Disclaimer: I was an otherwise happy linode customer for quite some time, and only recently began building out TOR nodes to assist in the propagation of the network that I believe is incredibly vital in global politics today.

The following is a series of interactions I've had with the linode customer service and technical support staff as a result of running a TOR node. Linode claims to hold privacy as one of their paramount values... By this chain of interaction it's up to you to decide if linode really does care about internet privacy, or if they're just overly paranoid, as well as thoroughly hypocritical network managers:

tparker:
Hello,

Please investigate and update this ticket within 24 hours to avoid a disruption in service.

We have received a complaint in connection with the below-pasted details from NBC Universal regarding materials contained in the specified web site that are infringing upon the claimant's intellectual property rights.

We are required by federal law to act expeditiously in removing or disabling access to the infringing materials. We therefore strongly recommend that you immediately remove the infringing materials.

Please note that under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, you have the right to file a counter-notice claiming that either (a) the Claimant is wrong and that the Infringing Material is lawfully posted on the Web Site or (b) that the Infringing Material has been misidentified. We encourage you to review the procedures for filing a counter-notice which you can send back to us.

Please note that Linode has only passed on the the Claimant's notice and has not sought to determine whether the Infringing Materials on the Web Site do indeed infringe upon the Claimant's intellectual property rights.

Regards,
Trevor

-----------------------------------
Title: House MD (TV)
Infringement Source: BitTorrent
Initial Infringement Timestamp: 19 Jun 2011 20:37:07 GMT
Recent Infringement Timestamp: 19 Jun 2011 20:37:07 GMT
Infringing Filename: House.S07E18.HDTV.XviD-LOL.avi
Infringing File size: 366764352
Infringers IP Address: 74.207.248.163
Infringers DNS Name: horace.dionysian-mind.net
Bay ID: e967df8b4a924fe8df3580c228152d275d92c279|366764352
Port ID: 53786

TOR_zealot:
I run a ToR relay on my linode, which is likely why you see the occasional torrent traffic. I will block torrent traffic from the ToR end-point filtering rules. Though as a general aside, the DMCA can suck it.

This issue will be rectified shortly.

lsabota:
Hello,

Thank you for your response. Please update this ticket when the copyrighted material has been removed.

Regards,
Lukas

TOR_zealot
No copywritten material exists on my linode, only traffic relating to tiny parts of copywritten material is relayed through my server.

Anyway, I've blocked the most common bittorrent ports (tcp 6881-6900) on the exit policy on my ToR relay. This will mitigate most torrent related traffic, but there's literally no guarantee that people won't find other ways to tunnel torrent traffic through the ToR network, which quite frankly is the entire purpose of the ToR network. Anyway, I've done what I can, I'm not violating any terms of service, so hopefully this takes care of the matter entirely.

lsabota:
Hello,

Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter. We will set this ticket to automatically close as we monitor for additional complaints. We appreciate your cooperation.

Regards,
Lukas

psandin:
Hello,

We have received an other complaint from "". Could you please look in to this complaint and ensure that your exit policy is working as expected?

Regards,
Peter

--

Title: Van Helsing
Infringement Source: BitTorrent
Initial Infringement Timestamp: 21 Jun 2011 06:16:03 GMT
Recent Infringement Timestamp: 21 Jun 2011 06:16:03 GMT
Infringing Filename: Van Helsing 2004 BRRip {A MnM-RG H264 by Masta}
Infringing File size: 1613881859
Infringers IP Address: 74.207.248.163
Infringers DNS Name: horace.dionysian-mind.net
Bay ID: 5e00eafb67851bcf22f4f3820b25c83d45516ea7|1613881859
Port ID: 58032

TOR_zealot
Yea, what was pretty much my exact point from my first response, there's nothing that's going to stop someone from just changing their ports, or otherwise encapsulate their traffic, and pumping whatever traffic they'd like through the ToR network -- in this case changing from ports 6881-6900, to a less standard port of 58032. I guess I'll just fall back to the official legal statement from the ToR organization:

Dear Linode:

Thank you for forwarding me the notice you received from Universal Pictures regarding Van Helsing 2004 BRRip {A MnM-RG H264 by Masta}. I would like to assure you that, contrary to the assertions in the notice, 1) I am not hosting or making available the claimed infringing materials, and 2) you are already protected by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act's ("DMCA") safe harbor from any liability arising from this complaint. The notice is incorrect, probably based upon misunderstandings about law and about some of the software I run.

