24 ms·

Judge Who Authorized Police Search of Privacy Activists Wasn't Told About Tor

404 points by nkurz 11y ago

Freak_NL 11y ago
This is probably what I find most worrying about the TOR concept. By running an exit node, you open yourself up to all sorts of legal actions. But if you can't run a TOR exit node as an average citizen, won't all exit nodes end up being run by NSA, GCHQ, and their ilk?
- Synaesthesia 11y ago
  It really shouldn't be illegal, it should be protected, like free speech, as noted in the article, "It's like raiding the mailman's house for delivering an illegal letter with no return address" In fact I think that's why they withheld the fact that he runs a TOR node from the judge.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - EdHominem 11y ago
    Especially since the agencies in question can easily "plant" the network evidence they want.
    - ethanbond 11y ago
      Can they? Does the client have any control over the route that their traffic takes through the network? Not a rhetorical question^
      - dsmithatx 11y ago
        Yes the user can choose the exit node in the client very easily. Even a dirty cop could figure it out.
      - htns 11y ago
        The client has full control. Tor works by having the client chain proxies ("nodes"). Tor hidden services add some complications but in that case too the client creates its own half of the proxy chain.
  - noonespecial 11y ago
    Its more like getting a warrant to search his house because they found drugs in his car, but not bothering to mention to the judge that "his" car was a rental car he took out from the airport Hertz a month ago.
    - mulmen 11y ago
      Except in this case Bultmann and Robinson are Hertz, not the customer. They also knowingly rented to a drug dealer. Another analogy may be running a Hertz in Saudi Arabia and renting to women without male guardians present. The computer is not rented, they were in control of a device that may have been used to distribute child pornography. They themselves claim to know and understand this but feel that the risk of enabling criminal behavior is outweighed by the benefits to society of the "good" crime. Such as expression of dissent against regimes they disagree with. I'm not convinced this search was unreasonable from a legal perspective. I do not know enough about the legal precedent around running a Tor node but I could understand if they are on the hook for what happens with their node. I respect what they are doing and I don't think what they are doing is wrong morally but they are taking on a risk which they believe is outweighed by the benefit.
      - belorn 11y ago
        > They also knowingly rented to a drug dealer. How did you establish intent there? I know as a fact that by depositing money in the bank, some of that money will be lent out by the bank. I also know that some people who lend money from banks will be criminals. I thus know that by depositing money in the bank, criminal behavior will be enabled. I do not know however if my money specifically will be use for criminal behavior, nor do I know whom the criminals are or what the crime will be. In order to "knowingly" participate in a crime, the will, whom, and what is kind of important.
        mulmen 11y ago
        You don't own the bank, they owned the computer. You aren't responsible for what happens to money the bank loans out since that money isn't yours. From the article: "Bultmann and Robinson had publicly advertised that they operated a Tor exit relay node—a node in the global Tor network, whose purpose is to give users the ability to browse the web anonymously. They said they operated the node as a service to dissidents in repressive countries, knowing full well that criminals might use it as well, much like any other communication tool." So yes, they didn't know which drug dealer they were renting to or which packets were from drug dealers (or child pornographers) but they did know it was possible. And with Tor I think it would even be considered likely. There seems to be a difference between say running a Tor exit node and running a commercial VoIP service. With VoIP the operator is required by law to record and make available certain information to LEO. Tor by design prevents the operators from having that information. I'm not sure what the legal consequences are but it seems to me that in any other "communication tool" situation the operator is expected to at least make an attempt to prevent illegal use. With Tor that isn't possible so I don't think it's really "like any other communication tool" Bultmann and Robinson knew they might be enabling criminal behavior with their own personal equipment in their home. I think it's easy to at least see the perspective of law enforcement in this case or how the legal system could find them at least partially responsible. I'm not saying this is what should happen but I don't think we have a clearly defined right to run an open proxy as a get out of jail free card.
  - rayiner 11y ago
    Given that most of the content on Tor is illegal,[1] I'm not sure the mail is really the appropriate analogy. [1] https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2016/02/survey_of_the_d.html https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2016/02/survey_of_the...
    - lallysingh 11y ago
      Most of Tor usage is as a proxy back to the regular internet. I don't think you meant to, but the term "content on Tor" can be misleading in that respect, restricting the discussion to hidden services when the context is often Tor use in general.
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
    - woodman 11y ago
      I don't know why you wouldn't link directly to the paper, unless you're hoping that Schneier acknowledging its existence lends it some credibility. > most of the content Easily refuted: the authors had a spider crawl hidden services, which is laughably stupid. They claimed that there where 5,205 hidden services, of which 1,547 hosted illegal content. Another study [1], one which actually took advantage of network statistics, found the number of hidden services closer to 30,000. Also, well over 90% of Tor traffic is unrelated to any hidden services. So not most. As far as the analogy is concerned, hidden services would be more like the personal thoughts of the mailman - not the mail he is routing. [0] http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00396338.2016.1142085 http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00396338.2016.114... [1] https://research.torproject.org/techreports/extrapolating-hidserv-stats-2015-01-31.pdf https://research.torproject.org/techreports/extrapolating-hi...
      - deleted 11y ago
        [deleted]
    - AnthonyMouse 11y ago
      Most email is spam. Most cash contains traces of drugs. Most BitTorrent content infringes copyright. Is that supposed to justify a raid of anyone who runs a mail server or pays in cash or torrents a Debian ISO? For that matter, given the whole Three Felonies a Day thing, most postal mail is in fact sent by criminals too. There is a reason we have a law against theft and not a law against crowbars.
- spudfkc 11y ago
  Isn't that exactly what those agencies want?
- cortesoft 11y ago
  Really, the only way for it to work is if everyone is an exit node.
- AdmiralAsshat 11y ago
  I seem to recall Mozilla talking about running some exit nodes. I wonder if that fizzled out under government or law-enforcement pressure.
  - cmrx64 11y ago
    Relays, not exit nodes, and they still run them: https://globe.torproject.org/#/search/query=mozilla https://globe.torproject.org/#/search/query=mozilla
- ianleeclark 11y ago
  It's actually really sad because I was wanting to see if I could implement an exit node all by myself as a side proejct, but then I realized the potential danger I'd be putting myself in. Naturally, I'd have to host it to test it, so I had to throw this one to the way-side
  - dsmithatx 11y ago
    You still can but, make sure you don't do it in your house. Even one of the operators said, I guess I should have rented a server for this. Not that I agree with the warrant however, I'm not putting my dog's and children's lives in danger.
    - dsp1234 11y ago
