securelogin.arubanetworks.com AAAA ::1 <--- someone from Aruba who can fix that?
Hi folks, For quite a few folks here on the list travel is a common thing, going into foreign wireless networks is too. Likely your laptop/tablet comes with IPv6 enabled per default, it is 2012 after all almost going 2013. And then you get to a silly hotspot and it does not work as the connection fails (or you get the website you host on your laptop and go 'huh?' ;). Thus you check and you see: 8< $ dig securelogin.arubanetworks.com ; <<>> DiG 9.8.3-P1 <<>> securelogin.arubanetworks.com ;; global options: +cmd ;; Got answer: ;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 25608 ;; flags: qr rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 1, AUTHORITY: 0, ADDITIONAL: 0 ;; QUESTION SECTION: ;securelogin.arubanetworks.com. IN ;; ANSWER SECTION: securelogin.arubanetworks.com. 5 IN ::1 ;; Query time: 19 msec ;; SERVER: 66.28.0.45#53(66.28.0.45) ;; WHEN: Tue Dec 4 10:12:33 2012 ;; MSG SIZE rcvd: 75 >8 I am fairly sure somebody technical and high enough up at Aruba knows how to get this resolved, sooner or later... thus please do, it will start hurting more and more people every day. Oh, and btw, it has an A record too, but even though Happy Eyeballs exists in a magical form inside OSX, ::1 is a very close route thus will always win over the IPv4 address. Of course, temp disabling IPv6 on the link is a way to circumvent it, but heck, why is that DNS server publishing ::1 at all!? Greets, Jeroen
Re: William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if
On 12/03/2012 03:31 AM, Rich Kulawiec wrote: On Mon, Dec 03, 2012 at 08:49:24AM +, Warren Bailey wrote: Can you imagine an email thread that lasted longer than an entire weekend? Yes, I can. I've participated in some that went on for months. It's simply a matter of effectiveness and attention span. This email needs to be murdered, because it is completely out of control. I disagree, strongly, as this is an issue of unfortunate timely relevance to the community. +1 I strongly disagree as well. I am very interested to see how this 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. It is extremely relevant to the Internet community and to free speech in general. Kind regards, Jordan Michaels Vivio Technologies
GMAIL Contact
To all: Does anyone know of a email or phone contact to get Gmail to get my domain off their RBL list? Thanks, Eric Sabo
Re: William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if
I seriously doubt many TOR exit nodes have the political clout to be considered a common carrier. In a related note, I wonder if the six-strike rule would violate the ISP's safe harbor, as it's clearly content inspection. Nick On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 2:44 PM, Jordan Michaels wrote: > On 12/03/2012 03:31 AM, Rich Kulawiec wrote: > >> On Mon, Dec 03, 2012 at 08:49:24AM +, Warren Bailey wrote: >> >>> Can you imagine an email thread that lasted longer than an entire >>> weekend? >>> >> >> Yes, I can. I've participated in some that went on for months. It's >> simply >> a matter of effectiveness and attention span. >> >> This email needs to be murdered, because it is completely out of control. >>> >> >> I disagree, strongly, as this is an issue of unfortunate timely >> relevance to the community. >> > > +1 I strongly disagree as well. I am very interested to see how this 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. > > It is extremely relevant to the Internet community and to free speech in > general. > > Kind regards, > Jordan Michaels > Vivio Technologies > >
Re: securelogin.arubanetworks.com AAAA ::1 <--- someone from Aruba who can fix that?
This whole DNS hack is broken, browsers will cache the record and you end up with breakage when using different captive portals in succession. The hostname used should at least be different for each setup. Other aruba dns hacks, like rapconsole.arubanetworks.com, are even more painful; it is rather annoying when you know the address of a device, try to access it and it keeps redirecting you to a faked DNS name that does not work.
Re: Six Strike Rule (Was: William was raided...)
On 2012-12-04 11:51, Nick B wrote: > In a related note, I wonder if the six-strike rule would violate the ISP's > safe harbor, as it's clearly content inspection. As performed in France, what happens is that some copyright owner contacts the ISP that IP address a.b.c.d had accessed/served copyright infringing data at date/time dd-mm- HH:mm providing some kind of detail on how they figured that out. That report is a 'strike' and gets forwarded to the user. If that then happens 6 times they are blocked. The ISP as such does not do any content inspection. It is though assumed that some ISPs simply count bytes and that they do some investigation themselves when you reach a certain bandwidth threshold (it seems to correlate that copyright infringers are downloading a lot more than normal webbrowsing users...) Greets, Jeroen
Re: Six Strike Rule (Was: William was raided...)
We don't do content inspection. We don't really want to know what our customers are doing, and even if we did, there's not enough time in the day to spend paying attention. When we get complaints from the various copyright agencies, we warn the customer to stop. When we hit a certain number of complaints, its bye-bye customer. On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 11:04 AM, Jeroen Massar wrote: > On 2012-12-04 11:51, Nick B wrote: > > In a related note, I wonder if the six-strike rule would violate the > ISP's > > safe harbor, as it's clearly content inspection. > > As performed in France, what happens is that some copyright owner > contacts the ISP that IP address a.b.c.d had accessed/served copyright > infringing data at date/time dd-mm- HH:mm providing some kind of > detail on how they figured that out. > > That report is a 'strike' and gets forwarded to the user. > > If that then happens 6 times they are blocked. > > The ISP as such does not do any content inspection. > > It is though assumed that some ISPs simply count bytes and that they do > some investigation themselves when you reach a certain bandwidth > threshold (it seems to correlate that copyright infringers are > downloading a lot more than normal webbrowsing users...) > > Greets, > Jeroen > > >
RE: [tor-talk] William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if you can.
