Il 2/28/14, 9:31 AM, Gianluca Gilardi ha scritto: > I do not, but it happens :). You are well aware that some of us are > active in online content protection and we know exactly what is expected > from us and whom we address our requests, irrespective of online forms, > disclaimer and so on. It might work for casual users, but do not expect > "professional" services (Child protection services and so on) to "comply". > > If you are looking for increased public awareness of what a t2w gateway > is and how it works, yeah, that might help. If you expect a disclaimer > to dissuade a content protection/surveillance service/operation from > addressing the ISP I am afraid you are a bit deluded :) We are not deluded, the injected header/disclaimer already works and worked fine in preventing contact to the ISPs, in order to redirect abuse-request to Tor2web owner.
However in some exceptional case, like this one, it happened that they abuse reporting authority didn't properly understood it, reporting it only to the ISP but not to the Tor2web owner. Disclaimer just works in diverting abuse request to Tor2web owner, the fact that Tor2web network is now up and running and that most of abuse-flow goes to Tor2web owner rather than ISPs tell this! Then, maybe, some minimal, residual part of the abuse request will still goes to ISPs, but on average that's not what's hapenning. Moving from the "injected header/disclaimer on the content" to an additional "pre-content display disclaimer" would improve the already good situation. -- Fabio Pietrosanti (naif) HERMES - Center for Transparency and Digital Human Rights http://logioshermes.org - http://globaleaks.org - http://tor2web.org _______________________________________________ Tor2web-talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.tor2web.org/listinfo/tor2web-talk
