> > This is a misleading statement. ISP's (Common carriers) do not provide a > > knowingly
I'm trying to remember when ISP's became common carriers... > > illegal offering, ... TOR exit/entrance nodes provide only the former. > > This is also a misleading statement. Explain the difference between > a consumer ISP selling you a cable Internet plan knowing that NN% of > the traffic will be data with questionable copyright status, and > 1 of of 5 or so will be a botted box doing other illegal stuff, > and a TOR node providing transit knowing that NN% will be similarly > questionable etc etc etc. Great point. The question might also revolve around this issue, restored from the previous msg: > > AND they do provide the PHYSICAL infrastructure for > > packets to be passed and interconnected to other PHYSICAL networks. Well, an ISP does do that, but so does an end user's network. So if I put a Tor node on an ethernet ("PHYSICAL infrastructure") and then connect that to an ISP ("other PHYSICAL networks"), that doesn't make for a real good way to differentiate between an ISP, a commercial ISP customer who gets routed IP networks via BGP, or an end user who has an ethernet behind a NAT gateway. ... JG -- Joe Greco - sol.net Network Services - Milwaukee, WI - http://www.sol.net "We call it the 'one bite at the apple' rule. Give me one chance [and] then I won't contact you again." - Direct Marketing Ass'n position on e-mail spam(CNN) With 24 million small businesses in the US alone, that's way too many apples.