      This is the advice given by a few people, but I'm not sure how valid it is. If the police have probable cause to search a server at a datacenter, then they would likely also have probable cause to search the computers of the owner's of those servers. In which case, we're back to 6am raids (probably done at the same time as the datacenter raid to prevent evidence tampering)
      - mirimir 11y ago
        Check out https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/wiki/doc/GoodBadISPs https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/wiki/doc/GoodBadISP... Find one that accepts Bitcoin. Use a pseudonym, and a throwaway email address. Find a plausible meatspace address and telephone number online. Maybe a hostel, business hotel, restaurant that just closed, etc.
    - ianleeclark 11y ago
      Realistically the only way that I could test it is by whitelisting my home box, but this isn't entirely reasonable given that I wouldn't truly be testing it, as I wouldn't know for certain the kind of throughput it offers.
    - noonespecial 11y ago
- dublinben 11y ago
  Best practices for running an exit node cover most of these concerns.[0] The most important one the individuals here didn't follow is 'don't run your relay from home.' A properly registered tor exit relay running in a datacenter somewhere will attract a courteous inquiry, rather than a 6am raid. [0]https://blog.torproject.org/running-exit-node https://blog.torproject.org/running-exit-node
  - guelo 11y ago
    Yea but that means you have to spend extra money to run a Tor node, again limiting the amount of nodes that people are willing to run. The solution is for more people to run Tor, not fewer. Same with open Wifi nodes, the more the safer.
    - dublinben 11y ago
      If you want to contribute with your home broadband connection, a bridge relay is more appropriate. You can run an exit relay for as little as $5/mo with a VPS.
      - walrus01 11y ago
        99% of all VPS providers (in the $5/mo category, not $75/mo) will kill your account for running an exit node. They do not want their blocks of ARIN, RIPE or APNIC ipv4 space listed in every abuse and spam swamp realtime black hole list in existence.
  - CaptSpify 11y ago
    If you run it in a DC, don't you risk exposure to someone cloning it and getting the data you have stored on it? No, you shouldn't keep sensitive data on it, I know, but still could be cloned/compromised without you knowing, right?
- djsumdog 11y ago
  They thing is, they knew he was running a TOR node. They knew they wouldn't find anything. In a _real_ raid for suspected child porn, they confiscate all the equipment. If it's encrypted, you don't get it back (without the money to spend on good lawyers, and then it will be 6 months minimum. Without good lawyers, even if you're never charged, it will probably get wiped and auctioned off, because US police can confiscate anything they damn well please). There was another article, either here or slahdot or somewhere, talking about how there have been several of these TOR node raids. I doubt they even had any evidence of illegal material being downloaded. I think the FBI got all these local police departments to do this intentionally to scare people. The guy should have never turned over his passwords either. He would have lost his machine, but IIRC, the Seattle privacy group he's with decided to scrap those machines anyway since they couldn't be sure the PD didn't tamper with the tor server.
- pjc50 11y ago
  By running an exit node, you open yourself up to all sorts of legal actions This is not going to be popular here, but IMO this is actually reasonable: you ought to be aware that running an exit node is enabling all kinds of terrible behaviour. You can't just handwash your responsibility away from this. (No, this is not the same thing as providing encryption software, or general public chat forums etc)
jobu 11y ago
Money quote in the last paragraph: "When we get into things like this," [Judge William Downing] said, "anonymizing stuff, that’s well over my head technologically, then it becomes very murky and hazy." That sounds to me like the judge likely wouldn't have known what a TOR node was if the police had told him these guys were running one. Technology isn't slowing down, so how can we make sure the law keeps up?
- dsmithatx 11y ago
  Let's hope that was his quick answer to reporters. I'd hate to think that when a Judge has a hard time learning something he decides, well I don't understand this so, let's just violate someone's 4th amendment rights and go harrass them rather than learning how I should apply the law (aka do my job).
- mistermann 11y ago
  The tech community would undoubtedly volunteer resources in the interests of a better world, the problem is it seems the government has very little interest in the justice system actually dispensing justice, it seems to increasingly be one of many tools used to control the populace. It's not only "a" tool, it is almost a magical "wild card" where you can put any opponent away forever if you so choose, and it is completely indefensible.
  - ethbro 11y ago
    Would it / they / we? From what I've seen, the tech community (on the whole, averaged) isn't great at synthesizing and communicating information to non-technical people.
    - geggam 11y ago
      the same non technical people whose eyes glaze over and change the subject first chance they get ?
      - deleted 11y ago
        [deleted]
Overtonwindow 11y ago
Point of clarification: I know the police are allowed to lie and fudge the truth to suspects and defendant, but is there a legal requirement for them to be forthcoming and truthful to Judges in warrants? Also, tending to agree that even if they had included TOR in the search warrant, the judge would have most likely signed it anyways becasue child porn is a big "must do something" thing, and the technology would have probably gone over the Judges' head anyways. In this day if the police use the words "child porn" they could get a warrant for just about anything under the sun.
- dsp1234 11y ago
  is there a legal requirement for them to be forthcoming and truthful to Judges in warrants? This is called Perjury[0]. There is no law enforcement exception to it. [0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perjury https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perjury
  - merpnderp 11y ago
    There is no legal exception to it, but there is in fact a de facto exception to it, since a DA must decide to press charges. How else can all those videos contradicting sworn testimony go nowhere?
    - Overtonwindow 11y ago
      Good point.
- r0m4n0 11y ago
  It does get really hairy. Having read a few technical related warrants (and by no means can I speak to many), they are truly using every last bit of persuasion to convince a judge to sign the warrant and usually request to sweep as much information as possible. They start off with all their goofy worthless technical qualifications eg "3 week cyber security training at McAfee Sleuthing Summit". Then proceed to go into the facts of what they discovered, blending it with the story they believe is true (and in the case I know of wasn't true and was a narrative that was an extreme over exaggeration). The judge signs the warrant then later on if you were actually charged, you have the legal knowhow, and/or massive amounts of money, you could challenge the sweeping nature of the warrant or grounds it was signed upon. In this case it didn't really matter much though... they were able to cause great annoyance to a third party and the law enforcement folks involved will likely never be held responsible. I think its really important for the judge only to look at the facts and to decide to sign based only upon that. In this case, the facts were probably very weak. I'm not sure what other contents could be possible other than, "this was the last known IP address for this packet containing child porn, can we search their premises and copy all their data plz"
sickbeard 11y ago
what difference would it have made if the Judge was told about it?
- bitchypat 11y ago
  He might have found the grounds for issuing the warrant inadequate.
- mulmen 11y ago
