4 ms·
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 eviden
by 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 agoYour interpretation of the 4th amendment is slightly horrifying.