6 ms·

um, no? they raided his house because of child pornography. that he had a Tor node and that fact got him off the hook is the part that needs more analysis. Ho

um, no? they raided his house because of child pornography. that he had a Tor node and that fact got him off the hook is the part that needs more analysis. How do we know he doesn't operate the node for the very purpose of watching kiddy porn go by? Shouldn't everybody interested in child pornography operate their own exit node just for this purpose? Keep the kiddy porn collection in RAM for viewing whenever, then give the police the in-RAM-kiddy-porn-deleter password... I understand that ghkbrew (and MANY other people here, not picking on you) subscribe to the idea that there should be untraceable currency, perfect privacy delivery mechanisms, etc. But there are other people who live in the same democratic country that like the idea that somebody who bombthreats can be found. I understand the issues on both sides, and I don't mind there is a spectrum of beliefs and a discussion. But it's so annoying when people write posts slanted like yours that they don't acknowledge the obvious "other side". I read/heard something that David Mamet said, that he learned from the study of Jewish law (but it would apply everywhere) that in order for you to have the basis to discuss an argument with the other side, you need to be able to state the other side's argument in a way that the other side would not disagree with, then you get to make your point. I thought that was a nice idea.

Zigurd 11y ago
>How do we know he doesn't operate the node for the very purpose of watching kiddy porn go by?" To support a warrant, the question has to be the other way around. As with any activity the could be in proximity to illegal activity, it's not, by itself, evidence of anything.
- TeMPOraL 11y ago
  Tor network has only become "a thing" (as opposed to US military toy) only in the last few years. Half a decade ago such a log the police saw would probably be a clear-cut case of someone downloading or uploading child porn on the guy's network. Even with Tor being available, it's still worth checking out.
  - Zigurd 11y ago
    If they were that incompetent about computers they had no business running their own cp investigation. They would have mishandled evidence. They should have handed it off to the state police or the FBI. Alternatively they could have just been bunch of dicks out to intimidate someone.
Xeoncross 11y ago
There are often more than two sides though. You have to draw the line somewhere. There is a limit to how far this logic will go. You only need to be able to understand a valid argument. The problem is that everyone will evaluate "valid" by their own beliefs and worldview.
- MichaelBurge 11y ago
  Checking the validity of an argument is like typechecking: It's mostly mechanical and catches a large class of errors. But there are some it doesn't catch. This is a valid argument: All animals live on Mars. All humans are animals. Therefore, all humans live on Mars.
  - blkhp19 11y ago
    All animals live on Mars? You've lost me.
    - icebraining 11y ago
      IIRC, in logic, an argument is essentially a function that takes premises and produces a conclusion. It's valid as long as the conclusion follows from the premises. The catch is that an argument being valid is not the same as the conclusion being true.
  - skissane 11y ago
    The point being (which we both understand, but not everyone here does) is that in logical terminology, a "valid" argument is one whose conclusions must be true were its premises all true. That is a valid argument, even though its first premise is obviously false, because were its premises true, then its conclusion must be true. A valid argument whose premises are all true is a "sound" argument. But, while philosophers and logicians respect this "sound"/"valid" distinction, in popular usage the word "valid" is used to mean "sound".
  - philipov 11y ago
    That is not a valid argument, because all animals do not live on mars. Your premises have the wrong type, and you have abused them to reach a fallacious conclusion. This is what you meant to say: Suppose all animals live on mars. Suppose all humans are animals. Therefore, if all animals live on mars, then all humans live on mars. This argument passes the type-checking test, and is indeed valid.
StanislavPetrov 11y ago
>I read/heard something that David Mamet said, that he learned from the study of Jewish law (but it would apply everywhere) that in order for you to have the basis to discuss an argument with the other side, you need to be able to state the other side's argument in a way that the other side would not disagree with, then you get to make your point. >I thought that was a nice idea. Its a truly terrible idea, and not surprising that it stems from someone who found religion worth studying. There is no need to delve into the depths of minutia to dismiss baseless arguments. If you argue that Spiderman is real, and he lives at the Justice League, I don't need to study canon of Marvel comics in order to deal with your argument.
- tremon 11y ago
  You did not understand. Nothing about the GP's position states that you should make your opponent's case for him. In fact, you already met the criteria if your opponent does not disagree with your assessment that he "argues that Spiderman is real, and lives at the Justice League".
- omegaham 11y ago