  He could do his job effectively by asking for more information about what Tor is. This understanding may impact his decision to issue the warrant. Law enforcement lied by omission, do you think they would take that risk if they thought the outcome would stay the same?
  - sickbeard 11y ago
    They provided enough evidence to the judge to convince him that there was child pron at this location. I'm not sure how knowing there is a TOR node would have made much of a difference.
    - mulmen 11y ago
      The difference is that the decision would be in the hands of the judge instead of law enforcement. The balance of power would be in check.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
bcook 11y ago
PSA: "Tor", not "TOR". https://www.torproject.org/docs/faq.html.en#WhyCalledTor https://www.torproject.org/docs/faq.html.en#WhyCalledTor "Note: even though it originally came from an acronym, Tor is not spelled “TOR”. Only the first letter is capitalized. In fact, we can usually spot people who haven't read any of our website (and have instead learned everything they know about Tor from news articles) by the fact that they spell it wrong."
- Arzh 11y ago
  People still do that crap with Go (Golang) for no damn reason, it'll never stop because even if they have read that they don't care.
  - blowski 11y ago
    Precisely. I say 'Go' because people think Golang is something else. There is only one thing worse than people talking about your product with the wrong name, and that's nobody talking about your product.
  - tomjakubowski 11y ago
    Read what? Isn't it just a way to disambiguate the language from the game or the verb?
    - Arzh 11y ago
      Context will do that for you in 99% of the cases, the other 1% is people who are confused for about 15 seconds.
      - TheDong 11y ago
        For me, the larger issue is searching! E.g., compare the search results for "Go sequel" and "golang sequel". Golang is far more searchable than the ultra-vague "go". Even if humans can figure out the context, a search engine indexing it cannot.
ajmurmann 11y ago
Let me pay devil's advocate for a moment: let's say I want to do bad things on the Internet and obviously I don't want to get my house raided. So now I set up a Tor node in my house. Doing that I created reasonable doubt and my house can't get raided.
- jakobegger 11y ago
  I think that traffic originating from an IP address is very weak evidence, regardless of whether someone runs a Tor node or not. With all the malware and insecure, unsupported software running everywhere, it might be more likely than not that random illegal traffic is coming from IPs whose owners are oblivious. I would hope that law enforcement has more evidence than just an IP in a server log when they raid your place.
  - mulmen 11y ago
    Can you give an example of such evidence and how it would be gathered? I don't disagree with you but I can see both sides of this.
    - jakobegger 11y ago
      For example, if the same illegal websites were accessed from someone's home wifi and their mobile phone? Or maybe the target used the same pseudonym for illegal activities that they used years ago on a public forum?
      - mulmen 11y ago
        Thanks, that does make sense. How does this compare to a cash-only business? Say I run a banana stand that only accepts cash. What level of proof does law enforcement need in order to look into more personal aspects of my life and business if they believe I am using it launder money? IANAL but this feels similar to me.
        jakobegger 11y ago
tombert 11y ago
If my job requires me to have an understanding of something new, I learn it. Like an adult. Why the hell is technology the only exception for people on this front?
- mulmen 11y ago
  Technology is not an exception. He isn't exempt from making informed decisions. Law enforcement omitted a fact that could lead to the judge asking questions.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- blakeyrat 11y ago
  If you're referring to the quote at the bottom of the article, that's from a different judge than the one who signed-off on this warrant. In any case, the judge involved didn't have an opportunity to research "Tor exit node", even assuming he is the most competent and responsible judge in Seattle, because that information wasn't included on the warrant. That's... kind of the exact point of the article.
Gratsby 11y ago
Does operating a Tor node preclude someone from being investigated? I should hope not. Just because they do operate a node doesn't mean that a given household is free from criminal activity.
shockzzz 11y ago
lol at hn being quoted
CrankyBear 11y ago
Wait, you expect a judge to know what a TOR node was? Heck, you expected the police to get it? Please.
usrusr 11y ago
I never understood the value of a judge authorization requirements for surveillance. Has there ever been a recorded case where the request was denied, except maybe for even more shady reasons? I just don't see any incentive the judge could have to actually make an informed decision instead of just issuing rubber-stamp approval. Even in the unlikely worst case scenario of a scandal of rampant spouse-spying, a simple "but i trusted these guys!" would grant complete forgiveness. The only advantage, in terms of civil right is a weak paper trail and a slight slowdown of operations. What if, instead of the judge approval requirement there would be a simple, "mechanical" lockdown of surveillance capabilities that would just ensure a paper trail and enforce an artificial quota of operations per time? "Want to spy on that guy because you don't like his face? Your call, but don't come running when you have run out of quota, you really don't want to be that guy who could not stop an actual terrorist because he wasted all his surveillance wildcards on a personal vendetta". This sure would not yield perfect results, but i really believe that the existing judge authorization requirements are even worse.
- blowski 11y ago
  What would you set the quota at? Surely 'zero' is the best quota and each case deserves thorough oversight and consideration. If you do put in a quota you're implicitly saying 'police should be searching this number of times but no more' and there is simply no way of knowing what that number should be in advance.
- HeyLaughingBoy 11y ago
  I just don't see any incentive the judge could have to actually make an informed decision Some people pride themselves on doing their jobs as well as they know how.
  - usrusr 11y ago
    > Some people pride themselves on doing their jobs as well as they know how. And others might become good at never crossing paths with those. Subtleties like wether this is possible or not make or break a desirable outcome.
- 11y ago
phasmantistes 11y ago
At what point does lack of information disclosure in the warrant application render the warrant itself invalid? Is there any precedent for invalidating warrants -- and therefore any information gleaned from the search, and perhaps allowing suits against the offending searchers -- due to circumstances surrounding the application for the warrant?
walrus01 11y ago
The warrant is ridiculous even without the tor part. Read pages #6 and #7. http://www.thestranger.com/images/blogimages/2016/04/08/1460142130-search_warrant_redacted3.pdf http://www.thestranger.com/images/blogimages/2016/04/08/1460... ISPs maintain hash values of known child porn files? Show me a single ISP in the Seattle area that runs any of its residential customer http traffic through a caching proxy that examines and hashes each file, I'll eat my shoe.
- iadnal 11y ago
  That is an interesting read. They just seem to dump everything they know about how computers are used in relation to child pornography even if it's unrelated to the case at hand. Even though they mention the hashing and Photo DNA (which is a real system that ISPs use) the warrant rests on regular old reporting of a video by site admins.
- kempbellt 11y ago
  There is so much explaining going on here that it seems like the judge has no understanding of how the internet works. If that's the case, how could the judge be able to give a reasonable response to this affidavit? Seems like a case that requires such a long-winded technical preface could at least be handled by a judge who knows what an IP address is...
  - TearsInTheRain 11y ago
