7 ms·

1) The title is misleading. 2) If someone using your TOR node posts a message threatening to kill someone, YOU will be SWAT-ed first and only then police will

1) The title is misleading. 2) If someone using your TOR node posts a message threatening to kill someone, YOU will be SWAT-ed first and only then police will find out you run TOR exit-node and maybe you are not the one who posted it. You implicitly accept risks associated with your operation.

abiox 10y ago
> posts a message threatening to kill someone do internet threats generally hold any credibility? what's the actualization rate?
- maxlybbert 10y ago
  The question is "do police believe internet threats are credible?" It appears that many police departments do not find the threats credible by themselves, so SWATing isn't as dangerous as it was a few years ago. But it also appears that some police departments are more easily convinced than others. So the real question is "does the police department in my area -- the one most likely to decide whether to raid my house -- believe internet threats are credible?"
- Sohcahtoa82 10y ago
  Probably pretty close to 0%, but I think the question is a bit problematic. If the actualization rate is any greater than 0%, police need to respond, because if it gets ignored and the person making the threat actually follows through, then people will go up in arms about how someone said they were going to kill somebody and the police did nothing. Take another scenario. Some high school kid writes a tweet that he's going to shoot up his school tomorrow. Would it be fair for the school to get shut down and the kid taken into custody?
mirimir 10y ago
Yes, don't run Tor exits from home.
x1798DE 10y ago
Why would running a Tor exit node ever imply that the people exiting at that node are speaking on your behalf? Is a coffee shop "vouching" for you by letting you use its wifi? Is your ISP? And if you're a cop, why would you dispatch a SWAT team to a Tor exit node at all? You can see if the IP is on the list and if so you'll have a hell of a time proving that the traffic came from the person running it even if they did (after all, why would they even use their own IP address when you could have used Tor?). At that point, you're basically punishing a random, innocent person for the (legal) act of running an exit node.
- Dolores12 10y ago
  > Why would running a Tor exit node ever imply that the people exiting at that node are speaking on your behalf? If we imply that TOR exit-node owners are innocent by default, what stops me from installing TOR node, posts threatening messages and when police comes say "hey i am humble TOR node owner, look somewhere else"? > why would you dispatch a SWAT team SWAT was just an example. Whatever law enforcement agency that investigate your case. >You can see if the IP is on the list You have to know there is such thing as TOR exists & see first part of the comment.
  - comex 10y ago
    > If we imply that TOR exit-node owners are innocent by default, what stops me from installing TOR node, posts threatening messages and when police comes say "hey i am humble TOR node owner, look somewhere else"? If you're savvy enough to run a Tor exit node and want to post threatening messages, why wouldn't you use Tor yourself?… But anyway, at least in the United States, everyone is "innocent by default" - that is, until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. If the presence of a Tor exit node, or an open proxy, or an open Wi-Fi network, or any number of other things makes an IP address insufficient evidence by itself, well, that's too bad. It may still be sufficient evidence to launch an investigation into the owner of the Internet connection, to gather more evidence - but even then, the standard is based on the likelihood that they committed the crime, not something about incentives to run exit nodes.
fuzzybeard 10y ago
3) You'll have an army of pissed off cops who will try to find something to charge you with, like aiding and abetting or some other tertiary charge. And then you can HOPE a prosecutor doesn't try to make an example out of you by telling you to either plea to 6 months of jail or face a jury trial that could send you to jail for 30 years.

abiox 10y ago

> posts a message threatening to kill someone do internet threats generally hold any credibility? what's the actualization rate?

maxlybbert 10y ago
The question is "do police believe internet threats are credible?" It appears that many police departments do not find the threats credible by themselves, so SWATing isn't as dangerous as it was a few years ago. But it also appears that some police departments are more easily convinced than others. So the real question is "does the police department in my area -- the one most likely to decide whether to raid my house -- believe internet threats are credible?"
Sohcahtoa82 10y ago
Probably pretty close to 0%, but I think the question is a bit problematic. If the actualization rate is any greater than 0%, police need to respond, because if it gets ignored and the person making the threat actually follows through, then people will go up in arms about how someone said they were going to kill somebody and the police did nothing. Take another scenario. Some high school kid writes a tweet that he's going to shoot up his school tomorrow. Would it be fair for the school to get shut down and the kid taken into custody?

mirimir 10y ago

Yes, don't run Tor exits from home.

x1798DE 10y ago

Why would running a Tor exit node ever imply that the people exiting at that node are speaking on your behalf? Is a coffee shop "vouching" for you by letting you use its wifi? Is your ISP? And if you're a cop, why would you dispatch a SWAT team to a Tor exit node at all? You can see if the IP is on the list and if so you'll have a hell of a time proving that the traffic came from the person running it even if they did (after all, why would they even use their own IP address when you could have used Tor?). At that point, you're basically punishing a random, innocent person for the (legal) act of running an exit node.

Dolores12 10y ago
> Why would running a Tor exit node ever imply that the people exiting at that node are speaking on your behalf? If we imply that TOR exit-node owners are innocent by default, what stops me from installing TOR node, posts threatening messages and when police comes say "hey i am humble TOR node owner, look somewhere else"? > why would you dispatch a SWAT team SWAT was just an example. Whatever law enforcement agency that investigate your case. >You can see if the IP is on the list You have to know there is such thing as TOR exists & see first part of the comment.
- comex 10y ago
  > If we imply that TOR exit-node owners are innocent by default, what stops me from installing TOR node, posts threatening messages and when police comes say "hey i am humble TOR node owner, look somewhere else"? If you're savvy enough to run a Tor exit node and want to post threatening messages, why wouldn't you use Tor yourself?… But anyway, at least in the United States, everyone is "innocent by default" - that is, until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. If the presence of a Tor exit node, or an open proxy, or an open Wi-Fi network, or any number of other things makes an IP address insufficient evidence by itself, well, that's too bad. It may still be sufficient evidence to launch an investigation into the owner of the Internet connection, to gather more evidence - but even then, the standard is based on the likelihood that they committed the crime, not something about incentives to run exit nodes.

fuzzybeard 10y ago

3) You'll have an army of pissed off cops who will try to find something to charge you with, like aiding and abetting or some other tertiary charge. And then you can HOPE a prosecutor doesn't try to make an example out of you by telling you to either plea to 6 months of jail or face a jury trial that could send you to jail for 30 years.