Earlier quoted context omitted.
> That 0 knowledge tracker is interesting, Most actual trackers are zero knowledge. A tracker (bit of central software that handles 100+ thousand connections/second) is not a "torrent site" such as TPB, EZTV, etc. A tracker handshakes torrent clients and introduces peers to each other, it has no idea nor needs an idea that "SomeName 1080p DSPN" maps to D23F5C5AAE3D5C361476108C97557F200327718A All it needs is to store…
Oh ok, it seems to be a misconception of mine then. Mathematically a tracker would offer a function that given a hash, it returns you a list of peers with that file. While a "torrent site" like TPB or SH, would offer a search mechanism, whereby they would host an index, content hashes and english descriptors, along with a search engine. A user would then need to first use the "torrent site" to enter their search term…
> Is that right?
More or less.
> In any case, each party in the transaction shares liability.
That's exactly right Bob. Just as a telephone exchange shares liability for connecting drug sellers to drug buyers when given a phone number.
Clearly the telephone exchange should know by the number that the parties intend to discuss sharing child pornography rather than public access to free to air documentaries.
How do you propose that a telephone exchange vet phone numbers to ensure drugs are not discussed?
Bear in mind that in the case of a tracker the 'call' is NOT routed through the exchange.
With a proper telephone exchange the call data (voices) pass through the exchange equipment, with a tracker no actual file content passes through the trackers hardware.
The tracker, given a number, tells interested parties about each other .. they then talk directly to each other; be it about The Sky at Night -s2024e07- 2024-10-07 Question Time or about Debbie Does Donkeys.
Also keep in mind that trackers juggle a vast volume of connections of which a very small amount would be (say) child abuse related.