Sending this out, as I suspect I am not the only person running a node on SiteValley, as they have pretty good bandwidth for pretty cheap.
I had inquired in the beginning if they allowed Tor, and they said yes, but if we get too many abuse complaints we'll shut it down. So maybe 4 or 5 abuse complaints later they did indeed give me the ultimatum to shut it down or get shut down. So I made them give me a new IP address, and made it into a middle node. (The new IP was because I was thinking of making it a bridge.)
Well this morning they told me TOR (their caps, not mine ;) is not allowed at all. I argued with them a little bit, and TLDR you might be able to get a partial refund. I'd much rather have had the bandwidth though. I'm not in a position to run high-maintence nodes, so this being a pretty fast, maintenance-once-every-three-months dedicated-to-Tor node - I was pretty happy with it.
Our conversation:
----------------- Your VPS X.Y.Z.W has been suspended due to running tor anonymyzer which is forbidden according to our Acceptable Use Policy, paragraph 8 "Prohibited Activities" http://www.sitevalley.com/acceptable-use-policy/.
In order to have your VPS unsuspended you need to agree to remove tor from it within 24 hours after the unsuspension. Failure to abide by this provision may result in termination of your account.
We have to warn you that on receiving next abuse your VPS will be terminated without without prior notice. ----------------- If you refer to Contact Form ID #YXX-XXXXyou'll see that I confirmed with you before I purchased the VPS that allowing Tor was acceptable. I dealt with the 3 or 4 abuse complaints you sent me promptly, and in #FSA-XXXXI agreed to stop using the server as a Tor Exit Node, despite our previous conversation.
The machine in question is running Tor in a non-Exit mode. Traffic from it does not appear to originate from the server, and it merely passes traffic within the Tor network. It cannot generate abuse complaints from third parties when running in this mode. Have you received an abuse complaint about this server? If so, can you forward it to me so I can investigate how it may have been created? ----------------- The node was found during system audit. May be you know that running tor (in any mode) is strictly forbidden by our Acceptable Use Policy because it can be used by third-parties for forwarding hidden illegal traffic. Unfortunately, we can start your VPS only in case you agree to remove tor. ----------------- I'll put aside the fact that your routers, DNS resolvers and every router of the internet also carries hidden illegal traffic, and that Tor is agnostic to that traffic as your routers are.
I did NOT know that running Tor was not allowed because I ASKED you if I could, and you told me it was fine as long as it did not generate Abuse Complaints. Considering your AUP is so broad it can be made to cover anything you don't like, the only reasonable thing someone can do is ask if you'll allow something - which I did. I'd like a pro-rated refund of my remaining service, as you have misrepresented your services and your Acceptable Use Policy to me - if I had known you wouldn't allow me to use my bandwidth in a way that was not illegal in any jurisdiction, did not generate any abuse complaints or additional work for you, and that you would shut down my service after I confirmed what I was doing was okay with you - I would never have paid you in the first place. ----------------- Ticket YXX-XXXX dates from 26 Mar 2012. Our Terms of Service are subject to change and, according to our Terms of Service http://www.sitevalley.com/terms/ posting of such changed Terms and Conditions on the site constitutes notice of such changes to you (although we may choose additional types of notice). Our policy regarding TOR usage has been changed and as for now, running TOR applications on our servers is forbidden. We are very sorry that this provision prevents you from using our services in the manner you need to use it.
All things considered, we can offer you two options:
1. We unsuspend your VPS, you remove TOR from it, let us know and we check it. or 2. We issue the partial refund and terminate your account with us.
Please rest assured that we value you as our customer and would like to continue doing business with you. Also, please accept our apologies for any inconvenience this misunderstanding has been the reason of. ----------------- Thank you Dmitriy. Please issue the partial refund and terminate the account. -----------------
-tom
On Thu, 18 Jul 2013 10:49:46 -0400 Tom Ritter tom@ritter.vg allegedly wrote:
Sending this out, as I suspect I am not the only person running a node on SiteValley, as they have pretty good bandwidth for pretty cheap.
I had inquired in the beginning if they allowed Tor, and they said yes, but if we get too many abuse complaints we'll shut it down. So maybe 4 or 5 abuse complaints later they did indeed give me the ultimatum to shut it down or get shut down. So I made them give me a new IP address, and made it into a middle node. (The new IP was because I was thinking of making it a bridge.)
Hmm. Pretty crummy AUP. And /very/ crummy treatment of a customer.
I wonder if we are going to see more of this sort of thing now. I think the tor network needs greater geographic diversity.