    I wonder if there should be a certification system in place before judges can rule on technical topics
    - codyb 11y ago
      But then might there not need to be a certification for other areas as well? Might be a hard thing to set up.
      - CaptSpify 11y ago
Dowwie 11y ago
Maybe the omission from the warrant application was a plausible deniability arrangement between the judge and Seattle PD..
downandout 11y ago
I'm all for privacy technologies like Tor, but this is one of the risks you assume when you operate an exit node. The alternative would be to give all Tor exit node operators not only legal immunity, but immunity from investigation, for illegal activities originating from any IP address associated with them. Even if the judge and the police were aware of the exit node, it wouldn't have changed the way this was investigated.
- imchillyb 11y ago
  You jest about immunity, but... We don't prosecute the Department of Transportation when someone transports several hundred million dollars of cocaine across their roads. Why should we treat digital highways, overpasses, and offramps, any differently?
  - downandout 11y ago
    This isn't even close to a reasonable comparison. Until it can be investigated, the only available suspect in a case where illegal activity originates from a given home user's IP is that user. The DOT isn't the sole operator and user of the roads it builds.
    - rev_bird 11y ago
      >The DOT isn't the sole operator and user of the roads it builds. An exit node operator isn't the sole user of the IP address they're assigned either. Yes, they're the only available suspect, but that doesn't change the fact that it's based on outrageously flawed evidence -- it's basically one step up from a hunch, and I don't think it's nearly good enough to be kicking someone's door in.
- AnthonyMouse 11y ago
  Suppose I'm AT&T and one of my customers is running a Tor exit node. Do I now have "immunity from investigation, for illegal activities originating from any IP address associated with them"? I can certainly use a router spoof my customer's IP address for any connections I want to use for illegal activity. Then the IP address will trace back to that customer, which is a Tor exit node, and the police can't investigate me. For that matter, every user of Tor is in the same situation. But the premise is wrong. The police can investigate you as much as they like, they just can't assume that the traffic coming from that IP address has anything to do with anyone in particular. You're still going to jail when you buy something with a stolen credit card and have it shipped to your house, regardless of whether you used Tor or operated a Tor exit node or are an ISP and used an IP address assigned to a customer.
riskable 11y ago
Here's what I don't understand: You go to a judge for a warrant and the only piece of evidence you have an IP address. How is an IP address even remotely considered "evidence" enough to search someone's home? An IP address is not an identity. It is not a location. It is not even permanent in most cases! I cannot fathom that police are granted warrants to search and seize people's homes and property based solely on, "logs indicate an illegal file was uploaded from this IP address." That is incredibly flimsy evidence. At the very least they should create a profile on the individuals and demonstrate that they were present in the home and appeared to be using their computers at the time of the crime. They didn't even do the most basic of police work in this case. WTF!?
- rdtsc 11y ago
  It just highlights the rubber-stamp aspect of it. How many of the search warrants are reject really? For example in case of the FISA court: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Foreign_Intelligence_Surveillance_Court https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Foreign_Intellig... Since 2010 there have been more than 6000 requests and 0 denials. They could have showed up with anything, and request would have been granted. I have no doubt that both parties see this as "need to follow rules" formality and nothing else.
- ocdtrekkie 11y ago
  There's a huge difference between evidence strong enough to convict someone (it's reasonably held that an IP address is not good enough evidence to charge a person with a crime) and probable cause for a warrant. I'd argue it's more than adequate to get a warrant. Again, a warrant is only having reasonable suspicion to go look and see if something illegal is going on, it's not a determination of guilt.
- rayiner 11y ago
  They clearly had more than just an IP address--they had an IP address and the identity of the user who was assigned the IP address at the time. If police found a post-it with a house address in a context where it was clear that it was connected to the perpetrator, that would easily be sufficient for a warrant. The bar is not supposed to be a high one.
zaphar 11y ago
I have a question for any Legal Professionals here. Reading these news stories it sounds like warrants can be very invasive but that there is no advocate for the target of the warrant involved in the process. What protections for the target are there in the process of obtaining a warrant, given the serving of one can be so invasive and damaging?
- Floegipoky 11y ago
  You're correct, there is no advocate
eric_arrr 11y ago
Here is everything you ever wanted to know about the law as it applies to material omissions from search warrants: https://www.fletc.gov/sites/default/files/imported_files/training/programs/legal-division/downloads-articles-and-faqs/research-by-subject/civil-actions/liabilityforfalseaffidavits.pdf https://www.fletc.gov/sites/default/files/imported_files/tra...
bjacobel 11y ago
Euthanize everyone over 40.
- Beltiras 11y ago
  Even those of us that know how to (and even do) operate a tor node?
  - PeCaN 11y ago
    Only if you wrote 8086 assembler on an original IBM PC.
- dang 11y ago
  > Euthanize everyone over 40. If you comment like this again we will ban you. We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11474095 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11474095 and marked it off-topic.
xbmcuser 11y ago
That's the risk they are taking for hosting a tor node. What if a tor node user is also browsing child porn. The isp will only see child porn being accesed by the tor node in.
Floegipoky 11y ago
What he says- "When we get into things like this," he said, "anonymizing stuff, that’s well over my head technologically, then it becomes very murky and hazy." Or, stated another way- "I'm not qualified to do my job, so I just rubber-stamp it" Now imagine somebody saying that about a code review.
ikeboy 11y ago
>"It's like raiding the mailman's house for delivering an illegal letter with no return address," said one commenter on the tech website YCombinator.
asrt 11y ago
Bultmann and Robinson? Do they operate the Tor node on a Bultcave or something?
yason 11y ago
Obviously running a TOR node will attract interest. It can be debated whether acting as a TOR router/carrier should impose on the operator at least some requirements to divulge connection logs to the authorities -- not that TOR would actually produce any meaningful logs in the first place. That's roughly what physical ISPs need to do if one of their IP addresses is associated with child porn. There's also the argument that if TOR nodes were given a guaranteed free pass when it comes to illegal content then why wouldn't people just run a TOR node and an open wifi on their home network just to cover their ass should they intend to use a torrent of shady network services. However, the question that pops into my mind is that given how easy the trigger finger on child porn actually is in the current climate, then why are the producers and consumers of child porn still on the regular internet and not in the TOR darknet? If consumers are already willing to use TOR to access these sites there's no barrier to switch at all. The producers could even offer a legit site with no illegal content hosted there but which just redirects the browser to the (current) TOR address. I suppose there's a market for consumers who aren't using TOR but I would suspect that segment to be continuously shrinkin in the form of being prosecuted.