  All he's saying is that you need to qualify what exactly the other person is arguing before you start arguing against it. It's a way of preventing strawmanning - you want to get the other person's central viewpoint out in the open, naked and unafraid, so that there is no ambiguity when you make your case. I don't usually do it, mostly because it's patronizing if the point is obvious, but I will do it if the person's argument is convoluted. > someone who found religion worth studying Like it or not, religion has been a cornerstone of history and civilization for about as long as there has been history or civilization. Secularism is a relatively recent invention, and secularism's influence has only been really felt in the last 50 years or so. Religion is history, and history is definitely worthwhile to study.
  - tremon 11y ago
    Religion is history That's a dangerous statement to make. Yes, religion has been hugely influential across societies. But religion has been equally succesful in rewriting history to suit its narrative. I suspect religion has destroyed as much history as it has informed.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
pc2g4d 11y ago
If the exit node only permits HTTPS connections out of it then it would be impossible for him to view the contents of exiting traffic, right? That one restriction would seem to absolve the operator of responsibility for the contents of the communications.
- zanny 11y ago
  Except the communications were going through TOR in his house. If police traced the packets exiting from him, that means they already got the public IP server the porn was sent from or to, but it passed through his computer as the visible endpoint. That meant it either proceeded elsewhere on the TOR network or stayed on his machine, and they had no external way of knowing without checking his hard drives.
  - jandrese 11y ago
    The most likely scenario is that the Police were running a honeypot and tracing every IP that connected to it. Obviously this would pick up a lot of TOR exit nodes. One of the exit nodes is in their jurisdiction so they pay it a visit on the longshot chance that the exit node operator was also a pedophile. If they knew he was running an exit node it smells a bit like a fishing trip, but since they didn't send the SWAT team in through the windows and hold his computers for 4 years out of spite (the Steve Jackson treatment) I have trouble faulting the cops too badly.
    - pmocek 11y ago
      > If [police who conducted the search] knew he was running an exit node They did know. Martin Kaste of National Public Radio [reported](http://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2016/04/04/472992023/when-a-dark-web-volunteer-gets-raided-by-the-police http://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2016/04/04/472...), "Seattle police spokesman Sean Whitcomb says the department understands how Tor relays work, and they knew Robinson was a Tor host."
zymhan 11y ago
> in order for you to have the basis to discuss an argument with the other side, you need to be able to state the other side's argument in a way that the other side would not disagree with, then you get to make your point. This a great way of phrasing what I'd been thinking about as "arguing from someone else's shoes".
mike-cardwell 11y ago
"How do we know he doesn't operate the node for the very purpose of watching kiddy porn go by" Why would anyone do that? If he knows how to install Tor, why wouldn't he download it through somebody IP instead of his own? I can't see any technical advantage to downloading it using your own IP when you could use somebody elses...
- icebraining 11y ago
  It'd make sense if he didn't trust Tor to actually anonymize his connections.
  - mike-cardwell 11y ago
    If Tor isn't effectively anonymising connections, then he's screwed whether he downloads it from somebody elses IP, or his own... Download from somebody elses IP = Probably not at all associated with himself. Download from his own IP = Definitely associated with himself. Again. What would be the advantage of doing this? There isn't one...
    - icebraining 11y ago
      The post you've originally replied to said "watch the CP go by". Someone else would fetch it over his exit node, giving him an alibi, and he would just keep a local copy as it passed through.
lotharbot 11y ago
> "you need to be able to state the other side's argument in a way that the other side would not disagree with" I particularly like a version of this termed the "Ideological Turing Test". The idea is to anonymously write both your position and an opposing position, and to see if an audience consisting of people from both sides (and, potentially, those who are neutral or are on some other side) can identify which side you actually support. If you can state both arguments convincingly enough that it's difficult to determine which one you really believe, then (according to adherents of this concept) you've earned the right to be critical. If, on the other hand, one side easily identifies you as an outsider, then you require further listening/study before you'll be capable of criticizing that side on a reasonable level. While I think the process is more cumbersome than necessary, I agree with the underlying concept -- if you can't state someone else's argument in a way that they think is fair, then you either don't understand it well enough, or you understand but you're being intentionally disrespectful by choosing unfair characterizations.
- justinpombrio 11y ago
  > While I think the process is more cumbersome than necessary, I agree with the underlying concept -- if you can't state someone else's argument in a way that they think is fair, then you either don't understand it well enough, or you understand but you're being intentionally disrespectful by choosing unfair characterizations. This is brilliant, I love it.