Already dealt with that at an airport once. One look at my picture and his cleared that right up and they put a note in the entry system that says I am not this guy. High tech huh. Sometimes the system works. By the way we have different middle initials and different SSNs. I have an original DDN TAC Access card, installed BBN nodes for the US Air Force, and worked for quite a few ISPs, and now work for large global corporation. Sorry I did not meet you at NSF net, I worked more on the DoD side of things. Steven Naslund -Original Message- From: William Allen Simpson [mailto:william.allen.simp...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, November 30, 2012 9:20 PM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: [tor-talk] William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if you can. On 11/30/12 5:15 PM, Naslund, Steve wrote: > Well, in that case I am really worried that the cops might charge > me with a crime. They took my computers and are looking at them. I > did not do anything wrong but just in case they decide to charge me > with a crime, please send me some money. > As well you could be, because you appear to have the same name as a registered sex offender: http://www.sexoffenderin.com/reg110698/steven_w_naslundmugshot.htm On 11/29/12 6:39 PM, Naslund, Steve wrote: # As a long time service provider ... # # my many years of experience in engineering ARPANET, MILNET, and the # Internet I would have to guess that most Tor servers are used for no # good much more than they are protecting anyone's privacy. I'm surprised that medline.com is offering network access as an ISP? Admittedly, you began posting to NANOG in 2002 as: Network Engineering Manager Hosting.com - Chicago While I was involved in engineering NSFnet and the Internet and was an "original" member of NANOG, but I don't remember you. Of course, I'm notoriously bad with names. OTOH, I have met, remember, and greatly respect the Tor engineers.
Re: William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if
On 12-12-03 14:44, Jordan Michaels wrote: > 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? Perhaps if "Tor exit node" were called "Tor exit Router", politicians/policemen would have a better understanding that this service provides no indexing of data, no storage of data and is just a networking service that is agnostic to whatever data flows through it. If they declare illegal any part of the internet which makes police investigations hard due to lack of traceability/logs then they can go after any NAT router, Tor exit nodes, VPN servers etc.
RE: William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if
I know I'm going to get flamed and excoriated, but here goes > 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
Re: Six Strike Rule (Was: William was raided...)
ISOC-NY ran a half day conflab on 6 strikes (which incidentally - and for reasons that escape me - is a name the Copyright Alert System perpetrators wish would not be used) last November 15. A full archive is available at http://isoc-ny.org/p2/4527 On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 12:10 PM, Jason Baugher wrote: > We don't do content inspection. We don't really want to know what our > customers are doing, and even if we did, there's not enough time in the day > to spend paying attention. When we get complaints from the various > copyright agencies, we warn the customer to stop. When we hit a certain > number of complaints, its bye-bye customer. > > > On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 11:04 AM, Jeroen Massar wrote: > > > On 2012-12-04 11:51, Nick B wrote: > > > In a related note, I wonder if the six-strike rule would violate the > > ISP's > > > safe harbor, as it's clearly content inspection. > > > > As performed in France, what happens is that some copyright owner > > contacts the ISP that IP address a.b.c.d had accessed/served copyright > > infringing data at date/time dd-mm- HH:mm providing some kind of > > detail on how they figured that out. > > > > That report is a 'strike' and gets forwarded to the user. > > > > If that then happens 6 times they are blocked. > > > > The ISP as such does not do any content inspection. > > > > It is though assumed that some ISPs simply count bytes and that they do > > some investigation themselves when you reach a certain bandwidth > > threshold (it seems to correlate that copyright infringers are > > downloading a lot more than normal webbrowsing users...) > > > > Greets, > > Jeroen > > > > > > > -- --- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org -- -
Re: William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if
On Tue, 04 Dec 2012 17:32:01 +, Brian Johnson said: > This is a misleading statement. ISP's (Common carriers) do not provide a > knowingly > illegal offering, ... TOR exit/entrance nodes provide only the former. 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. In other words, if TOR exit nodes provide a "knowingly illegal offering", then Comcast is doing exactly the same thing... (Also, feel free to cite actual statute or case law that says TOR is by *definition* or finding of fact, a "knowingly illegal offering" in and of itself - distinct from what uses the user thereof may do with it. Absent that, it's not a "knowingly illegal offering" the same way that some sites have ended up in court for contributory copyright infringement.) pgp20OHLScWaW.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if
> > This is a misleading statement. ISP's (Common carriers) do not provide a
> > knowingly
I'm trying to remember when ISP's became common carriers...
> > illegal offering, ... TOR exit/entrance nodes provide only the former.
>
> 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.
Great point.
The question might also revolve around this issue, restored from the
previous msg:
> > AND they do provide the PHYSICAL infrastructure for
> > packets to be passed and interconnected to other PHYSICAL networks.
Well, an ISP does do that, but so does an end user's network. So if
I put a Tor node on an ethernet ("PHYSICAL infrastructure") and then
connect that to an ISP ("other PHYSICAL networks"), that doesn't make
for a real good way to differentiate between an ISP, a commercial ISP
customer who gets routed IP networks via BGP, or an end user who has
an ethernet behind a NAT gateway.
... JG
--
Joe Greco - sol.net Network Services - Milwaukee, WI - http://www.sol.net
"We call it the 'one bite at the apple' rule. Give me one chance [and] then I
won't contact you again." - Direct Marketing Ass'n position on e-mail spam(CNN)
With 24 million small businesses in the US alone, that's way too many apples.
Re: Six Strike Rule (Was: William was raided...)