404 points by nkurz 11y ago

This is probably what I find most worrying about the TOR concept. By running an exit node, you open yourself up to all sorts of legal actions. But if you can't run a TOR exit node as an average citizen, won't all exit nodes end up being run by NSA, GCHQ, and their ilk?

Synaesthesia 11y ago
It really shouldn't be illegal, it should be protected, like free speech, as noted in the article, "It's like raiding the mailman's house for delivering an illegal letter with no return address" In fact I think that's why they withheld the fact that he runs a TOR node from the judge.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- EdHominem 11y ago
  Especially since the agencies in question can easily "plant" the network evidence they want.
  - ethanbond 11y ago
    Can they? Does the client have any control over the route that their traffic takes through the network? Not a rhetorical question^
    - dsmithatx 11y ago
      Yes the user can choose the exit node in the client very easily. Even a dirty cop could figure it out.
    - htns 11y ago
      The client has full control. Tor works by having the client chain proxies ("nodes"). Tor hidden services add some complications but in that case too the client creates its own half of the proxy chain.
- noonespecial 11y ago
  Its more like getting a warrant to search his house because they found drugs in his car, but not bothering to mention to the judge that "his" car was a rental car he took out from the airport Hertz a month ago.
  - mulmen 11y ago
    Except in this case Bultmann and Robinson are Hertz, not the customer. They also knowingly rented to a drug dealer. Another analogy may be running a Hertz in Saudi Arabia and renting to women without male guardians present. The computer is not rented, they were in control of a device that may have been used to distribute child pornography. They themselves claim to know and understand this but feel that the risk of enabling criminal behavior is outweighed by the benefits to society of the "good" crime. Such as expression of dissent against regimes they disagree with. I'm not convinced this search was unreasonable from a legal perspective. I do not know enough about the legal precedent around running a Tor node but I could understand if they are on the hook for what happens with their node. I respect what they are doing and I don't think what they are doing is wrong morally but they are taking on a risk which they believe is outweighed by the benefit.
    - belorn 11y ago
      > They also knowingly rented to a drug dealer. How did you establish intent there? I know as a fact that by depositing money in the bank, some of that money will be lent out by the bank. I also know that some people who lend money from banks will be criminals. I thus know that by depositing money in the bank, criminal behavior will be enabled. I do not know however if my money specifically will be use for criminal behavior, nor do I know whom the criminals are or what the crime will be. In order to "knowingly" participate in a crime, the will, whom, and what is kind of important.
      - mulmen 11y ago
        You don't own the bank, they owned the computer. You aren't responsible for what happens to money the bank loans out since that money isn't yours. From the article: "Bultmann and Robinson had publicly advertised that they operated a Tor exit relay node—a node in the global Tor network, whose purpose is to give users the ability to browse the web anonymously. They said they operated the node as a service to dissidents in repressive countries, knowing full well that criminals might use it as well, much like any other communication tool." So yes, they didn't know which drug dealer they were renting to or which packets were from drug dealers (or child pornographers) but they did know it was possible. And with Tor I think it would even be considered likely. There seems to be a difference between say running a Tor exit node and running a commercial VoIP service. With VoIP the operator is required by law to record and make available certain information to LEO. Tor by design prevents the operators from having that information. I'm not sure what the legal consequences are but it seems to me that in any other "communication tool" situation the operator is expected to at least make an attempt to prevent illegal use. With Tor that isn't possible so I don't think it's really "like any other communication tool" Bultmann and Robinson knew they might be enabling criminal behavior with their own personal equipment in their home. I think it's easy to at least see the perspective of law enforcement in this case or how the legal system could find them at least partially responsible. I'm not saying this is what should happen but I don't think we have a clearly defined right to run an open proxy as a get out of jail free card.
- rayiner 11y ago
  Given that most of the content on Tor is illegal,[1] I'm not sure the mail is really the appropriate analogy. [1] https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2016/02/survey_of_the_d.html https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2016/02/survey_of_the...
  - lallysingh 11y ago
    Most of Tor usage is as a proxy back to the regular internet. I don't think you meant to, but the term "content on Tor" can be misleading in that respect, restricting the discussion to hidden services when the context is often Tor use in general.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - woodman 11y ago
    I don't know why you wouldn't link directly to the paper, unless you're hoping that Schneier acknowledging its existence lends it some credibility. > most of the content Easily refuted: the authors had a spider crawl hidden services, which is laughably stupid. They claimed that there where 5,205 hidden services, of which 1,547 hosted illegal content. Another study [1], one which actually took advantage of network statistics, found the number of hidden services closer to 30,000. Also, well over 90% of Tor traffic is unrelated to any hidden services. So not most. As far as the analogy is concerned, hidden services would be more like the personal thoughts of the mailman - not the mail he is routing. [0] http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00396338.2016.1142085 http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00396338.2016.114... [1] https://research.torproject.org/techreports/extrapolating-hidserv-stats-2015-01-31.pdf https://research.torproject.org/techreports/extrapolating-hi...
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
  - AnthonyMouse 11y ago
    Most email is spam. Most cash contains traces of drugs. Most BitTorrent content infringes copyright. Is that supposed to justify a raid of anyone who runs a mail server or pays in cash or torrents a Debian ISO? For that matter, given the whole Three Felonies a Day thing, most postal mail is in fact sent by criminals too. There is a reason we have a law against theft and not a law against crowbars.
spudfkc 11y ago
Isn't that exactly what those agencies want?
cortesoft 11y ago
Really, the only way for it to work is if everyone is an exit node.
AdmiralAsshat 11y ago
I seem to recall Mozilla talking about running some exit nodes. I wonder if that fizzled out under government or law-enforcement pressure.
- cmrx64 11y ago
  Relays, not exit nodes, and they still run them: https://globe.torproject.org/#/search/query=mozilla https://globe.torproject.org/#/search/query=mozilla
ianleeclark 11y ago
It's actually really sad because I was wanting to see if I could implement an exit node all by myself as a side proejct, but then I realized the potential danger I'd be putting myself in. Naturally, I'd have to host it to test it, so I had to throw this one to the way-side
- dsmithatx 11y ago
  You still can but, make sure you don't do it in your house. Even one of the operators said, I guess I should have rented a server for this. Not that I agree with the warrant however, I'm not putting my dog's and children's lives in danger.
  - dsp1234 11y ago
    This is the advice given by a few people, but I'm not sure how valid it is. If the police have probable cause to search a server at a datacenter, then they would likely also have probable cause to search the computers of the owner's of those servers. In which case, we're back to 6am raids (probably done at the same time as the datacenter raid to prevent evidence tampering)
    - mirimir 11y ago
      Check out https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/wiki/doc/GoodBadISPs https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/wiki/doc/GoodBadISP... Find one that accepts Bitcoin. Use a pseudonym, and a throwaway email address. Find a plausible meatspace address and telephone number online. Maybe a hostel, business hotel, restaurant that just closed, etc.
  - ianleeclark 11y ago
    Realistically the only way that I could test it is by whitelisting my home box, but this isn't entirely reasonable given that I wouldn't truly be testing it, as I wouldn't know for certain the kind of throughput it offers.
  - noonespecial 11y ago
dublinben 11y ago
Best practices for running an exit node cover most of these concerns.[0] The most important one the individuals here didn't follow is 'don't run your relay from home.' A properly registered tor exit relay running in a datacenter somewhere will attract a courteous inquiry, rather than a 6am raid. [0]https://blog.torproject.org/running-exit-node https://blog.torproject.org/running-exit-node
- guelo 11y ago
  Yea but that means you have to spend extra money to run a Tor node, again limiting the amount of nodes that people are willing to run. The solution is for more people to run Tor, not fewer. Same with open Wifi nodes, the more the safer.
  - dublinben 11y ago
    If you want to contribute with your home broadband connection, a bridge relay is more appropriate. You can run an exit relay for as little as $5/mo with a VPS.
    - walrus01 11y ago
      99% of all VPS providers (in the $5/mo category, not $75/mo) will kill your account for running an exit node. They do not want their blocks of ARIN, RIPE or APNIC ipv4 space listed in every abuse and spam swamp realtime black hole list in existence.
- CaptSpify 11y ago
  If you run it in a DC, don't you risk exposure to someone cloning it and getting the data you have stored on it? No, you shouldn't keep sensitive data on it, I know, but still could be cloned/compromised without you knowing, right?
djsumdog 11y ago
They thing is, they knew he was running a TOR node. They knew they wouldn't find anything. In a _real_ raid for suspected child porn, they confiscate all the equipment. If it's encrypted, you don't get it back (without the money to spend on good lawyers, and then it will be 6 months minimum. Without good lawyers, even if you're never charged, it will probably get wiped and auctioned off, because US police can confiscate anything they damn well please). There was another article, either here or slahdot or somewhere, talking about how there have been several of these TOR node raids. I doubt they even had any evidence of illegal material being downloaded. I think the FBI got all these local police departments to do this intentionally to scare people. The guy should have never turned over his passwords either. He would have lost his machine, but IIRC, the Seattle privacy group he's with decided to scrap those machines anyway since they couldn't be sure the PD didn't tamper with the tor server.
pjc50 11y ago
By running an exit node, you open yourself up to all sorts of legal actions This is not going to be popular here, but IMO this is actually reasonable: you ought to be aware that running an exit node is enabling all kinds of terrible behaviour. You can't just handwash your responsibility away from this. (No, this is not the same thing as providing encryption software, or general public chat forums etc)

