35 ms·

As for uncensorable, if the content is illegal, the torrent peers may be incriminated distribution of illegal content

ballenf 10y ago
Neither argument has been tested, but the defense would that you were acting as an ISP with dumb pipes. Which logically leads to an unrelated question -- if ISPs are doing DPI on every packet, they at least theoretically 'know' whether you're transmitting 'illegal' content. If I were a rights holder, I'd be making that argument against ISPs. I don't know how I'd sleep at night, maybe, but I wouldn't let ISPs have their cake (valuable user data) and eat it too (immunity based on status as ISP-only).
- shakna 10y ago
  > Neither argument has been tested, but the defense would that you were acting as an ISP with dumb pipes. Unlikely. To become a peer, you must first visit the website, fully downloading the content. Which makes an argument to you consenting to share the information.
  - ballenf 10y ago
    Just like an ISP has to take your request and transmit it and the response. No difference in theory. In practice, I would worry whether courts would ignore theory.
    - shakna 10y ago
      But there is no person involved directly in the pipeline with an ISP. Every request goes through an automated process. Governments do and have asked ISPs to update and block against certain websites. Thus, the automated system is expected to behave adequately. However, as a person becomes involved, they become an active participant in the pipeline. That is a huge theoretical difference. A person is not automated, they have common reason, and intellect that goes beyond the rules that can be encoded in a dumb system. This reasoning is what allows us to hold a person accountable to their actions. If you visited a ZeroNet site, found it was bad stuff, immediately left and deleted the cache, you might have a case for innocence. But if you immediately left, but continued to actively share the content... It's a different message. You could become part of a child pornography ring, for example. And courts enjoy making examples of distributors of such materials. Pleading your innocence, becomes difficult at that point. You've shared illegal content from your own property.
      - marak830 10y ago
        I wonder how all that would change if you only had a portion of any of the files, at what point would they draw the line? Either way it's a damn difficult question to answer, but God's be damned if I wouldn't prefer a distributed internet.
        shakna 10y ago
        Hell yes, to both those points. At least IPFS is working hard towards Tor integration. That might be something one day.
        diggan 10y ago
        > At least IPFS is working hard towards Tor integration. That might be something one day. Actually, that day is today already! OpenBazaar had the same need of a Tor transport and made one! It's available here: https://github.com/OpenBazaar/go-onion-transport/ https://github.com/OpenBazaar/go-onion-transport/ Basically a plug-and-play transport for IPFS.
        kyledrake 10y ago
        I hope they get a chance to add a better README to that, looks interesting.
        diggan 10y ago
        Yeah, it's not the most documented repository. In the absence of that, you can check out the following document and implementation for some better understanding: - https://github.com/OpenBazaar/openbazaar-go/blob/4a9ee8de8fde0d657de62b66401fccdd3ca2c08e/docs/tor.md https://github.com/OpenBazaar/openbazaar-go/blob/4a9ee8de8fd... - https://github.com/OpenBazaar/openbazaar-go/blob/4a9ee8de8fde0d657de62b66401fccdd3ca2c08e/core/core.go https://github.com/OpenBazaar/openbazaar-go/blob/4a9ee8de8fd... Hope that helps a bit. Keep in mind that none of this have been verified and might not work as advertised. Just a warning.
    - eeZah7Ux 10y ago
      Courts exist to evaluate circumstantial evidence. Complex theories are often ignored. The ISP, like a container ship, is not responsible of every bit it moves around. Individuals are.
- mirimir 10y ago
  It's been tested for Freenet. LEA adversaries can participate, and identify peers. Judges issue subpoenas. Many defendants have accepted plea bargains. Plausible deniability doesn't work. What works is using Tor.
  - j_s 10y ago
    Even Tor isn't a magic bullet, specifically because of other technologies used in combination, such as a web browser. https://www.eff.org/pages/playpen-cases-frequently-asked-questions https://www.eff.org/pages/playpen-cases-frequently-asked-que...
    - mirimir 10y ago
      Yes, the FBI exploited a Firefox vulnerability to drop NIT malware on Playpen users. And said malware phoned home to FBI servers, bypassing Tor. However, any Whonix users would not have been affected, for two reasons. One, this was Windows malware, and Whonix is based on Debian. Two, Whonix comprises a pair of Debian VMs, a Tor-gateway VM and a workstation VM. Even if the malware had pwned the workstation VM, there is no route to the Internet except through Tor.
      - j_s 10y ago
        Then I recommend you change this: What works is using Tor. to this: What works is using [Whonix].
        mirimir 10y ago
        Too late to edit. But I added a comment. Thanks.
      - houst0n_ 10y ago
        If the workstation vm is pwned what stops it from hitting the usual home router internal network address and/or changing the route? Is there some network isolation going on which prevents that?
- avodonosov 10y ago
  I understand this logic, but state can then say that being ISPs without license is a crime too.