Marketing... They don't want to risk it getting caught in the current backlash against 3-strikes laws. Owen On Dec 4, 2012, at 11:13 , Joly MacFie wrote: > ISOC-NY ran a half day conflab on 6 strikes (which incidentally - and for > reasons that escape me - is a name the Copyright Alert System perpetrators > wish would not be used) last November 15. > > A full archive is available at http://isoc-ny.org/p2/4527 > > > On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 12:10 PM, Jason Baugher wrote: > >> We don't do content inspection. We don't really want to know what our >> customers are doing, and even if we did, there's not enough time in the day >> to spend paying attention. When we get complaints from the various >> copyright agencies, we warn the customer to stop. When we hit a certain >> number of complaints, its bye-bye customer. >> >> >> On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 11:04 AM, Jeroen Massar wrote: >> >>> On 2012-12-04 11:51, Nick B wrote: In a related note, I wonder if the six-strike rule would violate the >>> ISP's safe harbor, as it's clearly content inspection. >>> >>> As performed in France, what happens is that some copyright owner >>> contacts the ISP that IP address a.b.c.d had accessed/served copyright >>> infringing data at date/time dd-mm- HH:mm providing some kind of >>> detail on how they figured that out. >>> >>> That report is a 'strike' and gets forwarded to the user. >>> >>> If that then happens 6 times they are blocked. >>> >>> The ISP as such does not do any content inspection. >>> >>> It is though assumed that some ISPs simply count bytes and that they do >>> some investigation themselves when you reach a certain bandwidth >>> threshold (it seems to correlate that copyright infringers are >>> downloading a lot more than normal webbrowsing users...) >>> >>> Greets, >>> Jeroen >>> >>> >>> >> > > > > -- > --- > Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast > WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com > http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com > VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org > -- > -
Re: William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if
On Dec 4, 2012, at 09:32 , Brian Johnson wrote: > I know I'm going to get flamed and excoriated, but here goes > > >> 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 strongly disagree with you. TOR exit nodes provide a vital physical infrastructure to free speech advocates who live in jurisdictions where strong forces are aligned against free speech. I'm sure most TOR exit node operators would happily provide all the details they have if presented with an appropriate subpoena. > 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 really cherish this idea of privacy on the internet. It's a strong tool for enabling democracy and freedom of speech. First, the internet hasn't been "public infrastructure" for a very long time. It's a loose collection of privately owned networks with very few pieces still owned by government institutions. I don't think anyone has asserted a "right" to use that infrastructure, but, I certainly value that there are people who choose to provide it. I think society benefits from having such infrastructure available. I like free speech. I like that there are people making free speech possible in places where it is strongly discouraged. While I think it is a shame that child pornographers and other nefarious users are able to abuse this infrastructure to the detriment of society, the reality is that it is like any other tool. It has beneficial uses and harmful uses. Going after the tool is counterproductive and harmful. > I'm waiting for the next hot "application" to use a widely known "bad" port > and see what happens. :) What's a "bad" port? 80? 443? 25? 587? Most of the malware these days uses one or more of those. > >> >> 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. Having a TOR exit point is making an effort to provide a service. It doesn't condone the nefarious uses of the service any more than running an ISP condones running a warez site that happens to get transit services from said ISP. Running a TOR exit node isn't hiding any information. It's simply not collecting the information in the first place. You can't hide information you never had. > > Short answer... don't use TOR. It's not a bad thing, but it's not a good > thing either. I strongly disagree. TOR is a tool. It's a very good thing in its ability to enable democratization of communications and freedom of speech. It also has some nefarious uses. Guess what... So do hammers. I don't see anyone calling for a ban on the sale of hammers or encouraging carpenters to stop using them. Owen
Network Latency Measurements
Hi, We are looking for publicly available statistics of network latency measurements taken in large networks. For example, there is FCC's measurements (http://www.fcc.gov/measuring-broadband-america/2012/july). However, we are looking for something more detailed that can show a large number of latency measurements taken periodically (preferably with as small a period as possible). Any help will be appreciated. Thanks, Tal Mizrahi.
RE: William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if
> > > This is a misleading statement. ISP's (Common carriers) do not provide a > knowingly > > illegal offering, ... TOR exit/entrance nodes provide only the former. > > 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 through/from the ISP or the TOR was more or less legal than the other. > > 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. - Brian
RE: William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if
> -Original Message- > From: Owen DeLong [mailto:o...@delong.com] > Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2012 2:22 PM > To: Brian Johnson > Cc: Jordan Michaels; nanog@nanog.org > Subject: Re: William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if > > > On Dec 4, 2012, at 09:32 , Brian Johnson wrote: > > > I know I'm going to get flamed and excoriated, but here goes > > > > > >> 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 strongly disagree with you. > > TOR exit nodes provide a vital physical infrastructure to free speech > advocates who live in jurisdictions where strong forces are aligned against > free speech. I'm sure most TOR exit node operators would happily provide all > the details they have if presented with an appropriate subpoena. > TOR is not vital. It is political. I view this not as an issue of morals or political action. It is an issue of a technical nature. A TOR is a way to hide who you are. If I am hiding who you are from someone else and there is a law broken, who do you go after? > > 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 really cherish this idea of privacy on the internet. It's a strong tool for > enabling democracy and freedom of speech. > > First, the internet hasn't been "public infrastructure" for a very long time. > It's > a loose collection of privately owned networks with very few pieces still > owned by government institutions. I don't think anyone has asserted a > "right" to use that infrastructure, but, I certainly value that there are > people > who choose to provide it. I think society benefits from having such > infrastructure available. > > I like free speech. I like that there are people making free speech possible > in > places where it is strongly discouraged. While I think it is a shame that > child > pornographers and other nefarious users are able to abuse this > infrastructure to the detriment of society, the reality is that it is like > any other > tool. It has beneficial uses and harmful uses. Going after the tool is > counterproductive and harmful. This is ridiculous. Owen you damn well know that if you send packets from a source, that source can be tracked back. Add a subpoena, privacy hereby destroyed. Other countries are generally less protective of the citizen than the US and as such... what was your argument again. Oh yeah. I'll be hiding behind my packets. ;P > > > I'm waiting for the next hot "application" to use a widely known "bad" port > and see what happens. :) > > What's a "bad" port? 80? 443? 25? 587? Most of the malware these days uses > one or more of those. > Point given. I got off topic here. > > > >> > >> 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. > > Having a TOR exit point is making an effort to provide a service. It doesn't > condone the nefarious uses of the service any more than running an ISP > condones running a warez site that happens to get transit services from said > ISP. > > Running a TOR exit node isn't hiding any information. It's simply not > collecting > the information in the first place. You can't hide information you never had. > And supplying the Sudafed to the kiddies to use for runny noses is not condoning use for crystal meth. > > > > Short answer... don't use TOR. It's not a bad thing, but it's not a good > > thing > either. > > I strongly disagree. TOR is a tool. It's a very good thing in its ability to > enable > democratization of communicati
RE: William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if
- Brian J.