jobu 11y ago

Money quote in the last paragraph: "When we get into things like this," [Judge William Downing] said, "anonymizing stuff, that’s well over my head technologically, then it becomes very murky and hazy." That sounds to me like the judge likely wouldn't have known what a TOR node was if the police had told him these guys were running one. Technology isn't slowing down, so how can we make sure the law keeps up?

dsmithatx 11y ago
Let's hope that was his quick answer to reporters. I'd hate to think that when a Judge has a hard time learning something he decides, well I don't understand this so, let's just violate someone's 4th amendment rights and go harrass them rather than learning how I should apply the law (aka do my job).
mistermann 11y ago
The tech community would undoubtedly volunteer resources in the interests of a better world, the problem is it seems the government has very little interest in the justice system actually dispensing justice, it seems to increasingly be one of many tools used to control the populace. It's not only "a" tool, it is almost a magical "wild card" where you can put any opponent away forever if you so choose, and it is completely indefensible.
- ethbro 11y ago
  Would it / they / we? From what I've seen, the tech community (on the whole, averaged) isn't great at synthesizing and communicating information to non-technical people.
  - geggam 11y ago
    the same non technical people whose eyes glaze over and change the subject first chance they get ?
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]

Overtonwindow 11y ago

Point of clarification: I know the police are allowed to lie and fudge the truth to suspects and defendant, but is there a legal requirement for them to be forthcoming and truthful to Judges in warrants? Also, tending to agree that even if they had included TOR in the search warrant, the judge would have most likely signed it anyways becasue child porn is a big "must do something" thing, and the technology would have probably gone over the Judges' head anyways. In this day if the police use the words "child porn" they could get a warrant for just about anything under the sun.

dsp1234 11y ago
is there a legal requirement for them to be forthcoming and truthful to Judges in warrants? This is called Perjury[0]. There is no law enforcement exception to it. [0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perjury https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perjury
- merpnderp 11y ago
  There is no legal exception to it, but there is in fact a de facto exception to it, since a DA must decide to press charges. How else can all those videos contradicting sworn testimony go nowhere?
  - Overtonwindow 11y ago
    Good point.
r0m4n0 11y ago
It does get really hairy. Having read a few technical related warrants (and by no means can I speak to many), they are truly using every last bit of persuasion to convince a judge to sign the warrant and usually request to sweep as much information as possible. They start off with all their goofy worthless technical qualifications eg "3 week cyber security training at McAfee Sleuthing Summit". Then proceed to go into the facts of what they discovered, blending it with the story they believe is true (and in the case I know of wasn't true and was a narrative that was an extreme over exaggeration). The judge signs the warrant then later on if you were actually charged, you have the legal knowhow, and/or massive amounts of money, you could challenge the sweeping nature of the warrant or grounds it was signed upon. In this case it didn't really matter much though... they were able to cause great annoyance to a third party and the law enforcement folks involved will likely never be held responsible. I think its really important for the judge only to look at the facts and to decide to sign based only upon that. In this case, the facts were probably very weak. I'm not sure what other contents could be possible other than, "this was the last known IP address for this packet containing child porn, can we search their premises and copy all their data plz"

sickbeard 11y ago

what difference would it have made if the Judge was told about it?

bitchypat 11y ago
He might have found the grounds for issuing the warrant inadequate.
mulmen 11y ago
He could do his job effectively by asking for more information about what Tor is. This understanding may impact his decision to issue the warrant. Law enforcement lied by omission, do you think they would take that risk if they thought the outcome would stay the same?
- sickbeard 11y ago
  They provided enough evidence to the judge to convince him that there was child pron at this location. I'm not sure how knowing there is a TOR node would have made much of a difference.
  - mulmen 11y ago
    The difference is that the decision would be in the hands of the judge instead of law enforcement. The balance of power would be in check.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

bcook 11y ago

PSA: "Tor", not "TOR". https://www.torproject.org/docs/faq.html.en#WhyCalledTor https://www.torproject.org/docs/faq.html.en#WhyCalledTor "Note: even though it originally came from an acronym, Tor is not spelled “TOR”. Only the first letter is capitalized. In fact, we can usually spot people who haven't read any of our website (and have instead learned everything they know about Tor from news articles) by the fact that they spell it wrong."

