5 ms·

Could they use remote relays still?

by rudePolice 10y ago

imaginenore 10y ago
You probably could do all kinds of things, but is it worth the risk of getting jailed?
- molloy 10y ago
  The answer to that depends on the cause.
- eatbitseveryday 10y ago
  Only if banned = illegal?
  - nilved 10y ago
    Normally when a government bans something it is by making it illegal.
    - Cthulhu_ 10y ago
      Not exactly; there's a lot of instances where something is 'decriminalised', that is, it's technically banned but you won't be prosecuted for it. (e.g. weed in the Netherlands)
- cookiecaper 10y ago
  Depends on how serious the risk is. You run the risk of "getting jailed" for all kinds of minor crimes that people routinely commit. Are people actually going to get arrested for trying to use Tor? I don't think that's very plausible. You could pretty easily claim it was malware trying to make the connection and you don't know anything about it.
  - jlgaddis 10y ago
    Yeah, you could claim that. Then, they search your computer and find no traces of malware but they find a copy of the Tor Browser Bundle. Now what? Besides, law enforcement never just "takes your word for it". I've got a lot of friends in law enforcement and -- as far as "suspects" go -- they'll pretty much (attempt to) verify every claim you make.
    - cookiecaper 10y ago
      Plausible deniability/difficulty of conviction means that LEOs rarely pursue cases where that would apply. I agree once they open an investigation, they'll verify the claim; I'm saying that crimes that have high acquittal rates and/or low prosecutorial uptake will get less attention from the police because it's frustrating/difficult/wasteful to spend a lot of time on things that don't usually pan out. I don't know how the system works in Belarus so I understand it may not really matter there. The point is that it's going to be difficult to prove that the accused made an intentional connection to Tor as long as the accused and/or his/her lawyer has some technical literacy and knows what to say.
  - kbart 10y ago
    It's Belarus, police and laws work quite differently there.
ttmprow 10y ago
The article says it's only direct connections to public relays that are being interrupted, so plain ordinary connections (ie. not even using a pluggable transport) to a bridge still works.

Could they use remote relays still?

imaginenore 10y ago

You probably could do all kinds of things, but is it worth the risk of getting jailed?

molloy 10y ago
The answer to that depends on the cause.
eatbitseveryday 10y ago
Only if banned = illegal?
- nilved 10y ago
  Normally when a government bans something it is by making it illegal.
  - Cthulhu_ 10y ago
    Not exactly; there's a lot of instances where something is 'decriminalised', that is, it's technically banned but you won't be prosecuted for it. (e.g. weed in the Netherlands)
cookiecaper 10y ago
Depends on how serious the risk is. You run the risk of "getting jailed" for all kinds of minor crimes that people routinely commit. Are people actually going to get arrested for trying to use Tor? I don't think that's very plausible. You could pretty easily claim it was malware trying to make the connection and you don't know anything about it.
- jlgaddis 10y ago
  Yeah, you could claim that. Then, they search your computer and find no traces of malware but they find a copy of the Tor Browser Bundle. Now what? Besides, law enforcement never just "takes your word for it". I've got a lot of friends in law enforcement and -- as far as "suspects" go -- they'll pretty much (attempt to) verify every claim you make.
  - cookiecaper 10y ago
    Plausible deniability/difficulty of conviction means that LEOs rarely pursue cases where that would apply. I agree once they open an investigation, they'll verify the claim; I'm saying that crimes that have high acquittal rates and/or low prosecutorial uptake will get less attention from the police because it's frustrating/difficult/wasteful to spend a lot of time on things that don't usually pan out. I don't know how the system works in Belarus so I understand it may not really matter there. The point is that it's going to be difficult to prove that the accused made an intentional connection to Tor as long as the accused and/or his/her lawyer has some technical literacy and knows what to say.
- kbart 10y ago
  It's Belarus, police and laws work quite differently there.

ttmprow 10y ago

The article says it's only direct connections to public relays that are being interrupted, so plain ordinary connections (ie. not even using a pluggable transport) to a bridge still works.