111–120 of 149 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Lawmakers aren't as intelligent as programmers. What's worse is, instead of just telling him to turn off the exit node now he's seen as a criminal by the system for doing absolutely nothing. Imagine applying for a job and trying to explain to them why you were arrested, especially if the interviewer is not tech savvy it might not look so good. He did not receive a criminal record.
Oh, I must of read it wrong then.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is something big missing from that summary of Holle: he knew his friends were going to commit a burglary.[1] Without that connection that puts him on the hook for a felony, he wouldn't be facing life for felony murder.[2] [1] He disputes his point, which is fair enough, but the court has found otherwise. [2] Someone could point out the three-felonies-a-day thing here. EDIT for footnote 2 Flordia's felony murder…
Whether he knew or not (he says he didn't believe that they were going to do it), the comparison to TOR-related cases is still appropriate. If one of these cases went to trial in the US, you would hear the prosecutor telling the jury about TOR's seedy reputation, and that because of that reputation, any reasonable person would have known that illegal activity was likely to occur. Under federal and most state laws, th…
It seems quite possible to make the argument that the great good a TOR node can do outweighs the bad it can also do.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm no Tor expert so please correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't people trading child porn (etc) most likely be entirely within the onion network anyway and therefore have no need for an exit node?
That's correct, people talk about shady things happening over Tor but how many cases that come up are actually something shady going over an exit node?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> You could argue the same about encryption, so should encryption be banned or deemed immoral now? Sigh. This sounds just like the arguments about cars ("they can kill people, should we ban them too???"). Let's get real, the vast majority of Tor traffic is, shall we say, for nefarious purposes. Encryption has numerous applications which are perfectly legitimate and it could be argued that the legitimate applications…
> Let's get real, the vast majority of Tor traffic is, shall we say, for nefarious purposes. I don't really understand your argument here. Are you saying that Tor should be banned because the ratio of illegitimate to legitimate applications is higher than that of encryption software? I'm not putting words in your mouth, I'm just trying to understand what you're saying here. > Safe for whom? You as an individual, perh…
No, I'm not saying it should be banned, I just don't want to hear people whine about "OMG I want to help these poor oppressed people soooo much and the government just doesn't understand!!!" knowing full well that the reason the government comes down so hard on Tor is because it's primarily a vehicle for illegal activity (seriously illegal activity at that).
I'm just saying hey, the government doesn't like it and don't kid yourself about the reason -- and certainly don't run a Tor node if you aren't ready for potential consequences.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
When someone is condamned for something online-related (piracy, CP, etc.), we should obviously arrest all the owners of routers between the source and the target. They are accomplice because they helped the data to transit. That's only commom sense ! /s
Just running network equipment doesn't make you aware of it's use though. Tor users know through high-profile cases that Tor is being used for drugs deals and other criminal activities - but they run the exit nodes in the face of this. I'm not saying the law is correct (nor wrong) just that the application appears to be valid. Yes, there are high-moral reasons to run an exit node too.
Yeah sure. Just install Firefox privacy extension and you are running Tor. Or your children can do it for you.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is something big missing from that summary of Holle: he knew his friends were going to commit a burglary.[1] Without that connection that puts him on the hook for a felony, he wouldn't be facing life for felony murder.[2] [1] He disputes his point, which is fair enough, but the court has found otherwise. [2] Someone could point out the three-felonies-a-day thing here. EDIT for footnote 2 Flordia's felony murder…
Whether he knew or not (he says he didn't believe that they were going to do it), the comparison to TOR-related cases is still appropriate. If one of these cases went to trial in the US, you would hear the prosecutor telling the jury about TOR's seedy reputation, and that because of that reputation, any reasonable person would have known that illegal activity was likely to occur. Under federal and most state laws, th…
Does this mean that Austrian ISPs can be prosecuted if their customers use their connections to transmit "content of an illegal nature"? Surely the ISP knows that some of their customers could use their services for illicit purposes, meaning they're "guilty of complicity" themselves.
I have a VPS with an Austrian ISP. Their Ts&Cs already state the following are specifically not allowed: Tor/i2p/similar exit servers (bridge, entry and middle are fine until further notice) Last update was Jan 17th, 2014, but this clause has been included for as long as I have been a customer, which is a couple of years. So, I would say at least some Austrian ISPs are aware of the risk.
Running a Tor exit node, developing encryptions tools , working on government transparency and protecting journalists are all seen as dissent in the current environment. The reason to engage in these activities is a duty to protect democracy and democratic values in an extremely adversarial environment. It is unwise to do these things without some kind of strategy to manage the escalation of political repression. It…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think one has been pursued here yet, but it doesn't mean they can't or won't. Our conspiracy laws are very broad. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/371 That's the federal one, and each state has their own.
The essence of a conspiracy charge requires an agreement between two parties to commit a crime. http://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R41223.pdf Running a TOR exit node almost certainly would not constitute an agreement under federal law. Indeed, see the following jury instructions: http://www3.ce9.uscourts.gov/jury-instructions/node/475 > On the other hand, one who has no knowledge of a conspiracy, but happens to act in a way…
You may very well be right. All I'm saying, and this is the EFF's position as well, is that at some point a prosecutor (or several) will test this. By running the node, you have agreed to have traffic run through your system. Given the shady reputation, you are saying "come do illegal things with my internet connection, I'll protect your identity".
Federal prosecutors are smart, and most are gunning for jobs at high-end law firms. Someone is going to try to get a nice resume bump by testing this eventually, and there will be an unlucky exit node operator that will at best only have to pay a six figure defense bill, and at worst will spend time in prison.