Neither argument has been tested, but the defense would that you were acting as an ISP with dumb pipes. Which logically leads to an unrelated question -- if ISPs are doing DPI on every packet, they at least theoretically 'know' whether you're transmitting 'illegal' content. If I were a rights holder, I'd be making that argument against ISPs. I don't know how I'd sleep at night, maybe, but I wouldn't let ISPs have their cake (valuable user data) and eat it too (immunity based on status as ISP-only).

shakna 10y ago
> Neither argument has been tested, but the defense would that you were acting as an ISP with dumb pipes. Unlikely. To become a peer, you must first visit the website, fully downloading the content. Which makes an argument to you consenting to share the information.
- ballenf 10y ago
  Just like an ISP has to take your request and transmit it and the response. No difference in theory. In practice, I would worry whether courts would ignore theory.
  - shakna 10y ago
    But there is no person involved directly in the pipeline with an ISP. Every request goes through an automated process. Governments do and have asked ISPs to update and block against certain websites. Thus, the automated system is expected to behave adequately. However, as a person becomes involved, they become an active participant in the pipeline. That is a huge theoretical difference. A person is not automated, they have common reason, and intellect that goes beyond the rules that can be encoded in a dumb system. This reasoning is what allows us to hold a person accountable to their actions. If you visited a ZeroNet site, found it was bad stuff, immediately left and deleted the cache, you might have a case for innocence. But if you immediately left, but continued to actively share the content... It's a different message. You could become part of a child pornography ring, for example. And courts enjoy making examples of distributors of such materials. Pleading your innocence, becomes difficult at that point. You've shared illegal content from your own property.
    - marak830 10y ago
      I wonder how all that would change if you only had a portion of any of the files, at what point would they draw the line? Either way it's a damn difficult question to answer, but God's be damned if I wouldn't prefer a distributed internet.
      - shakna 10y ago
        Hell yes, to both those points. At least IPFS is working hard towards Tor integration. That might be something one day.
        diggan 10y ago
        > At least IPFS is working hard towards Tor integration. That might be something one day. Actually, that day is today already! OpenBazaar had the same need of a Tor transport and made one! It's available here: https://github.com/OpenBazaar/go-onion-transport/ https://github.com/OpenBazaar/go-onion-transport/ Basically a plug-and-play transport for IPFS.
        kyledrake 10y ago
        I hope they get a chance to add a better README to that, looks interesting.
        diggan 10y ago
        Yeah, it's not the most documented repository. In the absence of that, you can check out the following document and implementation for some better understanding: - https://github.com/OpenBazaar/openbazaar-go/blob/4a9ee8de8fde0d657de62b66401fccdd3ca2c08e/docs/tor.md https://github.com/OpenBazaar/openbazaar-go/blob/4a9ee8de8fd... - https://github.com/OpenBazaar/openbazaar-go/blob/4a9ee8de8fde0d657de62b66401fccdd3ca2c08e/core/core.go https://github.com/OpenBazaar/openbazaar-go/blob/4a9ee8de8fd... Hope that helps a bit. Keep in mind that none of this have been verified and might not work as advertised. Just a warning.
  - eeZah7Ux 10y ago
    Courts exist to evaluate circumstantial evidence. Complex theories are often ignored. The ISP, like a container ship, is not responsible of every bit it moves around. Individuals are.
mirimir 10y ago
It's been tested for Freenet. LEA adversaries can participate, and identify peers. Judges issue subpoenas. Many defendants have accepted plea bargains. Plausible deniability doesn't work. What works is using Tor.
- j_s 10y ago
  Even Tor isn't a magic bullet, specifically because of other technologies used in combination, such as a web browser. https://www.eff.org/pages/playpen-cases-frequently-asked-questions https://www.eff.org/pages/playpen-cases-frequently-asked-que...
  - mirimir 10y ago
    Yes, the FBI exploited a Firefox vulnerability to drop NIT malware on Playpen users. And said malware phoned home to FBI servers, bypassing Tor. However, any Whonix users would not have been affected, for two reasons. One, this was Windows malware, and Whonix is based on Debian. Two, Whonix comprises a pair of Debian VMs, a Tor-gateway VM and a workstation VM. Even if the malware had pwned the workstation VM, there is no route to the Internet except through Tor.
    - j_s 10y ago
      Then I recommend you change this: What works is using Tor. to this: What works is using [Whonix].
      - mirimir 10y ago
        Too late to edit. But I added a comment. Thanks.
    - houst0n_ 10y ago
      If the workstation vm is pwned what stops it from hitting the usual home router internal network address and/or changing the route? Is there some network isolation going on which prevents that?
avodonosov 10y ago
I understand this logic, but state can then say that being ISPs without license is a crime too.