6 ms·

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 c

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.
    - tracker1 11y ago
      Then the government is responsible for most crime, because roads are used to transport stolen goods an facilitate a huge number of crimes... we need to stop the roads.
jakobegger 11y ago
Slightly improved analogy: They found drugs in his car, but didn't tell the judge that he left his keys in the car so that anybody could use it.

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.
  - tracker1 11y ago
    Then the government is responsible for most crime, because roads are used to transport stolen goods an facilitate a huge number of crimes... we need to stop the roads.

jakobegger 11y ago

Slightly improved analogy: They found drugs in his car, but didn't tell the judge that he left his keys in the car so that anybody could use it.