First, in terms of legal liability, this notice does not create any risk for you as a service provider. As you know, the DMCA creates four "safe harbors" for service providers to protect them from copyright liability for the acts of their users, when the ISPs fulfill certain requirements. (17 U.S.C. � 512) The DMCA's requirements vary depending on the ISP's role. You may be most familiar with the "notice and takedown" provisions of DMCA 512(c), but those apply only to content hosted on your servers, or to linking and caching activity. The "takedown notice" provisions do not apply when an ISP merely acts as a conduit. Instead, the "conduit" safe harbor of DMCA 512(a) has different and less burdensome requirements, as the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals held in RIAA v. Verizon (see http://www.eff.org/legal/cases/RIAA_v_V ... 031219.pdf) and the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals confirmed in RIAA v. Charter (see http://www.eff.org/IP/P2P/Charter/033802P.pdf).

Here, any content that came from or through my computers merely passed through your network, so DMCA 512(a) applies. Under DMCA 512(a), you are immune from money damages for copyright infringement claims if you maintain "a policy that provides for termination in appropriate circumstances of subscribers and account holders of the service provider's system or network who are repeat infringers." If you have and implement such a policy, you are free from fear of copyright damages, period.

As for what makes a reasonable policy, as the law says, it's one that only terminates subscribers who are repeat infringers. A notice claiming infringement is not the same as a determination of infringement. The notification you received is not proof of any copyright infringement, and it certainly is not proof of the "repeat infringement" that is required under the law before you need to terminate my account. I have not infringed any copyrights and do not intend to do so. Therefore, you continue to be protected under the DMCA 512(a) safe harbor, without taking any further action.

You might be curious, though, about what did trigger the notice. The software that likely triggered the faulty notice is a program I run called Tor. Tor is network software that helps users to enhance their privacy, security, and safety online. It does not host or make available any content. Rather, it is part of a network of nodes on the Internet that simply pass packets among themselves before sending them to their destinations, just as any Internet host does. The difference is that Tor tunnels the connections such that no hop can learn both the source and destination of the packets, giving users protection from nefarious snooping on network traffic. Tor protects users against hazards such as harassment, spam, and identity theft. In fact, initial development of Tor, including deployment of a public-use Tor network, was a project of the U.S. Naval Research Laboratory, with funding from ONR and DARPA. (For more on Tor, see https://www.torproject.org/.) As an organization committed to protecting the privacy of its customers, I hope you'll agree that this is a valuable technology.

Thank you for working with me on this matter. As a loyal subscriber, I appreciate your notifying me of this issue and hope that the complete protections of DMCA 512 put any concerns you may have at rest. If not, please contact me with any further questions.

Very truly yours,
Your customer, TOR_zealot Nuno

If you feel this legalese is not sufficient, and still believe I am in some violation of terms of service let me know and I'll do what I can to better adhere to your operational guidelines.

psandin
Hello TOR_zealot,

While our terms of service do not prohibit the use of tor or other methods of obscuring the source of a connection, we do state that the account holder is responsible for all traffic in and out of their Linode. If you are not able to block bit torrent traffic from exiting your Linode we will have to ask that you discontinue the use of tor on your Linode. Please let us know when your exit policy has been revised, or other measures have been taken to prevent further bit torrent traffic from being relayed through your Linode.

Regards,
Peter

TOR_zealot
Ok, with all due respect clearly there's something that's not quite being understood about this matter. I would kindly ask that you re-read the official statement from the ToR organization more clearly as it explains in detail the why I am not violating any rule or law. I am in no way hosting data that is copywritten, and in no way hosting files protected under the DMCA. ToR is a *very* legitimate tool for internet privacy and anonymization, and vital to the development of digital privacy. I could sit around and block random ports all day long as you receive DMCA notices but it wouldn't stem the tide of people using one of the million ways to otherwise by-pass a simple port block -- this is simply the nature of internet proxies, not limited to ToR. There is literally no way for ToR relays, or the ToR network in general, to entirely block torrent traffic without dramatic re-engineering (which woud in turn render ToR much more useless as an anonymizing tool).
As I am not running bittorrent, or any other p2p file sharing applications, I fail to see exactly where I am violating any ToS, as the last reply I sent seemed to cover that matter in great detail, as well as any and all possible legal repercussions. There is literally zero legal liability on either your or my behalf from the traffic that ends up passing through or out of any given ToR relay. If there is a more effective way you believe I can use to stem the tide of torrent traffic I'll drop it in place right away, but past what I've done I believe we've more than covered our "legal asses" (so to speak).
Let me know if there's any other specific requests you have for me in changing my ToR relay exit policy. Thanks!
-TOR_zealot

psandin
Hello,

Our policy is more strict than required by law. Under our terms of service you are responsible for all traffic in and out of your Linode regardless or your level of personal interaction with that traffic. At this time we are receiving complaints of copy right material being transmitted through your Linode, and ask that you take steps to prevent further complaints from being generated. If you are able to block bit torrent while still allowing legitimate traffic to exit the tor network via your Linode please feel free to continue to run tor. In any case action needs to be taken to prevent further complaints.

