an address is a Tor exit node.
Legally, it is much like an ISP, at least, I believe, by US or UK law.
Running a Tor node is being a 'service provider' or 'innocent
disseminater', assuming you do not sniff or otherwise mess with
the packets. Tor exit node operators don't even have the control
of Google - we don't cache web pages, we can't 'take them down'.
But the police are foolish and didn't understand that. They could've
seized the computer. They could've asked if he kept logs. (Not
that logs would've lead them anywhere besides the second node,
but still.) But they don't have a background in computers, they were
just angry someone had made a bomb threat.
So yes, he did take that risk. I am taking that risk. When you donate
your computer equipment to help other people have privacy and
free speech, you can get blamed if they misuse your service.
A number of people on this list seem to want free speech for
themselves and their friends, but not for other people. They seem to
think they will never get burnt over this, no matter what the law in UK
and other countries is.
Well, newsflash - free speech comes at a price. Do you really want
to risk getting sued, or allowing Wikipaedia to be sued, to protect
speech considered defamatory in the UK? Is defamatory speech
worth fighting for? Especially when you could just tell them if they
want free speech, go set up a hidden service with Tor.