[158575] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Brian Johnson)
Tue Dec 4 16:26:14 2012
From: Brian Johnson <bjohnson@drtel.com>
To: "Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu" <Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu>, "nanog@nanog.org"
<nanog@nanog.org>
Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2012 21:25:59 +0000
In-Reply-To: <19238.1354649748@turing-police.cc.vt.edu>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
<SNIP HEADERS>
>=20
> > This is a misleading statement. ISP's (Common carriers) do not provide =
a
> knowingly
> > illegal offering, ... TOR exit/entrance nodes provide only the former.
>=20
> This is also a misleading statement. Explain the difference between
> a consumer ISP selling you a cable Internet plan knowing that NN% of
> the traffic will be data with questionable copyright status, and
> 1 of of 5 or so will be a botted box doing other illegal stuff,
> and a TOR node providing transit knowing that NN% will be similarly
> questionable etc etc etc.
You actually are saying what I said, just you misunderstand your own point.=
You clipped my entire statement to make it appear to say something else.
A TOR node, in and of itself, is not infrastructure for passing packets. It=
's a service on the infrastructure. I never implied that the traffic throug=
h/from the ISP or the TOR was more or less legal than the other.
>=20
> In other words, if TOR exit nodes provide a "knowingly illegal offering",
> then Comcast is doing exactly the same thing...
No they are not. See previous.
<SNIP ongoing blathering>
- Brian