Arzh 11y ago
People still do that crap with Go (Golang) for no damn reason, it'll never stop because even if they have read that they don't care.
- blowski 11y ago
  Precisely. I say 'Go' because people think Golang is something else. There is only one thing worse than people talking about your product with the wrong name, and that's nobody talking about your product.
- tomjakubowski 11y ago
  Read what? Isn't it just a way to disambiguate the language from the game or the verb?
  - Arzh 11y ago
    Context will do that for you in 99% of the cases, the other 1% is people who are confused for about 15 seconds.
    - TheDong 11y ago
      For me, the larger issue is searching! E.g., compare the search results for "Go sequel" and "golang sequel". Golang is far more searchable than the ultra-vague "go". Even if humans can figure out the context, a search engine indexing it cannot.

ajmurmann 11y ago

Let me pay devil's advocate for a moment: let's say I want to do bad things on the Internet and obviously I don't want to get my house raided. So now I set up a Tor node in my house. Doing that I created reasonable doubt and my house can't get raided.

jakobegger 11y ago
I think that traffic originating from an IP address is very weak evidence, regardless of whether someone runs a Tor node or not. With all the malware and insecure, unsupported software running everywhere, it might be more likely than not that random illegal traffic is coming from IPs whose owners are oblivious. I would hope that law enforcement has more evidence than just an IP in a server log when they raid your place.
- mulmen 11y ago
  Can you give an example of such evidence and how it would be gathered? I don't disagree with you but I can see both sides of this.
  - jakobegger 11y ago
    For example, if the same illegal websites were accessed from someone's home wifi and their mobile phone? Or maybe the target used the same pseudonym for illegal activities that they used years ago on a public forum?
    - mulmen 11y ago
      Thanks, that does make sense. How does this compare to a cash-only business? Say I run a banana stand that only accepts cash. What level of proof does law enforcement need in order to look into more personal aspects of my life and business if they believe I am using it launder money? IANAL but this feels similar to me.
      - jakobegger 11y ago

tombert 11y ago

If my job requires me to have an understanding of something new, I learn it. Like an adult. Why the hell is technology the only exception for people on this front?

mulmen 11y ago
Technology is not an exception. He isn't exempt from making informed decisions. Law enforcement omitted a fact that could lead to the judge asking questions.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
blakeyrat 11y ago
If you're referring to the quote at the bottom of the article, that's from a different judge than the one who signed-off on this warrant. In any case, the judge involved didn't have an opportunity to research "Tor exit node", even assuming he is the most competent and responsible judge in Seattle, because that information wasn't included on the warrant. That's... kind of the exact point of the article.

Gratsby 11y ago

Does operating a Tor node preclude someone from being investigated? I should hope not. Just because they do operate a node doesn't mean that a given household is free from criminal activity.

shockzzz 11y ago

lol at hn being quoted

CrankyBear 11y ago

Wait, you expect a judge to know what a TOR node was? Heck, you expected the police to get it? Please.

usrusr 11y ago

I never understood the value of a judge authorization requirements for surveillance. Has there ever been a recorded case where the request was denied, except maybe for even more shady reasons? I just don't see any incentive the judge could have to actually make an informed decision instead of just issuing rubber-stamp approval. Even in the unlikely worst case scenario of a scandal of rampant spouse-spying, a simple "but i trusted these guys!" would grant complete forgiveness. The only advantage, in terms of civil right is a weak paper trail and a slight slowdown of operations. What if, instead of the judge approval requirement there would be a simple, "mechanical" lockdown of surveillance capabilities that would just ensure a paper trail and enforce an artificial quota of operations per time? "Want to spy on that guy because you don't like his face? Your call, but don't come running when you have run out of quota, you really don't want to be that guy who could not stop an actual terrorist because he wasted all his surveillance wildcards on a personal vendetta". This sure would not yield perfect results, but i really believe that the existing judge authorization requirements are even worse.

blowski 11y ago
What would you set the quota at? Surely 'zero' is the best quota and each case deserves thorough oversight and consideration. If you do put in a quota you're implicitly saying 'police should be searching this number of times but no more' and there is simply no way of knowing what that number should be in advance.
HeyLaughingBoy 11y ago
I just don't see any incentive the judge could have to actually make an informed decision Some people pride themselves on doing their jobs as well as they know how.
- usrusr 11y ago
  > Some people pride themselves on doing their jobs as well as they know how. And others might become good at never crossing paths with those. Subtleties like wether this is possible or not make or break a desirable outcome.
11y ago

phasmantistes 11y ago

At what point does lack of information disclosure in the warrant application render the warrant itself invalid? Is there any precedent for invalidating warrants -- and therefore any information gleaned from the search, and perhaps allowing suits against the offending searchers -- due to circumstances surrounding the application for the warrant?

walrus01 11y ago

The warrant is ridiculous even without the tor part. Read pages #6 and #7. http://www.thestranger.com/images/blogimages/2016/04/08/1460142130-search_warrant_redacted3.pdf http://www.thestranger.com/images/blogimages/2016/04/08/1460... ISPs maintain hash values of known child porn files? Show me a single ISP in the Seattle area that runs any of its residential customer http traffic through a caching proxy that examines and hashes each file, I'll eat my shoe.

iadnal 11y ago
That is an interesting read. They just seem to dump everything they know about how computers are used in relation to child pornography even if it's unrelated to the case at hand. Even though they mention the hashing and Photo DNA (which is a real system that ISPs use) the warrant rests on regular old reporting of a video by site admins.
kempbellt 11y ago
There is so much explaining going on here that it seems like the judge has no understanding of how the internet works. If that's the case, how could the judge be able to give a reasonable response to this affidavit? Seems like a case that requires such a long-winded technical preface could at least be handled by a judge who knows what an IP address is...
- TearsInTheRain 11y ago
  I wonder if there should be a certification system in place before judges can rule on technical topics
  - codyb 11y ago
    But then might there not need to be a certification for other areas as well? Might be a hard thing to set up.
    - CaptSpify 11y ago