Mick
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Mick Morgan gpg fingerprint: FC23 3338 F664 5E66 876B 72C0 0A1F E60B 5BAD D312 http://baldric.net
---------------------------------------------------------------------
On 13-07-18 11:51 AM, mick wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jul 2013 10:49:46 -0400 Tom Ritter tom@ritter.vg allegedly wrote:
Sending this out, as I suspect I am not the only person running a node on SiteValley, as they have pretty good bandwidth for pretty cheap.
I had inquired in the beginning if they allowed Tor, and they said yes, but if we get too many abuse complaints we'll shut it down. So maybe 4 or 5 abuse complaints later they did indeed give me the ultimatum to shut it down or get shut down. So I made them give me a new IP address, and made it into a middle node. (The new IP was because I was thinking of making it a bridge.)
Hmm. Pretty crummy AUP. And /very/ crummy treatment of a customer.
I wonder if we are going to see more of this sort of thing now. I think the tor network needs greater geographic diversity.
Makes me wonder if there is some kind of legal pressure being applied to American ISPs to disallow Tor and similar services and infrastructure. Or perhaps owners of some ISPs are polarizing toward the PATRIOT act side especially after the Snowden thing.
Are other ISPs changing their AUP and ToS in similar ways?
On Thu, 18 Jul 2013 12:02:29 -0400 krishna e bera keb@cyblings.on.ca allegedly wrote:
On 13-07-18 11:51 AM, mick wrote:
I wonder if we are going to see more of this sort of thing now. I think the tor network needs greater geographic diversity.
Makes me wonder if there is some kind of legal pressure being applied to American ISPs to disallow Tor and similar services and infrastructure. Or perhaps owners of some ISPs are polarizing toward the PATRIOT act side especially after the Snowden thing.
I'd like to think it may simply be a form of "self censorship" i.e. the ISP is wary of some future, unspecified, action and simply seeks a quiet life. I can't see legal pressure working - tor violates no laws.
Mick ---------------------------------------------------------------------
Mick Morgan gpg fingerprint: FC23 3338 F664 5E66 876B 72C0 0A1F E60B 5BAD D312 http://baldric.net
---------------------------------------------------------------------
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 07/18/2013 12:44 PM, mick wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jul 2013 12:02:29 -0400 krishna e bera keb@cyblings.on.ca allegedly wrote:
On 13-07-18 11:51 AM, mick wrote:
I wonder if we are going to see more of this sort of thing now. I think the tor network needs greater geographic diversity.
Makes me wonder if there is some kind of legal pressure being applied to American ISPs to disallow Tor and similar services and infrastructure. Or perhaps owners of some ISPs are polarizing toward the PATRIOT act side especially after the Snowden thing.
I'd like to think it may simply be a form of "self censorship" i.e. the ISP is wary of some future, unspecified, action and simply seeks a quiet life. I can't see legal pressure working - tor violates no laws.
One could enforce a contract in court, but chances are that would totally turn an ISP away from allowing Tor in the future.
We need more ISP's that are in it for more than just the $$$, but if the tech saavy people banded together to create a speech friendly ISP, it would be easier for Tor adversaries to block their IP space.
Education is important but the battle between geek and suit was lost long ago.
- --- Marina Brown
Mick
Mick Morgan gpg fingerprint: FC23 3338 F664 5E66 876B 72C0 0A1F E60B 5BAD D312 http://baldric.net
_______________________________________________ tor-relays mailing list tor-relays@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
I don't see anything specific regarding Tor or its capabilities in their AUP. But there are bits that could be extended to cover Tor. Which it appears they did, whether for bandwidth or cost of dealing with 'complaints'.
They are in New Hampshire, perhaps you could let the FreeStateProject know (cc: SV) that they are perhaps not a company that FreeStater's should patronize.
Also, asking a hosters via their support/sales staff if they permit Tor is not helpful. These droids do not have the authority to do anything other than take the sale and kick you later. You need to talk with someone higher up beforehand if you wish to secure better long term footing from any provider.
Their AUP is ridiculous. Which is even more curious given they seem to be run by Russians and permit feedback reviews by hosted 'gaming' and 'teen-sex' sites on their front page.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 07/19/2013 12:24 AM, grarpamp wrote:
I don't see anything specific regarding Tor or its capabilities in their AUP. But there are bits that could be extended to cover Tor. Which it appears they did, whether for bandwidth or cost of dealing with 'complaints'.
It seems they may already have changed their AUP.
'contain any kind of proxy server or other traffic relaying programs'.
- --- Marina Brown
They are in New Hampshire, perhaps you could let the FreeStateProject know (cc: SV) that they are perhaps not a company that FreeStater's should patronize.
Also, asking a hosters via their support/sales staff if they permit Tor is not helpful. These droids do not have the authority to do anything other than take the sale and kick you later. You need to talk with someone higher up beforehand if you wish to secure better long term footing from any provider.
