Clearly Linode has to look at validity of complaints at least to some standard, otherwise anyone would be able to bring down anyone else's site just by repeatedly sending Linode bogus complains.

I don't see how the other text in paragraph changes the meaning of the part I quoted. I never suggested Linode should monitor traffic, nor I suggested it should ignore complaints. I suggested it is wrong to treat continued "receipt of abuse complaints" by itself as grounds for termination, unless Linode looked into those complaints at least to some standard and assessed complaints to likely be valid. And Linode probably already does that, otherwise anyone would be able to bring down anyone else's site just by repeatedly sending Linode bogus complaints. So the question is: should Linode start treating complaints about TOR exit nodes as bogus, like other US hosting providers already do?

What makes you think these complaints are bogus? Running a TOR exit node can cause actual malicious or illegal traffic to exit the Linode instance. Complaints would be bogus if this traffic did not actually exit the Linode.

The complaint in case of TOR exit node is bogus because according to many prominent lawyers running TOR exit node (with any kind of exit traffic) is completely legal under current US law. This opinion is also strongly supported by the fact that no person or hosting provider was ever sued for running TOR node (including exit node) in many years of operation.

No competent lawyer will say such a claim is bogus until such a claim has been tested in court. At best they'll provide an opinion that they think it is bogus (or so my friendly lawyer tells me:-)).

I feel that a competent prosecutor could easily lay a groundwork for contributory infringement; "one who, with knowledge of the infringing activity, induces, causes or materially contributes to the infringing conduct of another."

The defense would have to argue that it didn't know, but given multiple warnings from the service provider that the exit node had been used to transit infringing traffic then this would be a weak defence; the defendant would have known their resource was being used to assist in copyright infringement, which would also take care of the "safe harbor" provision of the DMCA.

The Sony Betamax defence (other legitimate uses) is also weak, since sites have been taken down in the past or had rulings made against them; the prosecution must merely show that the majority of traffic flowing through the exit node was infringing traffic and that legitimate uses were negligible. Given the size of a typical torrent, that shouldn't be hard!

If I was running linode then I'd not want to take the risk. As a customer of linode I don't want them to take the risk. I believe linode's position is prudent and correct.

_________________
Rgds
Stephen
(Linux user since kernel version 0.11)

I don't know about you, but I am not a lawyer, and I think it would be beyond naive for me to discuss specifics of possible legal arguments. I know that many prominent lawyers say in their opinion TOR exit nodes are completely legal under current US law. I also know no one was ever sued for running TOR exit node over many years of operation.

There is always a risk, regardless of what one chooses to do or not to do. Is the risk in this case grave enough to go the path of alienating (and losing business of) a few customers? Perhaps.

"citation needed"


And gaining customers because of reduced risk of being caught up as an innocent bystander in DoS attacks, court rulings against the service provider, etc etc. Hell yes.

_________________
Rgds

Stephen

(Linux user since kernel version 0.11)

TOR might be completely legal, but the outgoing traffic it causes might not be. There is no problem with TOR itself, but there is with the traffic. So I ask again. What makes you think the complaints about the traffic are bogus?

Here is TOR legal FAQ written by EFF attorneys:
https://www.torproject.org/eff/tor-legal-faq

And here is the list of said EFF attorneys:
https://www.eff.org/about/staff


This is just a speculation. I might as well speculate that TOR friendly service will attract people who dislike RIAA/MPAA (probably a majority of US population), people who support privacy and anonymity on the Internet (again, quite a sizable crowd), etc., etc.

I am afraid I will have to give you the same answer again. According to many prominent lawyers, running TOR exit node (with any kind of exit traffic) is completely legal under current US law. This opinion is also strongly supported by the fact that no person or hosting provider was ever sued for running TOR node (including exit node) in many years of operation.

In other words, even if some of the node exit traffic is "illegal", the node operator or his hosting provider are not legally liable (again, according to many prominent... you know the drill).

Okay, so you believe that complaints about illegal or malicious traffic are bogus if they originate from your TOR exit node.

If complaints about illegal or malicious traffic were ignored only because they originated from your TOR exit node, you would be able to get the following scenario:

1. Run a TOR exit node on your Linode.
2. You perform illegal or malicious activities yourself, on the same Linode.
3. Linode receives complaints and forwards them to you.
4. You say: "See! I run a TOR exit node!"
5. Linode says: "Oh okay, carry on."

The fact is, the illegal or malicious traffic exits from *your* Linode. There is *nothing* wrong with TOR itself, but there is with the traffic it causes.

Here's an analogy for you. There is nothing illegal about knives, but stabbing people with a knife is. Should stabbing with knives be allowed because knives are legal?

I'll believe you when I see RIAA/MPAA lawyers agree with the EFF. I don't doubt that EFF knows what it's doing, but Tor is their pet project so there's a good chance they're biased in favor of it.

Besides, legal opinion is worthless until it has been proven in court. In common-law countries such as the U.S., law is what the judge says it is. So far, no judge has said anything about Tor. This only means that the risk is unknown; it does not mean that there is no risk. In fact, I'd feel a lot more comfortable about Tor if somebody actually got sued and won. Consider the GPL: a lot of people doubted its legal validity until a couple of cases actually went to court and won.

Nobody would have imagined that it was "illegal" (in the sense that it warrants damages in a civil suit) to serve hot coffee without a warning message until that McDonald's lawsuit came along. This is a ridiculously litigious country you live in, and it is not unreasonable for people to be cautious.

Exactly. The keyword from the EFF page is "believe". That belief and a dollar will get you a cup of coffee.

Indirectly they already have. By not filing a single lawsuit against any operator (or his hosting provider) for running a TOR exit node in many years of operation.

Sure kid. You feel so certain about this, go start your own TOR friendly host and let us know how it goes.