Zigurd 11y ago

>How do we know he doesn't operate the node for the very purpose of watching kiddy porn go by?" To support a warrant, the question has to be the other way around. As with any activity the could be in proximity to illegal activity, it's not, by itself, evidence of anything.

TeMPOraL 11y ago
Tor network has only become "a thing" (as opposed to US military toy) only in the last few years. Half a decade ago such a log the police saw would probably be a clear-cut case of someone downloading or uploading child porn on the guy's network. Even with Tor being available, it's still worth checking out.
- Zigurd 11y ago
  If they were that incompetent about computers they had no business running their own cp investigation. They would have mishandled evidence. They should have handed it off to the state police or the FBI. Alternatively they could have just been bunch of dicks out to intimidate someone.

Xeoncross 11y ago

There are often more than two sides though. You have to draw the line somewhere. There is a limit to how far this logic will go. You only need to be able to understand a valid argument. The problem is that everyone will evaluate "valid" by their own beliefs and worldview.

MichaelBurge 11y ago
Checking the validity of an argument is like typechecking: It's mostly mechanical and catches a large class of errors. But there are some it doesn't catch. This is a valid argument: All animals live on Mars. All humans are animals. Therefore, all humans live on Mars.
- blkhp19 11y ago
  All animals live on Mars? You've lost me.
  - icebraining 11y ago
    IIRC, in logic, an argument is essentially a function that takes premises and produces a conclusion. It's valid as long as the conclusion follows from the premises. The catch is that an argument being valid is not the same as the conclusion being true.
- skissane 11y ago
  The point being (which we both understand, but not everyone here does) is that in logical terminology, a "valid" argument is one whose conclusions must be true were its premises all true. That is a valid argument, even though its first premise is obviously false, because were its premises true, then its conclusion must be true. A valid argument whose premises are all true is a "sound" argument. But, while philosophers and logicians respect this "sound"/"valid" distinction, in popular usage the word "valid" is used to mean "sound".
- philipov 11y ago
  That is not a valid argument, because all animals do not live on mars. Your premises have the wrong type, and you have abused them to reach a fallacious conclusion. This is what you meant to say: Suppose all animals live on mars. Suppose all humans are animals. Therefore, if all animals live on mars, then all humans live on mars. This argument passes the type-checking test, and is indeed valid.

StanislavPetrov 11y ago

>I read/heard something that David Mamet said, that he learned from the study of Jewish law (but it would apply everywhere) that in order for you to have the basis to discuss an argument with the other side, you need to be able to state the other side's argument in a way that the other side would not disagree with, then you get to make your point. >I thought that was a nice idea. Its a truly terrible idea, and not surprising that it stems from someone who found religion worth studying. There is no need to delve into the depths of minutia to dismiss baseless arguments. If you argue that Spiderman is real, and he lives at the Justice League, I don't need to study canon of Marvel comics in order to deal with your argument.

