[pp.int.general] Hosting Union

[coretx]

Tell me, if you can't proof where the physical location of the servers  
is.
And can't tell who the owner is.
Who's jurisdiction is it ?
Now keep the common carrier principle in mind. And the safe harbor  
clause in the US as well.

Also: advanced BGP setups are far more "convential" than freenet/tor  
hobbyism.
But more important, it has far less ( protocol ) overhead and latency.
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4271

On the big "no-no" that Boris pointed out, PPI can setup several  
anonymous trust funds.
Not really much of a problem. From there, a diverse spectrum of  
services can be arranged
for pirate parties around the world.  Maybe you can not receive the  
funds, but you can redirect&spend them
and receive services in return. ( In theory, i can arrange this in  
just one day if you give me a call. )
If every pirate party has it's own AS, we can simply setup a second,  
"free" internet.
And let PPI provide access towards its members using fully anonymous  
proxy's as gateways.
The more populair our network will become, and the more people using  
it, the harder it will be to shut it down.
In a relative short amount of time, the network can become "too big to  
fail".
You can't shutdown an entire network, because of one "undesired peer".
Ofcourse, this is just one of the many possible ( simplified )  
scenario's,
for as long as big brother projects such as Q6/17 do not see daylight.


On Nov 11, 2009, at 12:20 PM, Brian McNeil wrote:

> On Wed, 2009-11-11 at 05:50 +0100, Felix LeChaste wrote:
>> Le 8 nov. 09 à 17:11, Boris Turovskiy a écrit :
>>
>>> the Russian Pirate Party has proposed to launch a international
>>> hosting union to guarantee for content to stay on the 'net if some
>>> countries decide to block it for their hosting companies:
>>
>> As long as the idea even if already partially beaten by other means
>> needs to be closely thought in and out, you should know that to
>> operate commercial hosting will be a big no-no for some parties as we
>> can't have for example funds coming from foreign countries or by
>> status to engage ourselves into service activities. So the structure
>> has to be independent from them.
>>
>> As coretx point out, it is also a very "dangerous" business in some
>> ways.
>>
>> Now, why not focus on pirate parties (i have a case in mind: ivory
>> Coast we are thinking to help, a few others outside europe may also
>> need some help this way), parties onto a democratic line, non profit
>> organisations? if nasty villains want to hide themselves, there's
>> other solutions for them.
>
> It seems rather odd to plan to go jurisdiction shopping and hopping. I
> think most people have seen that with TPB and a few other sites in the
> past.
>
> I would have thought it would make more sense to try and improve
> existing censor-resistant publication systems like Freenode[1] and
> Tor's .onion virtual-TLD[2]
>
> [1] http://freenetproject.org/
> [2] http://www.torproject.org/
>
> Saves wasting time and money proving that the net routes around
> censorship on conventional protocols.
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> Brian McNeil <brian.mcneil at wikinewsie.org>
> http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Brian_McNeil
> Content of this message in no way represents the opinions or official
> position of the Wikimedia Foundation or any of its projects.
> ____________________________________________________
> Pirate Parties International - General Talk
> pp.international.general at lists.pirateweb.net
> http://lists.pirateweb.net/mailman/listinfo/pp.international.general