7 ms·
I know this opinion is not going to be popular, but here it goes: by running a Tor exit, you're letting anonymous people do whatever they want in your behalf, b
by andoon 9y ago
I know this opinion is not going to be popular, but here it goes: by running a Tor exit, you're letting anonymous people do whatever they want in your behalf, because the exit IP address relates their activities to you. I believe it's irresponsible to do so. This kind of stuff is going to happen.
I also don't believe the "an IP address doesn't identify a person" mantra that's so widely used in the privacy-aware circles. Your ISP gives you an IP address for yourself, and if you let others use it, you know you can get yourself in trouble, the same you'd get yourself in trouble if you let anybody who asked you use a rifle of yours, or a car. Would you let someone you don't know at all drive your car? What if he runs over someone? Would you be responsible of it for letting him use your car? Would you risk going to prison?
The alternative is worse: I could be looking at pedophilia or terrorism sites all day and if they catch me say "well I also run a Tor exit node so how do you prove it was me!". Your IP identifies you, so be responsible!
- hilyen 9y agoHonest question, its not illegal to run an unrestricted wifi access point, and you can't be held accountable for others using that ip for illegal means in court today. So how does this differ from running a TOR exit node?
- PeterisP 9y agoWell, in Russia it is illegal to run an unrestricted wifi access point - since 2014 you're technically supposed to verify identities of everyone you give access. Many don't, but it's technically illegal - so if they don't like you for whatever reason, then that wifi will be valid reason to punish you, by making you accountable for others using that for illegal means. And people in Russia have went to jail literally for pressing 'Like' on a single post.
- humanrebar 9y ago> ...the same you'd get yourself in trouble if you let anybody who asked you use a rifle of yours. You lost me here. This is more like letting someone make a call with your phone. Rifles are inherently dangerous, even gun enthusiasts agree on that. We're talking about information more broadly here.
- andoon 9y agoFor what reason would a person want to use Tor instead of his regular connection? And before you tell me Tor is nothing more than a privacy tool, remember that most sites ban Tor exits because the majority of users are troublemakers.
- M_Grey 9y ago>And before you tell me Tor is nothing more than a privacy tool, remember that most sites ban Tor exits because the majority of users are troublemakers. So... don't tell you the truth, because you've already decided that a bunch of anonymous people are "bad". Have you ever considered a career in law enforcement or politics?
- andoon 9y agoWhat's the truth? Most websites require you to fill a captcha, confirm your mobile number, or simply block you if you happen to use the service from a Tor exit. That's something you can check yourself, go to the big sites (Alexa top for example), and see it. Even Hacker News shows you a captcha if you register from Tor. Do you believe those sites are in some kind of major plot to bother Tor users, or they simply are fed up with the abuse coming from Tor? Ockham's razor.
- abiox 9y ago> Ockham's razor state actors are annoyed by whistleblowers. tor is useful to whistleblowers. tor is bad.
- int_19h 9y agoAre you talking about most websites worldwide, or most websites in US specifically, or the West in general? Because if it's the latter, then your sample suffers from rather extreme selection bias.
- billmalarky 9y agoSeriously? I imagine >95% of consumers would adopt tor quickly if browsing performance was comparable to standard browsing (hell it would be packaged with firefox). The general public hates being tracked and having their privacy invaded. Just look at the political mess created when congress gave ISP's the right to sell user browsing data at the end of last month.
- zzzcpan 9y ago> I could be looking at pedophilia or terrorism sites all day and if they catch me say "well I also run a Tor exit node so how do you prove it was me!" Why would that be a problem, looking at things on the internet? But advocating to sacrifice anonymity is a problem. It makes those fighting governments very vulnerable and easily silenced. And gives a way for governments to take action against anonymity.
- gambiting 9y agoI also agree that merely looking at things shouldn't be illegal, no matter how offensive or disturbing the content is. After all, we wouldn't arrest someone for reading a book, and there are some pretty fucked up books out there. So why is it different with the internet?
- seanp2k2 9y agoThe internet is faster and more accessible than publishing a book, which makes government critters anxious that people will use it to spread controversial ideas and eventually take down the establishment.
- loup-vaillant 9y ago> and eventually take down the establishment. That last one is kinda inevitable. The internet, even the spied centralised version we see at Facebook and Gmail, has a flattening effect: for the first time in recorded History, people can write. And other people respond to them. Even the printing press failed to achieve that —mostly. Sure, there are bubbles and such, but there no escaping the fact that public forums train people in public debates. This will have a political effect. Now I can only hope the transition will not be too bloody.
- hutzlibu 9y ago> and eventually take down the establishment. >> That last one is kinda inevitable. It allways is and was. Happened allready many times, it is called human history ;)
- wruza 9y agoIP address is too weak point of such failure. Your wifi password can leak or be guessed, and wired connection can have mitm so easily. Trojans may operate as exit nodes of some dark network. IP should not be used as identity in any way even in investigation process (not to mention courts). IP doesn't identify you, it simply leads to your connection point. In practice though, these clinical cretins can throw you into russian jail for two months without taking counter-evidence into account. Just because.
- wyager 9y ago> the same you'd get yourself in trouble if you let anybody who asked you use a rifle of yours. If someone borrows my car and crashes into someone else, I'm not legally responsible. Same goes for companies that let anyone use their cars, like rental services.
- maxlybbert 9y agoThis story illustrates why Tor will never actually bring down a repressive regime. Tor appears to be based on the idea that if you can't prove who actually said something, then you can't punish them. Repressive regimes can punish those people anyway.
- mirimir 9y agoYou're missing a key point. Consider North Korea. I doubt that there are many Tor exits there. But if North Koreans can access Tor, they can use exits elsewhere. And it's unlikely that the North Korean government will be assassinating Tor exit operators. So there's nobody for it to punish.
- palunon 9y agoNorth Koreans, outside of a select few, can't access the internet, and thus can't access Tor anyway.
- mirimir 9y agoOK, so make it Americans. I don't believe that the US is prosecuting foreign Tor relay operators, either.
- maxlybbert 9y agoI know the US isn't perfect, but is it the kind of repressive regime that the Tor project talks about? Or, to put it another way, should Tor consider it a success that they can take down regimes no more repressive than the US?
- mirimir 9y agoI won't be drawn into a debate on relative repressiveness. But consider how LGBT activists were generally harassed a decade or two ago. And still are, in some parts of the US. Or the War on Drugs. I'm sure that some Tor supporters in the CIA are hot on taking down particular regimes. But I don't recall seeing that as an official Tor Project use case. Regarding the example of North Korea, I'm sure that there are ways of hitting Tor. At least, if you can reach the Internet at all. Maybe it's not worth the risk, however.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]