> -Original Message-
> From: Joe Greco [mailto:jgr...@ns.sol.net]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2012 1:58 PM
> To: valdis.kletni...@vt.edu
> Cc: Brian Johnson; nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: Re: William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if
>
> > > This is a misleading statement. ISP's (Common carriers) do not provide a
> knowingly
>
> I'm trying to remember when ISP's became common carriers...
Not all ISPs are. I was referring to those of us who are both Common Carriers
and ISPs. The Common Carrier status will override.
>
> > > illegal offering, ... TOR exit/entrance nodes provide only the former.
> >
> > 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.
>
> Great point.
>
> The question might also revolve around this issue, restored from the
> previous msg:
>
> > > AND they do provide the PHYSICAL infrastructure for
> > > packets to be passed and interconnected to other PHYSICAL networks.
>
> Well, an ISP does do that, but so does an end user's network. So if
> I put a Tor node on an ethernet ("PHYSICAL infrastructure") and then
> connect that to an ISP ("other PHYSICAL networks"), that doesn't make
> for a real good way to differentiate between an ISP, a commercial ISP
> customer who gets routed IP networks via BGP, or an end user who has
> an ethernet behind a NAT gateway.
>
I was speaking of TOR as a service. The service is not provided inherent of the
infrastructure to pass packets. It's more similar to a tunneling protocol
service.
The person hosting the endpoint on their infrastructure would be the service
point and they are the ones acting as protector and as such should take on the
responsibility as such. I can feel lawyers rubbing their hands together as I
type.
- Brian
RE: William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if
Here is something else to consider : Why will just about any ISP shut down a customer with an open mail relay? It allows anonymous access to anyone trying to send an email, right. So why would this not be considered just as "free speech" as the Tor server. The reason I believe is because we as an industry decided that spam was a "bad thing" before it even became illegal. In the case of Tor, it largely enables anonymous transfer of data (like copyrighted bit torrent traffic) including some content that is blatently illegal to even possess.As a community we have been a lot less decisive about that subject. Before we chastise the legal process being used by the government just consider everything we do as service providers under the guise of "acceptable use" which has just about no basis in the law. Most "acceptable use" violations are basically doing stuff we don't like. As far as the Internet just being a tool, I agree but there are and always have been laws to govern the use of tools whether we are talking about telephones, guns, postal system, or any other tool. Conducting the alleged business over the telephone would be a crime just as sending it through the postal system. If you were encrypting voice calls for the sole purpose of avoiding a legal wiretap I think the law might have a problem with that. If you were to provide that service to someone like a kidnapper or the mafia, I bet you are going to have some tough questions thrown at you. As I see it, here are the possible reasons this individual set up this Tor network : 1. This man is truly the saint of the Internet privacy community and he spent his own hard earned money to set up a bunch of off shore Tor servers for the benefit of mankind. Why he needs exit nodes in the United States and Poland I am not sure about. Is the German government cracking down a lot on dissident traffic coming out of servers in his own country? He must not be able to pay his own legal expenses because he is too busy building servers for the good of humanity. 2. This guy was using Tor for whatever personal reasons. Could be that there were not enough exit nodes to get the kind of performance he wanted. Maybe he was downloading / uploading various content, legal or illegal and was serious enough about it that he set up exit nodes in multiple countries. That might explain the ton of storage he had at his residence. Maybe he has a big recipe collection, pirated movie collection, or unspeakable content the police are looking at now. The content will say if he is innocent or guilty. Maybe he was using it for one thing and others were using it for something else. In that case, my thoughts are if you swim with sharks you might get bit. 3. Maybe this guy was running a Tor network as a paid service for others not wanting to get caught doing whatever they were doing. Could be a lucrative business for an enterprising system admin I suppose. You would not want to set up these servers at your own workplace right, and maybe you have customers in multiple countries. Who might want a covert communications network? Drug cartels, media pirates, intelligence agencies, terrorists, illegal child porn producers, whoever does not want to get caught communicating. Maybe even downtrodden dissidents but they likely don't have a lot of money. He is going to need your money to defend himself because the government will gets suspicious if he shows up with another safe deposit box of cash and his customer certainly can't be contacted to help. I see these possible outcomes : 1. The guy has nothing on his home computers or the Tor server that point to a crime and he gets his stuff back. Inconvenient no doubt but he won't need that legal defense fund. 2. Maybe this guy is as serious about his home gear as his network privacy. Maybe everything at home is deep encrypted. Unlikely it will be secure enough but maybe the government has its suspicions but cannot make the case and they drop it. 2. The guy has tons of illegal content on his home storage stuff and gets nailed for it. That legal defense fund is going to be paying the SPA, RIAA, or whoever else is going to sue him. If it what the police allege then he is going away for quite awhile. 3. The guy is innocent but gets found guilty because "the man" just does not like Tor. Your legal defense fund probably won't help much because if "the man" wants him locked up with no evidence then your defense probably won't help a lot. You will be better off selling "Free Mother Tor-esa" T-shirt to try to get him sprung. I might be a cynic but I am just not thinking it is #1 on these lists. Steven Naslund -Original Message- From: valdis.kletni...@vt.edu [mailto:valdis.kletni...@vt.edu] Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2012 1:36 PM To: Brian Johnson Cc: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if On Tue, 04 Dec 2012 17:32:01 +, Brian Johnson said:
RE: William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if
+1 - Brian J. > -Original Message- > From: Naslund, Steve [mailto:snasl...@medline.com] > Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2012 3:44 PM > To: nanog@nanog.org > Subject: RE: William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if > > Here is something else to consider : > > Why will just about any ISP shut down a customer with an open mail > relay? It allows anonymous access to anyone trying to send an email, > right. So why would this not be considered just as "free speech" as the > Tor server. The reason I believe is because we as an industry decided > that spam was a "bad thing" before it even became illegal. In the case > of Tor, it largely enables anonymous transfer of data (like copyrighted > bit torrent traffic) including some content that is blatently illegal to > even possess.As a community we have been a lot less decisive about > that subject. > > Before we chastise the legal process being used by the government just > consider everything we do as service providers under the guise of > "acceptable use" which has just about no basis in the law. Most > "acceptable use" violations are basically doing stuff we don't like. > > As far as the Internet just being a tool, I agree but there are and > always have been laws to govern the use of tools whether we are talking > about telephones, guns, postal system, or any other tool. Conducting > the alleged business over the telephone would be a crime just as sending > it through the postal system. If you were encrypting voice calls for > the sole purpose of avoiding a legal wiretap I think the law might have > a problem with that. If you were to provide that service to someone > like a kidnapper or the mafia, I bet you are going to have some tough > questions thrown at you. > > As I see it, here are the possible reasons this individual set up this > Tor network : > > 1. This man is truly the saint of the Internet privacy community and he > spent his own hard earned money to set up a bunch of off shore Tor > servers for the benefit of mankind. Why he needs exit nodes in the > United States and Poland I am not sure about. Is the German government > cracking down a lot on dissident traffic coming out of servers in his > own country? He must not be able to pay his own legal expenses because > he is too busy building servers for the good of humanity. > > 2. This guy was using Tor for whatever personal reasons. Could be that > there were not enough exit nodes to get the kind of performance he > wanted. Maybe he was downloading / uploading various content, legal or > illegal and was serious enough about it that he set up exit nodes in > multiple countries. That might explain the ton of storage he had at his > residence. Maybe he has a big recipe collection, pirated movie > collection, or unspeakable content the police are looking at now. The > content will say if he is innocent or guilty. Maybe he was using it for > one thing and others were using it for something else. In that case, my > thoughts are if you swim with sharks you might get bit. > > 3. Maybe this guy was running a Tor network as a paid service for > others not wanting to get caught doing whatever they were doing. Could > be a lucrative business for an enterprising system admin I suppose. You > would not want to set up these servers at your own workplace right, and > maybe you have customers in multiple countries. Who might want a covert > communications network? Drug cartels, media pirates, intelligence > agencies, terrorists, illegal child porn producers, whoever does not > want to get caught communicating. Maybe even downtrodden dissidents > but > they likely don't have a lot of money. He is going to need your money > to defend himself because the government will gets suspicious if he > shows up with another safe deposit box of cash and his customer > certainly can't be contacted to help. > > > I see these possible outcomes : > > 1. The guy has nothing on his home computers or the Tor server that > point to a crime and he gets his stuff back. Inconvenient no doubt but > he won't need that legal defense fund. > > 2. Maybe this guy is as serious about his home gear as his network > privacy. Maybe everything at home is deep encrypted. Unlikely it will > be secure enough but maybe the government has its suspicions but cannot > make the case and they drop it. > > 2. The guy has tons of illegal content on his home storage stuff and > gets nailed for it. That legal defense fund is going to be paying the > SPA, RIAA, or whoever else is going to sue him. If it what the police > allege then he is going away for quite awhile. > > 3. The guy is innocent but gets found guilty because "the man" just does > not like Tor. Your legal defense fund probably won't help much because > if "the man" wants him locked up with no evidence then your defense > probably won't help a lot. You will be better off selling "Free Mother > Tor-esa" T-shirt to try to
Re: William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if
In countries where the law does not dictate that all carriers maintain extensive logs, this is fairly simple. Whether you are a Tor node or a normal ISP, you do nothig until you get a court ordered warrant, at which point you collect information passing through your network and hand it over to authorities. So the "Tor" service remain anonymous until the police suspect illegal data passing through it, at which point they snoop what passes through and work they way up to find the true origin of the data. In countries where log files must be created and retained by law, this is less simple. Is a Tor node covered by the law ? If so, then it is non compliant of it fails to colect the law mandated logs. If the Tor node is not covered by the law, then law enforcment cannot complain if there are no logs to analyse.