Regards,
Peter

TOR_zealot
Alright, first off I would ask you be a little less rude about this -- I've been working with you as best I can. I first explained that those "DMCA Notices" you're getting are 100% false positives -- you can ignore them if you so choose because no law has been broken. But since you seem absolutely intent on NOT ignoring those false positives I ask what *exactly* you would like me to do, in reference to my ToR exit policy (telling me "just block bittorrent" is a non sequitur). If ToR is an acceptable application on your network, which you've told me is, explain to me the the parameters by which I can configure it. Of course I would ask that these parameters be actually cross-referenced to said written "policy that is more strict than law."
Once I know the actual technical limitations defined by your terms of service I can configure my services accordingly. Thank you in advance for your assistance.
-TOR_zealot

deaton
Hello,

We sincerely apologize for any perception of rudeness from our end. We have no intention of being rude or inconsiderate while explaining Linode's policy.

We do have other customers that successfully operate Tor exit nodes and do not generate complaints. I believe this is accomplished by dynamically filtering bittorrent traffic (as opposed to blocking specific ports), but there may be other technical means of accomplishing this. There are other services that sometimes need to be blocked as well to avoid receiving complaints, such as SPAM and (block outbound attempts to port 25) and ssh brute force attempts (block outbound attempts to port 22).

If you'd like to continue running ToR, then you'll have to find a way to block the traffic that is generating complaints. Unfortunately if you cannot successfully block Bit Torrent traffic coming from your Linode then we'll need to respectfully request that you stop running the ToR service on your Linode.

Please let us know how you plan to proceed. Thank you in advance.

Regards,
Dave

TOR_zealot
Ok, that's starting to get to more of the information that I need... but not quite. I guess I'm curious as to why the false positive DMCA notices are an issue in any way? Presuming I finagle a way to block traffic enough to cease generating DMCA notices, it doesn't logically follow that I've actually blocked torrent traffic entirely -- it would be just as likely the torrent traffic still exists but is encrypted / not using public trackers / etc. etc. etc.
Basically I'm just trying to get the point across that what we're actually talking about is ANONYMIZING PROXY traffic, *NOT* bittorrent traffic. If I was running bittorrent software, or other P2P software, generating mass connections to pull down the latest CAM of The Hangover 2, I would be in clear violation of your terms of service, but I'm not. So I'm failing to see how I am violating any terms of service OR breaking any US laws.
However, if you can hand me a couple lines to throw in my /etc/tor/torrc file that will put someone's mind at ease I'll do it in 2 seconds flat.

deaton
Hello,

We do not actively monitor the network activity of your Linode and only open abuse tickets based on complaints that are received. If you're not getting complaints, in general that is sufficient for our needs.

We are completely aware that ToR anonymizes all traffic, and not just BitTorrent traffic, however, the BitTorrent traffic is the traffic that is generating complaints, and we need it to stop in order to stop getting complaints about your IP address. The traffic is coming from your IP address either way, whether it has passed through the ToR network first or not. Our policy applies either way:

- https://www.linode.com/tos.cfm

Section 3 Prohibited Usage states:

Linode and the services it provides may only be used for lawful purposes. Transmission, distribution, or storage of any information, data or material in violation of United States or state regulation or law, or by the common law, is prohibited. This includes, but is not limited to, material protected by copyright, trademark, trade secret, or other intellectual property rights. Linode.com's services may not be used to facilitate infringement of these laws in any way.

Your Linode is transmitting copyright material. Whether it originated from the ToR network or from a BitTorrent client running on your Linode, the policy still applies.

As previously stated we aren't aware of the exact configuration that you need to implement to stop complaints from being generated. Feel free to join our active users community for suggestions:

- http://www.linode.com/community/

Please let us know whether you plan to dynamically block BitTorrent traffic or stop the ToR service completely so we can close this ticket. Thank you for your continued cooperation.

Regards,
Dave

deaton
Hello,

To add to my last update, there's an additional part of section 3 that more directly describes our policy towards the use of ToR:

- https://www.linode.com/tos.cfm

Linode does not prohibit the use of distributed, peer to peer network services such as Tor, nor does Linode routinely monitor the network communications of customer Linodes as a normal business practice. However, customers are responsible for the contents of network traffic exiting their Linode. Any usage that prompts the receipt of abuse complaints pertaining to violation of United States and/or international copyright law must be promptly discontinued to avoid service cancellation for violation of these terms.