Their AUP is ridiculous. Which is even more curious given they seem to be run by Russians and permit feedback reviews by hosted 'gaming' and 'teen-sex' sites on their front page. _______________________________________________ tor-relays mailing list tor-relays@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 07/18/2013 12:02 PM, krishna e bera wrote:
On 13-07-18 11:51 AM, mick wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jul 2013 10:49:46 -0400 Tom Ritter tom@ritter.vg allegedly wrote:
Sending this out, as I suspect I am not the only person running a node on SiteValley, as they have pretty good bandwidth for pretty cheap.
I had inquired in the beginning if they allowed Tor, and they said yes, but if we get too many abuse complaints we'll shut it down. So maybe 4 or 5 abuse complaints later they did indeed give me the ultimatum to shut it down or get shut down. So I made them give me a new IP address, and made it into a middle node. (The new IP was because I was thinking of making it a bridge.)
Hmm. Pretty crummy AUP. And /very/ crummy treatment of a customer.
I wonder if we are going to see more of this sort of thing now. I think the tor network needs greater geographic diversity.
Makes me wonder if there is some kind of legal pressure being applied to American ISPs to disallow Tor and similar services and infrastructure. Or perhaps owners of some ISPs are polarizing toward the PATRIOT act side especially after the Snowden thing.
Are other ISPs changing their AUP and ToS in similar ways?
Many US ISP's are motivated simply by the bottom line. I can tell you personally that abuse departments are swamped with all sorts of legal demands and copyright complaints. Abuse complaints and especially the nasty legal demands from gov have gotten worse over the years.
A tired abuse admin will often take the easy way out and get rid of a customer that generates little income and lots of complaints while high end customers are granted a bit more leeway, but even there dealing with legal complaints can make a good deal unprofitable.
- --- Marina Brown
_______________________________________________ tor-relays mailing list tor-relays@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
On Thu, 18 Jul 2013 12:02:29 -0400 krishna e bera keb@cyblings.on.ca wrote:
On 13-07-18 11:51 AM, mick wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jul 2013 10:49:46 -0400 Tom Ritter tom@ritter.vg allegedly wrote:
Sending this out, as I suspect I am not the only person running a node on SiteValley, as they have pretty good bandwidth for pretty cheap.
I had inquired in the beginning if they allowed Tor, and they said yes, but if we get too many abuse complaints we'll shut it down. So maybe 4 or 5 abuse complaints later they did indeed give me the ultimatum to shut it down or get shut down. So I made them give me a new IP address, and made it into a middle node. (The new IP was because I was thinking of making it a bridge.)
Hmm. Pretty crummy AUP. And /very/ crummy treatment of a customer.
I wonder if we are going to see more of this sort of thing now. I think the tor network needs greater geographic diversity.
Makes me wonder if there is some kind of legal pressure being applied to American ISPs to disallow Tor and similar services and infrastructure. Or perhaps owners of some ISPs are polarizing toward the PATRIOT act side especially after the Snowden thing.
Maybe they just realized they can't actually offer unmetered bandwidth as they advertise, and Tor is about the only application that can readily eat all bandwidth you'll give it, no matter what.
Tom, out of curiosity how much did you manage to transfer per month before being shut down?
On 18 July 2013 14:10, Roman Mamedov rm@romanrm.ru wrote:
Maybe they just realized they can't actually offer unmetered bandwidth as they advertise, and Tor is about the only application that can readily eat all bandwidth you'll give it, no matter what.
Tom, out of curiosity how much did you manage to transfer per month before being shut down?
I have a hunch this is it ;)
My node was https://atlas.torproject.org/#details/47DF93C269727DC04A54D84C016B62E54F8D1E... I was pushing something like 5-6 TB a month? I forget exactly.
-tom
Tom Ritter:
On 18 July 2013 14:10, Roman Mamedov rm@romanrm.ru wrote:
Maybe they just realized they can't actually offer unmetered bandwidth as they advertise, and Tor is about the only application that can readily eat all bandwidth you'll give it, no matter what.
Tom, out of curiosity how much did you manage to transfer per month before being shut down?
I have a hunch this is it ;)
My node was https://atlas.torproject.org/#details/47DF93C269727DC04A54D84C016B62E54F8D1E... I was pushing something like 5-6 TB a month? I forget exactly.
Yeah, I had to leave GANDI not because of admin pressure but because they instituted a 500GB data cap instead of unmetered.
You might try XMission, I've just moved my US-based Tor relay (non-exit) to there, and while it's only 1TB/mo, I'm also only paying $23 or so - they're willing to work with folks to build a custom VPS. Tor doesn't need a lot of CPU or disk or backup service, so you can cut that out and mainly pay for the bandwidth and RAM.
