4 ms·

But they had evidence... They had evidence of child pornography that traced back to his computer network.

mhurron 11y ago
They also supposedly know what Tor is, which would mean that they should also know they would need more than just 'it came from this IP endpoint' to have evidence of his wrongdoing. Would they raid a Starbucks if someone used Starbucks wifi to distribute CP? No, they would need more evidence that someone at that Starbucks was doing it and not just someone who bought a cup of coffee there that day. Tor is open wifi, the IP of the exit node doesn't provide evidence that the person running the exit node has anything to do with the traffic.
- TeMPOraL 11y ago
  > which would mean that they should also know they would need more than just 'it came from this IP endpoint' to have evidence of his wrongdoing. That's why they raided his house. > Would they raid a Starbucks if someone used Starbucks wifi to distribute CP? Of course they would. Obviously aiming to try and catch the perpetrator in the act, but also at least to get a good look at the network configuration. "CP came from this IP endpoint" means crime is being committed using this network. It's perfectly reasonable for them to go and investigate. And as others point out, them knowing how Tor works makes no difference - otherwise people making/distributing CP would host their own exit nodes with the sole purpose of being able to point them out to police and tell that CP it's not their traffic. They didn't jailed him, they checked if he is in fact involved - and finding no additional evidence, left him in peace.
  - concernedctzn 11y ago
    Your interpretation of the 4th amendment is slightly horrifying.
FussyZeus 11y ago
They claim to know how Tor works, which means his network is a _relay_, not an origin, and that by Tor's nature it would have no record of the file passing through, when it happened, or more importantly where it was from. Cursory knowledge of how Tor works would tell you that this was a dead end before they left the station. IMHO it's clear this is an attempt to try to hold Tor operators responsible for the traffic of the Tor network, and in so doing, dissuade people from operating Tor endpoints. There is no other reason for this action, it's good old fashioned scare tactics.
pmocek 11y ago
It's quite misleading to state only that "they had evidence of child pornography that traced back to his computer network." What they (Seattle Police Department) claim to have was a tip, from 4chan, filtered through a national clearinghouse, that about seven weeks prior someone had allegedly transferred to 4chan a video of an unidentified woman abusing an unidentified child in an unknown location at an unknown time, allegedly from an IP address that they discovered was assigned by an ISP to David and that they learned prior to the search was the exit point from an anonymizing proxy network. SPD staff involved were familiar with Tor and thus knew that there was no more reason to suspect David--an outspoken critic of their public surveillance programs and other privacy-invading programs--of uploading the evidence of some woman's crime to 4chan than to suspect any of the many thousands of users of the Tor network of such. This was pure harassment.

They also supposedly know what Tor is, which would mean that they should also know they would need more than just 'it came from this IP endpoint' to have evidence of his wrongdoing. Would they raid a Starbucks if someone used Starbucks wifi to distribute CP? No, they would need more evidence that someone at that Starbucks was doing it and not just someone who bought a cup of coffee there that day. Tor is open wifi, the IP of the exit node doesn't provide evidence that the person running the exit node has anything to do with the traffic.

TeMPOraL 11y ago
> which would mean that they should also know they would need more than just 'it came from this IP endpoint' to have evidence of his wrongdoing. That's why they raided his house. > Would they raid a Starbucks if someone used Starbucks wifi to distribute CP? Of course they would. Obviously aiming to try and catch the perpetrator in the act, but also at least to get a good look at the network configuration. "CP came from this IP endpoint" means crime is being committed using this network. It's perfectly reasonable for them to go and investigate. And as others point out, them knowing how Tor works makes no difference - otherwise people making/distributing CP would host their own exit nodes with the sole purpose of being able to point them out to police and tell that CP it's not their traffic. They didn't jailed him, they checked if he is in fact involved - and finding no additional evidence, left him in peace.
- concernedctzn 11y ago
  Your interpretation of the 4th amendment is slightly horrifying.

FussyZeus 11y ago

They claim to know how Tor works, which means his network is a _relay_, not an origin, and that by Tor's nature it would have no record of the file passing through, when it happened, or more importantly where it was from. Cursory knowledge of how Tor works would tell you that this was a dead end before they left the station. IMHO it's clear this is an attempt to try to hold Tor operators responsible for the traffic of the Tor network, and in so doing, dissuade people from operating Tor endpoints. There is no other reason for this action, it's good old fashioned scare tactics.

pmocek 11y ago

It's quite misleading to state only that "they had evidence of child pornography that traced back to his computer network." What they (Seattle Police Department) claim to have was a tip, from 4chan, filtered through a national clearinghouse, that about seven weeks prior someone had allegedly transferred to 4chan a video of an unidentified woman abusing an unidentified child in an unknown location at an unknown time, allegedly from an IP address that they discovered was assigned by an ISP to David and that they learned prior to the search was the exit point from an anonymizing proxy network. SPD staff involved were familiar with Tor and thus knew that there was no more reason to suspect David--an outspoken critic of their public surveillance programs and other privacy-invading programs--of uploading the evidence of some woman's crime to 4chan than to suspect any of the many thousands of users of the Tor network of such. This was pure harassment.