Regards,
Dave

TOR_zealot
Great. So you're not going to be answering any of my questions whatsoever?

deaton
Hello,

My update was based on what I felt was the most applicable information to help get the situation resolved, and I believe I've addressed each of your questions. If you have specific questions that you feel were not addressed then please let us know so we can clarify further.

Regards,
Dave

TOR_zealot
Ok guys, I don't want this to be some sort of "flame war" pissing contest, but I have to say I'm becoming increasingly unimpressed about your persistence about this total non-issue -- that being a false positive DMCA notice. You have utterly failed to answer any question I've posed because your shoddy copy/paste work doesn't apply to any terms of service I'm violating. The phrase "dynamically block torrent traffic from your ToR relay" is as meaningless to me as I presume it was to you in typing it. But I'm very quickly losing interest in this purely academic debate, because it's clear that your technical/customer support department doesn't posses a proper understanding of the technical concepts at play, let alone the political or legal ones.

I will go on record as saying, in all honesty you provide a great product, but absolutely terrible customer and technical support.

I'm throwing in some iptables rules that block packet contents based upon criteria that are involved in torrent connection negotiation, however that will in no way effect encrypted connections -- in fact NOTHING that currently exists in the iptables/ipfw/pf/or layer7 filtering code-base will effectively block encrypted p2p traffic. If this isn't good enough you will either need to ignore the false DMCA notices, provide me better technical documentation about filtering p2p traffic, or just shut off my service and I'll take my money to one of the hundreds of other hosting services that won't harass me over false alarms.

I apologize in advance if this is insulting, my patience has simply been exhausted.

deaton
Hi,

Thanks for your feedback. Please update this ticket once you've put the iptables rules in place, and we'll let you know if further complaints are received. Thanks for your cooperation.

Regards,
Dave

TOR_zealot
They're in place. If you get another notice please don't bother me about it unless you can provide me with a better solution for mitigating the traffic.

lsabota
Hello,

Before closing this abuse ticket, you will need to provide us with what measures you have taken on your Linode to ensure that we do not receive further complaints in the future. If you are not comfortable filtering illegitimate traffic through your Tor node, than we kindly ask that you stop running a Tor node on your Linode. You are responsible for all traffic that exists your Linode, regardless of whether you are running a Tor on your Linode or not.

Let us know how you wish to proceed. Thanks in advance.

Regards,
Lukas

TOR_zealot
Still not appreciating being further insulted -- I am comfortable with providing internet privacy, and that is what I intended on continuing to provide via legitimate services as they are advertised. If you are naive enough to believe illegitimate traffic can be completely blocked than perhaps it's you that shouldn't be involved in a hosting or ISP company. Here are the iptables I have put into place:
*raw
REROUTING ACCEPT [2905091:2327058312]
:OUTPUT ACCEPT [2056573:2358689029]
-A PREROUTING -m string --string "GET /announce?info_hash=" --algo bm --to 65535 -j DROP
-A PREROUTING -m string --string "GET /scrape?info_hash=" --algo bm --to 65535 -j DROP
-A PREROUTING -m string --string "GET /announce.php?info_hash=" --algo bm --to 65535 -j DROP
-A PREROUTING -m string --string "GET /scrape.php?info_hash=" --algo bm --to 65535 -j DROP
-A PREROUTING -m string --string "GET /announce.php?passkey=" --algo bm --to 65535 -j DROP
-A PREROUTING -m string --string "GET /scrape.php?passkey=" --algo bm --to 65535 -j DROP
-A PREROUTING -m string --hex-string "|13426974546f7272656e742070726f746f636f6c|" --algo bm --to 65535 -j DROP
-A OUTPUT -m string --string "GET /announce?info_hash=" --algo bm --to 65535 -j DROP
-A OUTPUT -m string --string "GET /scrape?info_hash=" --algo bm --to 65535 -j DROP
-A OUTPUT -m string --string "GET /announce.php?info_hash=" --algo bm --to 65535 -j DROP
-A OUTPUT -m string --string "GET /scrape.php?info_hash=" --algo bm --to 65535 -j DROP
-A OUTPUT -m string --string "GET /announce.php?passkey=" --algo bm --to 65535 -j DROP
-A OUTPUT -m string --string "GET /scrape.php?passkey=" --algo bm --to 65535 -j DROP
-A OUTPUT -m string --hex-string "|13426974546f7272656e742070726f746f636f6c|" --algo bm --to 65535 -j DROP
*mangle
REROUTING ACCEPT [5097:4369803]
:INPUT ACCEPT [5097:4369803]
:FORWARD ACCEPT [0:0]
:OUTPUT ACCEPT [2988:4316273]
OSTROUTING ACCEPT [2990:4316547]
-A PREROUTING -j CONNMARK --restore-mark --nfmask 0xffffffff --ctmask 0xffffffff
-A PREROUTING -m mark ! --mark 0x0 -j ACCEPT
-A PREROUTING -m ipp2p --edk -j MARK --set-xmark 0x1/0xffffffff
-A PREROUTING -m ipp2p --bit -j MARK --set-xmark 0x1/0xffffffff
-A PREROUTING -m mark --mark 0x1 -j CONNMARK --save-mark --nfmask 0xffffffff --ctmask 0xffffffff
-A FORWARD -m mark --mark 0x1 -j REJECT --reject-with icmp-port-unreachable