tremon 11y ago
You did not understand. Nothing about the GP's position states that you should make your opponent's case for him. In fact, you already met the criteria if your opponent does not disagree with your assessment that he "argues that Spiderman is real, and lives at the Justice League".
omegaham 11y ago
All he's saying is that you need to qualify what exactly the other person is arguing before you start arguing against it. It's a way of preventing strawmanning - you want to get the other person's central viewpoint out in the open, naked and unafraid, so that there is no ambiguity when you make your case. I don't usually do it, mostly because it's patronizing if the point is obvious, but I will do it if the person's argument is convoluted. > someone who found religion worth studying Like it or not, religion has been a cornerstone of history and civilization for about as long as there has been history or civilization. Secularism is a relatively recent invention, and secularism's influence has only been really felt in the last 50 years or so. Religion is history, and history is definitely worthwhile to study.
- tremon 11y ago
  Religion is history That's a dangerous statement to make. Yes, religion has been hugely influential across societies. But religion has been equally succesful in rewriting history to suit its narrative. I suspect religion has destroyed as much history as it has informed.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

pc2g4d 11y ago

If the exit node only permits HTTPS connections out of it then it would be impossible for him to view the contents of exiting traffic, right? That one restriction would seem to absolve the operator of responsibility for the contents of the communications.

zanny 11y ago
Except the communications were going through TOR in his house. If police traced the packets exiting from him, that means they already got the public IP server the porn was sent from or to, but it passed through his computer as the visible endpoint. That meant it either proceeded elsewhere on the TOR network or stayed on his machine, and they had no external way of knowing without checking his hard drives.
- jandrese 11y ago
  The most likely scenario is that the Police were running a honeypot and tracing every IP that connected to it. Obviously this would pick up a lot of TOR exit nodes. One of the exit nodes is in their jurisdiction so they pay it a visit on the longshot chance that the exit node operator was also a pedophile. If they knew he was running an exit node it smells a bit like a fishing trip, but since they didn't send the SWAT team in through the windows and hold his computers for 4 years out of spite (the Steve Jackson treatment) I have trouble faulting the cops too badly.
  - pmocek 11y ago
    > If [police who conducted the search] knew he was running an exit node They did know. Martin Kaste of National Public Radio [reported](http://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2016/04/04/472992023/when-a-dark-web-volunteer-gets-raided-by-the-police http://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2016/04/04/472...), "Seattle police spokesman Sean Whitcomb says the department understands how Tor relays work, and they knew Robinson was a Tor host."

zymhan 11y ago

> in order for you to have the basis to discuss an argument with the other side, you need to be able to state the other side's argument in a way that the other side would not disagree with, then you get to make your point. This a great way of phrasing what I'd been thinking about as "arguing from someone else's shoes".

mike-cardwell 11y ago

"How do we know he doesn't operate the node for the very purpose of watching kiddy porn go by" Why would anyone do that? If he knows how to install Tor, why wouldn't he download it through somebody IP instead of his own? I can't see any technical advantage to downloading it using your own IP when you could use somebody elses...

icebraining 11y ago
It'd make sense if he didn't trust Tor to actually anonymize his connections.
- mike-cardwell 11y ago
  If Tor isn't effectively anonymising connections, then he's screwed whether he downloads it from somebody elses IP, or his own... Download from somebody elses IP = Probably not at all associated with himself. Download from his own IP = Definitely associated with himself. Again. What would be the advantage of doing this? There isn't one...
  - icebraining 11y ago
    The post you've originally replied to said "watch the CP go by". Someone else would fetch it over his exit node, giving him an alibi, and he would just keep a local copy as it passed through.

lotharbot 11y ago

> "you need to be able to state the other side's argument in a way that the other side would not disagree with" I particularly like a version of this termed the "Ideological Turing Test". The idea is to anonymously write both your position and an opposing position, and to see if an audience consisting of people from both sides (and, potentially, those who are neutral or are on some other side) can identify which side you actually support. If you can state both arguments convincingly enough that it's difficult to determine which one you really believe, then (according to adherents of this concept) you've earned the right to be critical. If, on the other hand, one side easily identifies you as an outsider, then you require further listening/study before you'll be capable of criticizing that side on a reasonable level. While I think the process is more cumbersome than necessary, I agree with the underlying concept -- if you can't state someone else's argument in a way that they think is fair, then you either don't understand it well enough, or you understand but you're being intentionally disrespectful by choosing unfair characterizations.

justinpombrio 11y ago
> While I think the process is more cumbersome than necessary, I agree with the underlying concept -- if you can't state someone else's argument in a way that they think is fair, then you either don't understand it well enough, or you understand but you're being intentionally disrespectful by choosing unfair characterizations. This is brilliant, I love it.