On 10/21/2014 10:29 PM, Manuel Gebauer wrote: >>> Although, the greater risk in my opinion, comes from the question >>> if tor operators can be seen as service providers who would be >>> exempt from responsibility for transmitted information under the >>> term of this law. There's no precedence to my knowledge, but >>> private wireless APs are in fact not exempt from responsibility. >> >> Citation needed. > "Für ein schlecht gesichertes WLAN besteht Störerhaftung." BGH, > Urteil v. 12.05.2010, Az. I ZR 121/08, Link: > http://tlmd.in/u/1057
Don't confuse Internet ACCESS Providers and Internet Service Providers. Legally, they're looked at quite different. And a "wifi with bad security" does not even mean you can't offer a completely open wifi. Any layman with a bit of sense could have known that to argue that the wifi was misconfigured "by mistake" is a bad excuse. To come back to the topic, I believe it is perfectly fine to announce _in advance_ that your relay does not want to see/relay particular traffic. Then, it is not a question of interfering with traffic, since you don't see that kind of traffic at all. It's different if you stop dropping packets on purpose. -- Moritz Bartl https://www.torservers.net/ _______________________________________________ tor-relays mailing list tor-relays@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