Dowwie 11y ago

Maybe the omission from the warrant application was a plausible deniability arrangement between the judge and Seattle PD..

downandout 11y ago

I'm all for privacy technologies like Tor, but this is one of the risks you assume when you operate an exit node. The alternative would be to give all Tor exit node operators not only legal immunity, but immunity from investigation, for illegal activities originating from any IP address associated with them. Even if the judge and the police were aware of the exit node, it wouldn't have changed the way this was investigated.

imchillyb 11y ago
You jest about immunity, but... We don't prosecute the Department of Transportation when someone transports several hundred million dollars of cocaine across their roads. Why should we treat digital highways, overpasses, and offramps, any differently?
- downandout 11y ago
  This isn't even close to a reasonable comparison. Until it can be investigated, the only available suspect in a case where illegal activity originates from a given home user's IP is that user. The DOT isn't the sole operator and user of the roads it builds.
  - rev_bird 11y ago
    >The DOT isn't the sole operator and user of the roads it builds. An exit node operator isn't the sole user of the IP address they're assigned either. Yes, they're the only available suspect, but that doesn't change the fact that it's based on outrageously flawed evidence -- it's basically one step up from a hunch, and I don't think it's nearly good enough to be kicking someone's door in.
AnthonyMouse 11y ago
Suppose I'm AT&T and one of my customers is running a Tor exit node. Do I now have "immunity from investigation, for illegal activities originating from any IP address associated with them"? I can certainly use a router spoof my customer's IP address for any connections I want to use for illegal activity. Then the IP address will trace back to that customer, which is a Tor exit node, and the police can't investigate me. For that matter, every user of Tor is in the same situation. But the premise is wrong. The police can investigate you as much as they like, they just can't assume that the traffic coming from that IP address has anything to do with anyone in particular. You're still going to jail when you buy something with a stolen credit card and have it shipped to your house, regardless of whether you used Tor or operated a Tor exit node or are an ISP and used an IP address assigned to a customer.

riskable 11y ago

Here's what I don't understand: You go to a judge for a warrant and the only piece of evidence you have an IP address. How is an IP address even remotely considered "evidence" enough to search someone's home? An IP address is not an identity. It is not a location. It is not even permanent in most cases! I cannot fathom that police are granted warrants to search and seize people's homes and property based solely on, "logs indicate an illegal file was uploaded from this IP address." That is incredibly flimsy evidence. At the very least they should create a profile on the individuals and demonstrate that they were present in the home and appeared to be using their computers at the time of the crime. They didn't even do the most basic of police work in this case. WTF!?

rdtsc 11y ago
It just highlights the rubber-stamp aspect of it. How many of the search warrants are reject really? For example in case of the FISA court: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Foreign_Intelligence_Surveillance_Court https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Foreign_Intellig... Since 2010 there have been more than 6000 requests and 0 denials. They could have showed up with anything, and request would have been granted. I have no doubt that both parties see this as "need to follow rules" formality and nothing else.
ocdtrekkie 11y ago
There's a huge difference between evidence strong enough to convict someone (it's reasonably held that an IP address is not good enough evidence to charge a person with a crime) and probable cause for a warrant. I'd argue it's more than adequate to get a warrant. Again, a warrant is only having reasonable suspicion to go look and see if something illegal is going on, it's not a determination of guilt.
rayiner 11y ago
They clearly had more than just an IP address--they had an IP address and the identity of the user who was assigned the IP address at the time. If police found a post-it with a house address in a context where it was clear that it was connected to the perpetrator, that would easily be sufficient for a warrant. The bar is not supposed to be a high one.

zaphar 11y ago

I have a question for any Legal Professionals here. Reading these news stories it sounds like warrants can be very invasive but that there is no advocate for the target of the warrant involved in the process. What protections for the target are there in the process of obtaining a warrant, given the serving of one can be so invasive and damaging?

Floegipoky 11y ago
You're correct, there is no advocate

eric_arrr 11y ago

Here is everything you ever wanted to know about the law as it applies to material omissions from search warrants: https://www.fletc.gov/sites/default/files/imported_files/training/programs/legal-division/downloads-articles-and-faqs/research-by-subject/civil-actions/liabilityforfalseaffidavits.pdf https://www.fletc.gov/sites/default/files/imported_files/tra...

bjacobel 11y ago

Euthanize everyone over 40.

Beltiras 11y ago
Even those of us that know how to (and even do) operate a tor node?
- PeCaN 11y ago
  Only if you wrote 8086 assembler on an original IBM PC.
dang 11y ago
> Euthanize everyone over 40. If you comment like this again we will ban you. We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11474095 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11474095 and marked it off-topic.

xbmcuser 11y ago

That's the risk they are taking for hosting a tor node. What if a tor node user is also browsing child porn. The isp will only see child porn being accesed by the tor node in.

Floegipoky 11y ago

What he says- "When we get into things like this," he said, "anonymizing stuff, that’s well over my head technologically, then it becomes very murky and hazy." Or, stated another way- "I'm not qualified to do my job, so I just rubber-stamp it" Now imagine somebody saying that about a code review.

ikeboy 11y ago

>"It's like raiding the mailman's house for delivering an illegal letter with no return address," said one commenter on the tech website YCombinator.

asrt 11y ago

Bultmann and Robinson? Do they operate the Tor node on a Bultcave or something?

yason 11y ago

Obviously running a TOR node will attract interest. It can be debated whether acting as a TOR router/carrier should impose on the operator at least some requirements to divulge connection logs to the authorities -- not that TOR would actually produce any meaningful logs in the first place. That's roughly what physical ISPs need to do if one of their IP addresses is associated with child porn. There's also the argument that if TOR nodes were given a guaranteed free pass when it comes to illegal content then why wouldn't people just run a TOR node and an open wifi on their home network just to cover their ass should they intend to use a torrent of shady network services. However, the question that pops into my mind is that given how easy the trigger finger on child porn actually is in the current climate, then why are the producers and consumers of child porn still on the regular internet and not in the TOR darknet? If consumers are already willing to use TOR to access these sites there's no barrier to switch at all. The producers could even offer a legit site with no illegal content hosted there but which just redirects the browser to the (current) TOR address. I suppose there's a market for consumers who aren't using TOR but I would suspect that segment to be continuously shrinkin in the form of being prosecuted.