13 ms·

Please remember that doing so might get you in trouble https://yanmaani.github.io/does-council-regulation-eu-2022/350-make-it-illegal-to-operate-a-tor-node-in-t

Please remember that doing so might get you in trouble https://yanmaani.github.io/does-council-regulation-eu-2022/350-make-it-illegal-to-operate-a-tor-node-in-the-eu/ https://yanmaani.github.io/does-council-regulation-eu-2022/3...

lucb1e 5y ago
Since it's also illegal to help a criminal in their act, there are already a hundred laws that could be explained in the same way. This relay only accepts and sends encrypted traffic and you (as entry node) will not know what is being transmitted. It's encrypted with a key you simply do not have, you're just forwarding it for people that could otherwise not reach the entry nodes. From my point of view this is the safest thing you can do for the Tor network.
3np 5y ago
As I wrote here when it came up, with that interpretation suddenly anyone facilitating communication (including ISPs not fully blocking access to anyone who does) is in trouble. You’d basically need to ensure full compliance from anyone you’re peering with or forwarding communication from. So E2EE without TPM-enforced client-side scanning or relaying clear-text messages without the same or server-side filtering would be trouble. Good luck squaring that with being GDPR-compliant for any real-world business use-case... As formulated that would hopefully not hold up in court. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30537464 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30537464
estaseuropano 5y ago
Now I'm not a lawyer but very familiar with EU legal texts. Firstly, the part s/he quotes at the beginning is from the preamble/recitals, essentially intention statements, explanations and background. This is not in any way legally binding, but a court would use it to interpret the articles. The articles are what matters And then we get in the messy things: article 12. > It shall be prohibited to participate, knowingly and intentionally, in activities the object or effect of which is to circumvent prohibitions in this Regulation including by acting as a substitute for natural or legal persons, entities or bodies referred to in Article 2e(3) or Article 2f, 5, 5a, 5b, 5e, 5f or 5h, or by acting to their benefit by using the exceptions in Article 2e(4), 5(6), 5a(2), 5a(5), 5b(2), 5b(3), 5e(2) or 5f(2).’; Eu law tends to be intepreted conservatively. Its not like US law which is largely case law - in EU law, except for judgements by the ECJ, the measuring stick is the legal text and intention, not a wide interpretation that extends the actual text as you might do in the US. So e.g. if users can upload text or video on your service and do so to spread/share RT propaganda, you would certainly not need to fear anything directly unless you notice/are told its there and then don't take action (different rules for large platforms though). Similarly, a VPN or tor node has many functions. Unless you actively and intentionally host such content or explicitly advertise or distribute it (think e.g. a Popcorntime for RT) you would not expect sanctions. Problem beyond this is that the EU is 27 legal systems. The intention of this regulation is to empower national media regulators to take action against the propaganda anf lies spread by these state media. So while the regulation applies directly, each national law might have slightly different ways of implemeting this. E.g. Poland might take a much stricter view than Portugal, in line with national media regulations.

lucb1e 5y ago

Since it's also illegal to help a criminal in their act, there are already a hundred laws that could be explained in the same way. This relay only accepts and sends encrypted traffic and you (as entry node) will not know what is being transmitted. It's encrypted with a key you simply do not have, you're just forwarding it for people that could otherwise not reach the entry nodes. From my point of view this is the safest thing you can do for the Tor network.

3np 5y ago

As I wrote here when it came up, with that interpretation suddenly anyone facilitating communication (including ISPs not fully blocking access to anyone who does) is in trouble. You’d basically need to ensure full compliance from anyone you’re peering with or forwarding communication from. So E2EE without TPM-enforced client-side scanning or relaying clear-text messages without the same or server-side filtering would be trouble. Good luck squaring that with being GDPR-compliant for any real-world business use-case... As formulated that would hopefully not hold up in court. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30537464 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30537464

estaseuropano 5y ago

Now I'm not a lawyer but very familiar with EU legal texts. Firstly, the part s/he quotes at the beginning is from the preamble/recitals, essentially intention statements, explanations and background. This is not in any way legally binding, but a court would use it to interpret the articles. The articles are what matters And then we get in the messy things: article 12. > It shall be prohibited to participate, knowingly and intentionally, in activities the object or effect of which is to circumvent prohibitions in this Regulation including by acting as a substitute for natural or legal persons, entities or bodies referred to in Article 2e(3) or Article 2f, 5, 5a, 5b, 5e, 5f or 5h, or by acting to their benefit by using the exceptions in Article 2e(4), 5(6), 5a(2), 5a(5), 5b(2), 5b(3), 5e(2) or 5f(2).’; Eu law tends to be intepreted conservatively. Its not like US law which is largely case law - in EU law, except for judgements by the ECJ, the measuring stick is the legal text and intention, not a wide interpretation that extends the actual text as you might do in the US. So e.g. if users can upload text or video on your service and do so to spread/share RT propaganda, you would certainly not need to fear anything directly unless you notice/are told its there and then don't take action (different rules for large platforms though). Similarly, a VPN or tor node has many functions. Unless you actively and intentionally host such content or explicitly advertise or distribute it (think e.g. a Popcorntime for RT) you would not expect sanctions. Problem beyond this is that the EU is 27 legal systems. The intention of this regulation is to empower national media regulators to take action against the propaganda anf lies spread by these state media. So while the regulation applies directly, each national law might have slightly different ways of implemeting this. E.g. Poland might take a much stricter view than Portugal, in line with national media regulations.