Re:EU Court: Open WiFi Operator Not Liable for Pirate Users
by bluesign on Friday September 16, 2016 @11:53AM
(#12514847)
I suspect this logic can also apply to tor exit nodes, which is more troublesome.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:EU Court: Open WiFi Operator Not Liable for Pirate Users
by ayyn0n0n0 on Friday September 16, 2016 @12:02PM
(#12514936)
There are ways to configure your tor exit node ExitPolicy to be responsible and to be pro-active against malicious activity and abuse.
If you would like to read more: http://tornull.org https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/wiki/doc/ReducedExi...
With a minimal amount of work and upkeep. You can cut down on abuse fairly easily.
Re:EU Court: Open WiFi Operator Not Liable for Pirate Users
by cryptarch on Friday September 16, 2016 @05:02PM
(#12517327)
I was under the impression that this was a dangerous thing to do, because by using custom filtering you implicitly accept responsibility for what illegal content slips through your filter.
Re:EU Court: Open WiFi Operator Not Liable for Pirate Users
by cryptarch on Friday September 16, 2016 @07:29PM
(#12518145)
I can't edit my post anymore, but I couldn't find a source to back this up. According to the Tor Blog, it should be fine to have a reduced exit policy.
For reference: https://blog.torproject.org/running-exit-node
Re:EU Court: Open WiFi Operator Not Liable for Pirate Users
by bluesign on Friday September 16, 2016 @12:15PM
(#12515054)
I know but I was referring to identity part;
'in order to ensure that deterrent effect, it is necessary to require users to reveal their identity to be prevented from acting anonymously'