deaton
Hello,

Thank you for providing that information. We do apologize for any perception that we have tried to insult you, but I can assure you that is not the case. The action you have taken thus far will be sufficient for our needs, however, we can't say with any certainty whether or not this will prevent us from receiving further complaints.

With regard to future DMCA complaints, we will need to open a new ticket and let you know about it, and if it becomes a recurring problem then we'll require you to take further action, such as shutting down the ToR application completely. This policy applies to all of our customers (including others running ToR) and unfortunately are unable to make an exception for you in this case. We regret any inconvenience this causes you, but hope to continue having you as a customer and hope that we can avoid having to open tickets of this nature in the future.

Regards,
Dave

TOR_zealot
I assure you such a policy has no legal nor technical basis. "Illegitimate" traffic travels through your datacenter every day, all day, without interruption. Just some of it gets flagged, sometimes legitimately, sometimes not (obviously in this case not). Had you bothered to read the legal statement provided by the ToR Foundation you would better understand some of these intricacies. If I am asked to shut down my ToR node I assure you I will cancel my account (you might want to note I have been a happy customer for some time), and will advise anyone I can of your company's utter lack of respect for the privacy they claim to hold in high regard. I hope your department can be more reasonable in the future, to minimize such needless ordeals.
-TOR_zealot

Next ticket:


theckman
Greetings,

We've received a report of malicious activity originating from an IP address assigned to you. The activity appears to be spamming of a WordPress blog's comments. Please investigate this report within 24 hours to avoid a disruption of service.

I've attached the full report in a separate ticket update.

Regards,
Tim

theckman
Reported-From: autogenerated@blocklist.de
Category: info
Report-Type: info
Service: badbot
Version: 0.1
User-Agent: Fail2BanFeedBackScript blocklist.de V0.1
Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2011 11:07:01 +0200
Source-Type: ip-address
Source: 74.207.248.163
Port: 80
Report-ID: 1209994@blocklist.de
Schema-URL: http://www.x-arf.org/schema/info_0.1.0.json
Attachment: text/plain
Timezone +0200 (CEST)
Lines containing IP:74.207.248.163
74.207.248.163 - - [23/Jun/2011:11:06:57 +0100] "POST /index.php HTTP/1.0" 200 12565 "-" "-"

wpSection:
wpTextbox1: perfect design thanks <a href=" hxxp://peperonity.com/go/sites/mview/oqiitugo ">Range Rover Models</a> 991099 <a href=" hxxp://peperonity.com/go/sites/mview/yoipedo ">Chelda Child Model</a> 32867 <a href=" hxxp://peperonity.com/go/sites/mview/ceeyqeb ">Model Seven Ls</a> 6779 <a href=" hxxp://peperonity.com/go/sites/mview/udaluroku ">Perfect Teen Model</a> nnkz <a href=" hxxp://peperonity.com/go/sites/mview/deoriage ">Inna Model Bbs</a> %( <a href=" hxxp://peperonity.com/go/sites/mview/ysogejihut ">Child Models Samples</a> 330 <a href=" hxxp://peperonity.com/go/sites/mview/lacytody ">Young Model Princess</a> fhq <a href=" hxxp://peperonity.com/go/sites/mview/osejacamu ">Brazil Child Model</a> 02175 <a href=" hxxp://peperonity.com/go/sites/mview/radohiko ">Ass Crack Modeling</a> 941 <a href=" hxxp://peperonity.com/go/sites/mview/abeysolic ">Bikinis Models Topleess</a> %-[[[ <a href=" hxxp://peperonity.com/go/sites/mview/dyhogihiqe ">Tinymodels F
orum</a> %OO <a href=" hxxp://peperonity.com/go/sites/mview/dyjoimur ">Image Model Teen</a> =) <a href=" hxxp://peperonity.com/go/sites/mview/osuifopo ">Lexus 2007 Model</a> rco <a href=" hxxp://peperonity.com/go/sites/mview/oniolynyr ">Young Model Natalie</a> >:-]]] <a href=" hxxp://peperonity.com/go/sites/mview/amimaliuq ">Nude Newbie Models</a> fnfqv <a href=" hxxp://peperonity.com/go/sites/mview/eqodakyky ">Littel Teen Model</a> >:-(( <a href=" hxxp://peperonity.com/go/sites/mview/ycyyilo ">Erotic Model Russian</a> =DDD <a href=" hxxp://peperonity.com/go/sites/mview/qenayu ">Free Naked Supermodels</a> =-O <a href=" hxxp://peperonity.com/go/sites/mview/mifelefufu ">14yo Teenmodels Pics</a> dcfjw <a href=" hxxp://peperonity.com/go/sites/mview/onouduga ">Nnude Childs Models</a> lygv
Timestamp: 1308819999
wpSummary: fRvOkoRxYXrSXye
wpSave: Seite speichern