Re: Network Latency Measurements
Hi Tal, > However, > we are looking for something more detailed that can show a large > number of latency measurements taken periodically (preferably with as > small a period as possible). Have you asked RIPE Atlas for data? I think this is pretty much what you might find useful. Greetings Dan
RE: William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if
If I am a network guy and I sent up a heavily encrypted VPN for use by worldwide drug cartels, I am pretty sure I am committing a crime. If I have knowledge that what I am doing is going to further the commission of a crime, I am probably committing a crime. The service provider that sold me the connection is not at fault here because they have no way of knowing what I am up to in the normal course of their business. I don't know where anyone got the idea that communications is private from law enforcement with the proper authorizations. Your phone can be traced or tapped under the laws of most countries, the only difference is the level of control. Even though we may all view some groups in China, Syria, Sudan, or wherever as dissidents, their own governments may view them as terrorists and you will probably get in trouble for helping them. I would guess (but don't know) that it is illegal to communicate covertly inside of China. It is probably also some sort of crime to circumvent their firewall protections. I am not making the right vs wrong case here but be advised that what might be philanthropic in one country could very well be a crime in another. A lot of the law (and moral decision making in general ) is about intent. If the guy was trying to help people protect themselves from totalitarian regimes and such then he is probably morally and legally innocent of a crime. If the guy was building a covert network for what the police allege, he is guilty. If he was pirating movies and someone else was using it for child crimes then he is partial responsible in my moral opinion. I am not familiar enough with German law to tell you if he is legally guilty or not. Steven Naslund -Original Message- From: Brian Johnson [mailto:bjohn...@drtel.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2012 11:32 AM To: Jordan Michaels; nanog@nanog.org Subject: RE: William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if I know I'm going to get flamed and excoriated, but here goes > 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
Re: Network Latency Measurements
Hi Tal, On Dec 4, 2012, at 10:05 PM, Tal Mizrahi wrote: > We are looking for publicly available statistics of network latency > measurements taken in large networks. Maybe http://amp.ring.nlnog.net/ has nice data for you. Contact ring-adm...@ring.nlnog.net with your proposal. Kind regards, Job
RE: William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if
I think it is a fallacious debate to discuss whether Tor servers or services are illegal or legal. Like any other tool, it is all about intent. I know that as engineering types we tend to not like relativism but the law is very much about that. Intent is ultimately very critical to obtaining a criminal conviction. Every day someone does something that might otherwise be considered a crime but because of intent is innocent. For example, I shoot a bear out of season, this is a crime right? What if I told you the bear was attacking a four year old little girl, does that change your mind? It is not a crime to send an encoded letter. It is a crime to send an encoded letter that communicates an impending attack on someone. It is not a crime to make a phone call. It is a crime to make a telephonic bomb threat. A gun is not a crime. Shooting someone is a crime (mostly). An ISP selling internet service that most people use for legal purposes is not doing anything illegal when someone uses it to illegally share music because they did not intend to commit a crime. If you build a server solely for hosting copyrighted software for illegal distribution, you are a criminal. If someone hacks your FTP server and hides a piece of copyrighted software there for illegal distribution you are probably not a criminal as long as you take some action to prevent the crime once you are aware of it. Steven Naslund -Original Message- From: Brian Johnson [mailto:bjohn...@drtel.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2012 3:26 PM To: valdis.kletni...@vt.edu; nanog@nanog.org Cc: nanog@nanog.org Subject: RE: William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if > > > This is a misleading statement. ISP's (Common carriers) do not > > provide a > knowingly > > illegal offering, ... TOR exit/entrance nodes provide only the former. > > 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 through/from the ISP or the TOR was more or less legal than the other. > > 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. - Brian
Re: Network Latency Measurements
On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 1:05 PM, Tal Mizrahi wrote: > Hi, > > We are looking for publicly available statistics of network latency > measurements taken in large networks. > For example, there is FCC's measurements > (http://www.fcc.gov/measuring-broadband-america/2012/july). > However, we are looking for something more detailed that can show a large > number of latency measurements taken periodically (preferably with as small a > period as possible). > > Any help will be appreciated. > > Thanks, > Tal Mizrahi. > Would the bufferbloat people be a good place to ask? http://www.bufferbloat.net/ -- http://neon-buddha.net
Re: William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if
> > Well, an ISP does do that, but so does an end user's network. So if
> > I put a Tor node on an ethernet ("PHYSICAL infrastructure") and then
> > connect that to an ISP ("other PHYSICAL networks"), that doesn't make
> > for a real good way to differentiate between an ISP, a commercial ISP
> > customer who gets routed IP networks via BGP, or an end user who has
> > an ethernet behind a NAT gateway.
>
> I was speaking of TOR as a service. The service is not provided inherent of=
> the infrastructure to pass packets. It's more similar to a tunneling proto=
> col service.
So if we can choose convenient definitions for the sake of discussing
the issue, this is a pointless discussion, because you'll use your
preferred definitions and I'll use mine, and we'll both be right by
that logic.
Tunnels and VPN's are a fact of life on the modern internet, though.
Those could be considered services. Or they could be considered part
of the infrastructure.
>From my point of view, they're just a way to attach to the Internet in
order to gain specific characteristics (a secure pathway, or IPv6, or
whatever). When you look at it like that, Tor looks suspiciously
similar to that, in that it's just a way to attach to the Internet in
order to gain anonymity - a characteristic. The traffic flows through
a Tor node in much the same way as traffic flows through a NAT gateway,
being modified a bit in the process.
