On 01/17/2017 12:00 AM, Roger Dingledine wrote:
On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 11:49:46PM -0700, Mirimir wrote:
Or you need adequate anonymity, and be willing to lose sunk cost.
I think trying to run exit relays with anonymity, and with plans to discard them as needed, is a poor plan long-term. In the struggle for what the Internet can become, we need to be public and clear about who we are and why privacy is important for everybody.
I concur. Curiously, there has to be a public face and public venues for anonymity as a service.
(Yes, that looks like a contradiction, but I claim it isn't: privacy is about giving people choices, and to win this conflict we need some people who will make the choice to step up and be public and build relationships.)
A local makerspace was already planning on setting up a separate hackerspace as is own legal entity for purposes of compartmentalization when I introduced them to Tor.
This "slash and burn agriculture" approach to running Tor relays, where you set up an exit relay, and if anybody gets angry you move on to another ISP, is really appealing since it's simple, but it assumes the Internet is infinite. If in fact we're destroying land without regard to sustainability, and we run out of land...
The trick, as I understand it, is to preclude the ISP from any legal exposure or overhead whatsoever.
The Internet is smaller and more centralized than we think, and we need the people who run it to see us as a worthwhile positive and contributing community.
I couldn't agree more.