TOR_zealot
I'll look around at what's going on, but my general assumption is that this is just more related traffic from my ToR exit node. I certainly don't want people to be running attacks through ToR nodes and generating malicious traffic, but it seems like we're going to continually come back to this little game of whack-a-mole, when you've already told me "it's alright to run a ToR node" (assuming you understand both the positive and negative connotations therein).

ToR, at it's foundation, is an internet privacy tool that can do anything from keeping browsing traffic anonymous for people in Iran so their government doesn't break their kneecaps and throw them in prison. On the other end ToR is a technology used by P2P file sharers and script kiddies who want to make the internet a shitty place. Unfortunately we can't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

At this point I am genuinely interested in all these people you've told me run ToR end-points on your network that don't get similar complaints. Are their actually people that run ToR nodes that don't have to spend HOURS a day trying to catch this-and-that packet? I've done nothing but read through ToR and IPtables traffic manipulation articles, including in your own forums of customers claiming to run a ToR node, to minimize malicious traffic, but I'm starting to run out of ideas. Do I just block ALL web traffic? Wouldn't that continue to defeat the purpose of running a ToR node in the first place?

If your technical support could actually provide technical support instead of just bothering me about some script kiddie it would be far more helpful. What traffic shaping, iptables, or snort IDS filtering would you suggest I put in place that would actually stop this from happening in the first place?

tparker
Hello,

We appreciate you looking into this. We have an obligation to pass along complaints to customers at the corresponding IP addresses. At the same time, we are an unmanaged service and you are responsible for the services that you choose to run on your Linode. By the same token, you are responsible for ensuring that whatever complaints that we receive regarding traffic from your IP address are resolved to the satisfaction of the complainant. We can't resolve these issues on your behalf. We also can't silently ignore complaints as they are received simply because they may have passed through your Linode by way of ToR.

Again, we really do appreciate your time and effort in finding a solution to this matter. However, that time and effort is not in itself a resolution to complaints or a valid reason to ignore future complaints.

Regards,
Trevor

TOR_zealot
Do not insult my understanding of what an unmanaged service is. But so far you've mostly been bothering me over NON-ISSUES that are FALSE ALARMS -- I would genuninly hope that your technical department is able to tell the difference, but obviously not.

I'm not trying to dirty your IP space, but it's clear your terms of service are bullshit and poorly understood not only by your technical staff but by your legal staff as well, you don't want people running ToR nodes on your network, and you have absolutely no respect for internet privacy as a whole. Please give me 72hrs to migrate my services off your network and then you'll never see a dime from me, or anyone else I know, ever again.

psandin:
Hello,

Unfortunately these complaints are not false alarms or non-issues, they are legitimate complaints regarding malicious activity passing through an IP address that you are responsible for.

Please understand that we have no objection to Tor in principle. However we can not allow abusive traffic to pass through our network, running Tor or any other piece of software, does not absolve a Linode's owner of responsibility for the traffic passing through it.

We are not trying to drive you away, we are simply trying to prevent further abuse from passing through our network.