> The person hosting the endpoint on their infrastructure would be the servic=
> e point and they are the ones acting as protector and as such should take o=
> n the responsibility as such. I can feel lawyers rubbing their hands togeth=
> er as I type.
You could say the same thing about Internet Service Providers. But
ISP's have cried foul at that for years, and even got significant
protections embodied in law.
... JG
--
Joe Greco - sol.net Network Services - Milwaukee, WI - http://www.sol.net
"We call it the 'one bite at the apple' rule. Give me one chance [and] then I
won't contact you again." - Direct Marketing Ass'n position on e-mail spam(CNN)
With 24 million small businesses in the US alone, that's way too many apples.
Re: William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if
Owen DeLong wrote: I strongly disagree with you. TOR exit nodes provide a vital physical infrastructure to free speech advocates who live in jurisdictions where strong forces are aligned against free speech. I'm sure most TOR exit node operators would happily provide all the details they have if presented with an appropriate subpoena. I really cherish this idea of privacy on the internet. It's a strong tool for enabling democracy and freedom of speech. [snip] Isn't William's problem because he used an IP address that was registered to him on the Polish server? If not, what am I missing? SANS has chimed in via their latest Newsbites: --TOR Operator Charged For Content Sent Through His Servers (November 29 & 30, 2012) An Austrian man who operated TOR servers has been charged with distributing child pornography. Authorities detected the images passing through the servers maintained by the man. Police seized 20 computers and other equipment from William Weber's home. TOR is an acronym for The Onion Router, a project developed by the US Naval Research Laboratory that allows people surf the web anonymously. It is often used by political dissidents, journalists, and law enforcement officers, and has also been used by criminals. The offending images were being distributed by a server in Poland and sent through Weber's servers. Weber operated exit servers; traffic from these nodes can be traced back to the servers' IP addresses. While the authorities became "friendlier" after understanding where the images came from, there is a precedent for holding TOR operators liable for content that passes through servers they operate. The Electronic Frontier Foundations acknowledges the risk that accompanies operating exit nodes and advises that "it's best not to run your exit relay in your home or using your home Internet connection." http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/11/tor-operator-charged-for-child-porn-transmitted-over-his-servers/ http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-20554788 http://www.zdnet.com/austrian-man-raided-for-operating-tor-exit-node-708133/ [Editor's Note (Ullrich): IMHO, the TOR operator acted like a transit ISP/NSP in this case. (Hoan): In many countries it is not illegal to run a Tor exit node. However, for anyone considering, or are already, running a Tor exit node you should familiarise yourself with the Electronic Frontier Foundation's Legal FAQ on the topic at https://www.eff.org/torchallenge/legal-faq/]
Amazon Abuse contact
Hi, If there is a Amazon Abuse person our there or if someone has a good contact to someone at Amazon can you message me off-list. We have put in some Abuse request a couple of days ago and have not heard back. It would be great to talk with someone about an issue effecting one of our clients and the use of Amazon. (Cloud instances I believe) Thank you in advance. Sincerely, -- Mark Keymer CFO/COO Vivio Technologies 509-593-4207 x1002
RE: [tor-talk] William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if you can.
A lot of guys have the same names, I did not assume that you are related to Jessica Simpson or Bart Simpson for that matter. Maybe I did not see you at NSFnet because I was working with DDN which was established a full two years before NSFnet. So what? Does the fact that I worked on the precursor to the Internet and NSFnet make me more credible than you? I was not aware that in order to be credible on NANOG, we had to meet you at some point. They did not tell me that at the Pentagon or when I got my engineering degrees. I also have great respect for the Tor engineers, it was great work. I just don't have respect for the idiots that sometimes use Tor. I also have great respect for the guys who wrote sendmail and don't blame them every time I get spam. What I don't have any respect for is the "I was here first (you weren't)", name dropping (I know the Tor guys), know it all (that does not know that a lot of what people do does not show up in google). For those of you who care about credentials. I have been working on the Internet and its predecessors since 1985. Of course that has absolutely nothing to do with the credibility of what I say because time does not always equal knowledge. As soon as you assume you are smarter than everyone else in the room you can be assured that you are not. Steven Naslund -Original Message- From: William Allen Simpson [mailto:william.allen.simp...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, November 30, 2012 9:20 PM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: [tor-talk] William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if you can. On 11/30/12 5:15 PM, Naslund, Steve wrote: > Well, in that case I am really worried that the cops might charge > me with a crime. They took my computers and are looking at them. I > did not do anything wrong but just in case they decide to charge me > with a crime, please send me some money. > As well you could be, because you appear to have the same name as a registered sex offender: http://www.sexoffenderin.com/reg110698/steven_w_naslundmugshot.htm On 11/29/12 6:39 PM, Naslund, Steve wrote: # As a long time service provider ... # # my many years of experience in engineering ARPANET, MILNET, and the # Internet I would have to guess that most Tor servers are used for no # good much more than they are protecting anyone's privacy. I'm surprised that medline.com is offering network access as an ISP? Admittedly, you began posting to NANOG in 2002 as: Network Engineering Manager Hosting.com - Chicago While I was involved in engineering NSFnet and the Internet and was an "original" member of NANOG, but I don't remember you. Of course, I'm notoriously bad with names. OTOH, I have met, remember, and greatly respect the Tor engineers.
