On 1 October 2014 11:00, Brian Wolff <bawolff(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > There also needs to be a good answer to the "attribution problem"
> > long been identified as a secondary concern related to Tor and other
> > systems. The absence of a good answer to this issue may be
itself to derail any proposed trial.
Which problem is that?
If I understand it correctly, right now we attribute edits made without
account to the IP address. Allowing edits via Tor
should probably not be
attributing such edits to the exit node's IP.
This quite frankly seems like a contrived problem. A random (normal) ip
address hardly associates an edit to a person unless you steal an isps
records. Wait a year and it would probably be impossible to figure out who
owned some random dynamic ip address no matter how hard you tried. I dont
think attributing edits to an exit node introduces any new attribution
issues that are not already present.
I wish it was a contrived problem. However, this is the conceit by which
the edits are attributed for licensing purposes, and it's a non-trivial
matter. While I'm fully supportive of finding another way to do this, it
is a fundamental issue that would require fairly extensive
legal consultation to change, given that we've been using "IP address as
assigned to a specific individual" as the licensee for...what, almost 14
We know that Tor exit nodes are (by definition) not IP addresses assigned
to the contributor, and there is no reasonable prospect of tracing back to
the original IP address (unlike many other anonymising proxies). Thus the
I've copied Luis Villa on this specific email just as a heads up that this
matter might land on the Legal & Community Advocacy doorstep, but I don't
think we should expect a formal legal response about this.