Regards,
Peter

TOR_zealot
Now you've managed to reach the level of just persistent absurdity. You people are dreadfully uninformed, and stubbornly ignorant. Before I begin final migration away from your network, and proceed to cancel my account, I believe there are at least a few points you should make note of before you next harass a customer to the point of leaving your service:
1.) While you publicly state you have "no objection to Tor in principle." It is quite clear you have many objections to Tor in technical operation, in ways I'm not convinced you fully understand:
Tor is a *public* anonymizing internet proxy. By setting up and running a Tor node, as an operator, you acknowledge that there's no way to control the intentions of those using the network. That means you understand and must be comfortable with the fact that you're handling the traffic of political dissidents, husbands trying to hide their porn browsing, people trying to circumvent their ISPs ToS or avoid DMCA violations, and some misguided script kiddie trying to mess with some one's wordpress site. While there are many ways to augment or filter some of this traffic, it is a guaranteed inevitability people will continue to use the network for their own purposes (legitimate or otherwise)
2.) This harassment on your part began with what was absolutely, without any doubt, a FALSE POSITIVE DMCA NOTICE. Companies pursuant to DMCA violations use very crude methods by which to identify infringers -- that being locating the IP of the person suspected of the infringement. However it has been very thoroughly established in the United States legal system (among others) that an IP address is in no way a form of identification of an actual physical person, but is merely a tool used in internet routing. Had you bothered reading the legalese provided by the Tor Project you would have gleaned a particularly important part of this:

The "takedown notice" provisions do not apply when an ISP merely acts as a conduit. Instead, the "conduit" safe harbor of DMCA 512(a) has different and less burdensome requirements, as the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals held in RIAA v. Verizon (see http://www.eff.org/legal/cases/RIAA_v_V ... 031219.pdf) and the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals confirmed in RIAA v. Charter (see http://www.eff.org/IP/P2P/Charter/033802P.pdf)


3.) Finally, had you understood points 1 and 2 you would further understand that not only is there nothing I can technically do to prevent some douchebag trying to screw up a wordpress site with some malformed POSTs, but I am absolutely not responsible for the traffic itself -- otherwise every network operator in the world, plus any sucker that ever plugged in a router, would be just as responsible and open to litigation. I can do the best anyone else can to limit the flow, but there flat out is *no* existing technical way to entirely squelch such traffic, nor is there *any* legal burden on me or Linode should such traffic pass our way. If it is in Linodes policy that running a Tor node is ok, Linode is accepting the total roll of the dice that some of the traffic that will comes out of it is legit, and some of it won't be.

In closing I'll just say I am terribly disappointed in how your customer and technical service representatives have chosen to blindly handle this situation. Instead of offering any assistance in how I might better adhere to impossible technical standards I have just been given copy/pasted TOS crap that didn't apply to me in the first place, and obviously made no sense to the person who found it in the first place. Total fail, guys. Game over.


Maybe I over-reacted in canceling my account and moving all my services away from the Linode network, purely as a principled statement. But I leave it up to the rest of the linode customer base to decide if Linode actually cares about internet privacy, or if they merely use the phrase as lip service to attract the open source community that is often foremost concerned with the ever changing issue of privacy in our digital age.

The one thing I will say is that through this utterly stupid process I've discovered what a great service Rackspace Cloud Hosting is. I highly recommend dissatisfied customers look in to the many better and more affordable options out there!

Move your stupid torrents with movies away from Linode, I don't want to read news like "FBI has seized servers from Linode's datacenter for investigation, 5000 VPS were on these servers, one of them is suspected".

Kids with TOR... Who really wants to find you will always be able to find.

You was asked (not banned!) to remove some illegal torrents (traffic, yes) and if you can't do this - it's your problems, your software, and nobody's else.

Tor by it's nature is a flawed technology to run on many networks due the it's anonymity, in a world where everyone played fair and people didn't use it for abuse then it would be a wonderful solution to bypassing oppressive government firewalls etc, of course in a world where everyone played fair there would be no need for Tor.

Linode's TOS states that transmission of illegal data is against the TOS, Tor = transmission.

In the cause of Linode you could run a Tor relay but an exit node is a very complex and time consuming thing to run, if you really want to run an exit node, run it on your home ISP I doubt they will care (I've done it).

_________________
Paid support
How to ask for help
1. Give details of your problem
2. Post any errors
3. Post relevant logs.
4. Don't hide details i.e. your domain, it just makes things harder
5. Be polite or you'll be eaten by a grue

I don't see the problem here, I would spell out why but Linode has already done that (several times, by the looks of it) and you still believe yourself to be the injured party, so I don't think there's really a point. I do want to point out though, that throughout that Linode's staff was professional and courteous while you were combative and belligerent (you felt Linode was being rude to you and insulting? really? I bet no one else will get that impression reading the transcription).

I'd just like to add my vote that Linode is in the right here and it has nothing to do Internet privacy.