RE: William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if
As usual one or more of the stories out there is wrong. It also says the man was charged which he apparently was not. Steven Naslund -Original Message- From: Michael Painter [mailto:tvhaw...@shaka.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2012 4:37 PM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if Owen DeLong wrote: > I strongly disagree with you. > > TOR exit nodes provide a vital physical infrastructure to free speech > advocates who live in jurisdictions where strong forces are aligned > against free speech. I'm sure most TOR exit node operators would > happily provide all the details they have if presented with an > appropriate subpoena. > I really cherish this idea of privacy on the internet. It's a strong tool for enabling democracy and freedom of speech. [snip] Isn't William's problem because he used an IP address that was registered to him on the Polish server? If not, what am I missing? SANS has chimed in via their latest Newsbites: --TOR Operator Charged For Content Sent Through His Servers (November 29 & 30, 2012) An Austrian man who operated TOR servers has been charged with distributing child pornography. Authorities detected the images passing through the servers maintained by the man. Police seized 20 computers and other equipment from William Weber's home. TOR is an acronym for The Onion Router, a project developed by the US Naval Research Laboratory that allows people surf the web anonymously. It is often used by political dissidents, journalists, and law enforcement officers, and has also been used by criminals. The offending images were being distributed by a server in Poland and sent through Weber's servers. Weber operated exit servers; traffic from these nodes can be traced back to the servers' IP addresses. While the authorities became "friendlier" after understanding where the images came from, there is a precedent for holding TOR operators liable for content that passes through servers they operate. The Electronic Frontier Foundations acknowledges the risk that accompanies operating exit nodes and advises that "it's best not to run your exit relay in your home or using your home Internet connection." http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/11/tor-operator-charged-for-chil d-porn-transmitted-over-his-servers/ http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-20554788 http://www.zdnet.com/austrian-man-raided-for-operating-tor-exit-node-700 0008133/ [Editor's Note (Ullrich): IMHO, the TOR operator acted like a transit ISP/NSP in this case. (Hoan): In many countries it is not illegal to run a Tor exit node. However, for anyone considering, or are already, running a Tor exit node you should familiarise yourself with the Electronic Frontier Foundation's Legal FAQ on the topic at https://www.eff.org/torchallenge/legal-faq/]
Re: Amazon Abuse contact
On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 5:40 PM, Mark Keymer wrote: > If there is a Amazon Abuse person our there or if someone has a good contact > to someone at Amazon can you message me off-list. > > We have put in some Abuse request a couple of days ago and have not heard > back. It would be great to talk with someone about an issue effecting one of > our clients and the use of Amazon. (Cloud instances I believe) FWIW, I had an issue with a DoS attack from an EC2 machine, and it took a total of 2 weeks for them to take the box offline, despite the attack going on the entire time (and being a really obvious UDP crudflood). I imagine that is their turnaround time. I found no escalation path despite searching for phone numbers and bumping the ticket with more info a few times. -- Darius Jahandarie
Re: William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if
On Dec 4, 2012, at 1:36 PM, Brian Johnson wrote: >> -Original Message- >> From: Owen DeLong [mailto:o...@delong.com] >> Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2012 2:22 PM >> To: Brian Johnson >> Cc: Jordan Michaels; nanog@nanog.org >> Subject: Re: William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if >> >> >> On Dec 4, 2012, at 09:32 , Brian Johnson wrote: >> >>> I know I'm going to get flamed and excoriated, but here goes >>> >>> 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 strongly disagree with you. >> >> TOR exit nodes provide a vital physical infrastructure to free speech >> advocates who live in jurisdictions where strong forces are aligned against >> free speech. I'm sure most TOR exit node operators would happily provide all >> the details they have if presented with an appropriate subpoena. >> > > TOR is not vital. It is political. I view this not as an issue of morals or > political action. It is an issue of a technical nature. A TOR is a way to > hide who you are. If I am hiding who you are from someone else and there is a > law broken, who do you go after? > Merely because something is political does not exclude it from being vital. There are opportunities for free speech which would be diminished or eliminated if TOR were eliminated. As such, yes, it is, in fact a vital political tool. It was a technical issue until people started having their civil rights potentially infringed. At that point, it became political and moral also. If you are hiding who I am from someone else and I am breaking a law, I presume they would come to you asking (or even demanding) what you know about my identity. However, that's not what a TOR exit node does. The TOR exit node operator isn't hiding the identity of the sender. You can't hide what you never knew. >>> 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 really cherish this idea of privacy on the internet. It's a strong tool for >> enabling democracy and freedom of speech. >> >> First, the internet hasn't been "public infrastructure" for a very long >> time. It's >> a loose collection of privately owned networks with very few pieces still >> owned by government institutions. I don't think anyone has asserted a >> "right" to use that infrastructure, but, I certainly value that there are >> people >> who choose to provide it. I think society benefits from having such >> infrastructure available. >> >> I like free speech. I like that there are people making free speech possible >> in >> places where it is strongly discouraged. While I think it is a shame that >> child >> pornographers and other nefarious users are able to abuse this >> infrastructure to the detriment of society, the reality is that it is like >> any other >> tool. It has beneficial uses and harmful uses. Going after the tool is >> counterproductive and harmful. > > This is ridiculous. Owen you damn well know that if you send packets from a > source, that source can be tracked back. Add a subpoena, privacy hereby > destroyed. Other countries are generally less protective of the citizen than > the US and as such... what was your argument again. Oh yeah. I'll be hiding > behind my packets. ;P If you send packets from a source, they can be tracked back in some cases. However, if you send your packets to someone nearby, anyone outside of that path probably can't easily track them back. If they then rewrite the packets and forward them to another who repeats that process and this process is repeated a few times, then if the person attempting to do the track-back isn't aware of the packets until the very far end, it can, in fact, be virtually impossible to track them back to the originator. This, combined with some obfuscation of the actual content along the way and a lack of logging i