I've also run relay nodes on Linode for quite some time, bandwidth starts at 2TB/mo for cheap. Just don't tell them what you're doing - if it's a relay node they don't care. If it's an exit node they'll drop the banhammer.
I wish I could help with geographic diversity but bandwith is often more expensive overseas and my budget is currently limited.
-Gordon
Gordon Morehouse:
Yeah, I had to leave GANDI not because of admin pressure but because they instituted a 500GB data cap instead of unmetered.
Just to let others know, Nos Oignons [1] reached to them about the new pricing scheme and they offered to sponsor a 25 Mbit/s exit relay. It should get live in the upcoming weeks. :)
[1] https://nos-oignons.net/%C3%80_propos/index.en.html
GANDI
Just to let others know, Nos Oignons [1] reached to them about the new pricing scheme and they offered to sponsor a 25 Mbit/s exit relay. It should get live in the upcoming weeks. :)
GANDI is pretty well known for good things, yet another example above. As they say, 'no bullshit' :)
Lunar:
Gordon Morehouse:
Yeah, I had to leave GANDI not because of admin pressure but because they instituted a 500GB data cap instead of unmetered.
Just to let others know, Nos Oignons [1] reached to them about the new pricing scheme and they offered to sponsor a 25 Mbit/s exit relay. It should get live in the upcoming weeks. :)
That is really, really cool.
They would have lost my business anyway eventually, I'm pulling up stakes with all ISPs that are either in US jurisdiction or don't have a habit of saying "come back with a warrant" (e.g. XMission).
But I'm glad they're doing that! Good on GANDI!
-Gordon
I'm currently trying to build a network on Brazil. The main problem is to get a fast network link. Telecoms brought out shitty infrastructure and high "combo deal prices". But I hope that bringing up more nodes should attenuate the issue. At least for web browsing.
What is Tortilla?
____________________________________________________________ FREE ONLINE PHOTOSHARING - Share your photos online with your friends and family! Visit http://www.inbox.com/photosharing to find out more!
On 13-07-18 06:37 PM, beatthebastards@inbox.com wrote:
If asking Tor people a question related to Tor things garners a smart-arse response like that how will I know which is not?
-----Original Message----- *From:* danielcase10@gmail.com *Sent:* Thu, 18 Jul 2013 22:52:01 +0100 *To:* tor-relays@lists.torproject.org *Subject:* Re: [tor-relays] Tortilla http://lmgtfy.com/?q=What+is+Tortilla+Tor%3F
The first search hit answers your question, such as it was, and gives a hint for future questions of that nature. If that wasnt your real question please rephrase it.
No further questions.
____________________________________________________________ FREE ONLINE PHOTOSHARING - Share your photos online with your friends and family! Visit http://www.inbox.com/photosharing to find out more!
On Thu, 18 Jul 2013 13:09:08 -0800 I beatthebastards@inbox.com wrote:
What is Tortilla?
A poorly named tool with zero ties to Tor. How is this question related to tor relays?
That stinks.
Linode has the same policy WRT exit relays.
If they get too many abuse complaints, they ask you to stop running a relay. The way US law is structured, I can't actually blame them for this.
However they don't care if you're running a middle node. Your bandwidth/VPS, your call. A *lot* of people run bridge nodes there, myself included.
-Chris (Running an exit relay in the US cost effectively seems quite difficult)
On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 11:51 AM, mick mbm@rlogin.net wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jul 2013 10:49:46 -0400 Tom Ritter tom@ritter.vg allegedly wrote:
Sending this out, as I suspect I am not the only person running a node on SiteValley, as they have pretty good bandwidth for pretty cheap.
I had inquired in the beginning if they allowed Tor, and they said yes, but if we get too many abuse complaints we'll shut it down. So maybe 4 or 5 abuse complaints later they did indeed give me the ultimatum to shut it down or get shut down. So I made them give me a new IP address, and made it into a middle node. (The new IP was because I was thinking of making it a bridge.)
Hmm. Pretty crummy AUP. And /very/ crummy treatment of a customer.
I wonder if we are going to see more of this sort of thing now. I think the tor network needs greater geographic diversity.
Mick
Mick Morgan gpg fingerprint: FC23 3338 F664 5E66 876B 72C0 0A1F E60B 5BAD D312 http://baldric.net
tor-relays mailing list tor-relays@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
tor-relays@lists.torproject.org
-
Andrew Lewman -
André Nunes Batista -
Chris Patti -
Daniel Case -
Gordon Morehouse -
grarpamp -
I -
krishna e bera -
Lunar -
Marina Brown -
mick -
Roman Mamedov -
Tom Ritter