I understand Linode is in a difficult situation here, but there must be a better way to handle this. The way Linode reacts means anyone can easily close anyone else's Linode account simply by sending Linode a few DMCA take down notices.

Judging from this exchange, whether notices are real or bogus, Linode will keep bugging the customer to change his behavior "so the notices will stop", and will eventually shut down his nodes "if he doesn't change his behavior sufficiently enough for the notices to stop".

The guys running Tor it's most likely they're real, if someones running a normal webserver and someone sends a DMCA you just send one of those "you're talking crap" letters back. The fact complainant is running a open network that anyone can do pretty much anything with means they're just asking for trouble.

_________________
Paid support
How to ask for help
1. Give details of your problem
2. Post any errors
3. Post relevant logs.
4. Don't hide details i.e. your domain, it just makes things harder
5. Be polite or you'll be eaten by a grue

If you read the exchange, Linode clearly states they do not actively monitor network activity and consider continued complains a criterion for non-compliance.

Linode is just doing what they have to by law. If you don't like that (assuming you're a US citizen), contact your state senators and representative.

You, as the linode purchaser, are responsible for traffic through your linode by virtue of your contract with linode. Your linode has been used to abuse other sites (blog spamming) and to facilitate piracy (torrent traffic). Even though you, yourself, may not be possessing or storing such data (and thus the DMCA is irrelevant), you're are facilitating such traffic and abuse. Therefore it is your responsibility.

Running a tor endpoint would appear to be incompatible with being a responsible netizen because there appear to be no controls on the responsible usage of the network. If such controls are possible then it's your responsibility to ensure they're applied, not Linode's. You don't know how to do this, and (apparently) can't get such information from the Tor guys, which leads me to believe that it isn't really possible.

I fully understand the desire for net-anonymity. 20 years ago, in the UK, I built an anonymous email service for people. It was dialup 'cos the UK was mostly dialup at that time. And it worked well. But, today, the net is a different place; I wouldn't ever run an anonymous service because it will attract abuse. Running a Tor endpoint is making a political statement; "communications may be anonymous" (see the rationale for the original anon.penet.fi service). That's fine for you making such statements, but don't expect others (eg Linode) to defend them on your behalf; it's your responsibility, your choice.

Looking at that exchange, I see insults and beligerancy only flowing in one direction; from you to Linode staff. Linode were perfectly polite and patient with you. To be honest, if I was linode staff I'd be wishing and hoping that you move your service away from my machines asap. But that's another reason why I don't run public services like this, any more! People like you make it hard work.

_________________
Rgds
Stephen
(Linux user since kernel version 0.11)

The issue relates to traffic only. As far as I know, the law has no application here. Linode and the owner of the Tor, are simply routers and have no liability and very limited ability to control what they're routing. It would be like holding ISP's responsible for the contents of your email. It's not possible and it doesn't make much sense either. Nonetheless, the owner of the Tor did make efforts to limit the problem traffic as a goodwill gesture.

Linode say they will leave well alone until something legal forces them to act. It's clearly stated with specific reference to Tor in their Terms of service. I don't find that unreasonable and unless they're handing out your personal details at the first sign of trouble, I don't see what it has to do with privacy either. Support seemed a touch unaware of the technicalities, but that only prolonged the inevitable outcome.

They aren't doing what's required by law, they're doing what's required when organizations with many lawyers and deep pockets come knocking. The issue is not really with Linode, or tor_zealot, or anyone else. It's that the law is imperfect and one party can heap pressure on another without reasonable cause. Something I notice in common with internet activists (/moreappropriateword) is a slight naivety in expecting the world to work a certain way because it should and then being shocked to find out that it doesn't. I don't think the issue is clear-cut enough to take sides, but my prevailing thought is reality check.

I'm impressed at the level of professionalism displayed by the Linode employees you communicated with. If I were caker, I'd be very proud.

You come across as stubborn, arrogant, and extremely self centered. Clearly you're looking for a fight, and seeking as much attention as you can get. You're just a troll, and the Linode folks were extremely patient with you. Despite constant abuse from you, they continued to apologize for rudeness and insults that didn't even exist.

As a customer, I'm glad to see Linode handled this situation as responsibly as they did.

Does the law require Linode to assume every DMCA take down notice they receive is legitimate and not bogus and/or fake?

No, but when the result to passing on the DMCA takedown is:
a) I don't care or
b) I can't really stop it:








Then.. that's NOT a "No, I'm not using my bandwidth for anything copyright."

Grow up, stop relaying illegal materials or keep doing it, get busted and go to prison.

Calm down, man, it looks like a blind rage.
He just doesn't understand possible consequences of his whims for other users of Linode.