I know I'm going to get flamed and excoriated, but here goes.... <snip> > case evolves in and out of court. Are Tor exit-node operators going to > be given the same rights as ISP's who's networks are used for illegal > purposes? I would hope so, but it doesn't seem like that has happened in > this case, so I am very interested to hear how the situation pans out.
This is a misleading statement. ISP's (Common carriers) do not provide a knowingly illegal offering, AND they do provide the PHYSICAL infrastructure for packets to be passed and interconnected to other PHYSICAL networks. TOR exit/entrance nodes provide only the former. The lack of providing a physical infrastructure is crucial. Also, most ISP's (US specifically) are required by Law (under subpoena) to provide details to law enforcement. I really hate this idea of privacy on the Internet. If you really think you have the "right" to use the public infrastructure (to whatever extent you want to label the Internet as such) and be completely anonymous, I have a bridge to sell you. Network operators may treat your packets to whatever level of scrutiny that they may find necessary to determine if they want to pass your packets, keeping in mind that good operators want the Internet to work. I'm waiting for the next hot "application" to use a widely known "bad" port and see what happens. :) > > It is extremely relevant to the Internet community and to free speech in > general. I'm actually in agreement that law enforcement may have overstepped here if the only reason was the TOR exit point, but having a TOR exit point to me, seems to be condoning the actions/statements/packets used through the exit point. You are knowingly hiding information that your local government may require you to disclose. Short answer... don't use TOR. It's not a bad thing, but it's not a good thing either. - Brian
