3 ms·
The problem is that you do not make the distinction between a regular relay and an exit node. There are enough regular relays in the tor network, but people hes
by stingraycharles 12y ago
The problem is that you do not make the distinction between a regular relay and an exit node. There are enough regular relays in the tor network, but people hesitate running exit nodes because of the legal liabilities: many ISPs do not want you to run a tor exit node, because of the nature of some traffic coming through the tor network (illegal marketplaces, child porn, etc -- as you can read in the article, even Mozilla doesn't want to host exit relays).
If you make this the default, you're opening a can of worms legal-wise. If you make only non-exit relays the default, your whole plan defeats its purpose, because then exit nodes remain the weakest link (as they are now).
- pcthrowaway 12y agoI agree that it's too crazy for Mozilla to seriously consider it. But, assuming Tor did receive widespread adoption of exit nodes at this scale, the internet would have to adapt to accommodate this many people rerouting other people's traffic. ISPs would encounter the same backlash for throttling or blocking users who run exit nodes as they currently face when doing it to users running Netflix. Unfortunately, it takes mass adoption to force this kind of adaptation, and it's generally an easier fight to maintain venues of freedom than to open new ones. So we have a chicken and egg problem essentially; Mass adoption is necessary to force regulatory and infrastructural accommodation, and that accommodation is necessary to foster mass adoption.
- Tomte 12y ago"The law just has to change to adapt to our new technical ways" ist a common fallacy with techies. And has been working /splendidly/ for decades now. More importantly, letting every of your users out in the rain with his legal problems until you have finally been successful in changing the law is not a recommended way to treat your users.