4 ms·

I'm actually very interested in setting aside some storage for this project but have legal concerns. Namely, if an encrypted shard of [illegal file X] is sittin

I'm actually very interested in setting aside some storage for this project but have legal concerns. Namely, if an encrypted shard of [illegal file X] is sitting on my IPFS node without my knowledge, could I be held responsible legally for holding/distributing that illegal file? As far as I've been able to ascertain from a few lawyers I've curbsided, the answer is "maybe," but if anyone knows of any clear legal precedent around this issue, I'd appreciate your input. Seems like this issue could preclude mainstream adoption, if not addressed (maybe it has been and I just haven't seen it).

viraptor 9y ago
Most likely this depends on the country. For the US, I guess it would be most interesting to read the DMCA safe harbour definitions and see if they apply to you as ipfs storage provider.
heyplanet 9y ago
What would be 'mainstream adoption' in this context?
albertgoeswoof 9y ago
Yes, you could be held legally responsible. Do you have the funds to mount a reasonable defense if you were to be prosecuted? Would a negative outcome significantly impact your life? If you can’t afford to fight it don’t risk it
- vel0city 9y ago
  IANAL, but from my understanding of the DMCA Safe Habor provisions it could be very tricky to hold a host responsible for data stored on their servers unknowingly. However, once they find out about the file's illegality, they must act or then they become liable. Amazon is not immediately liable if someone uploads illegal files to S3.
  - xur17 9y ago
    My understanding is that you have to register a DMCA notification agent in order to be eligible for DMCA Safe Harbor: http://www.haynesboone.com/alerts/dmca-safe-harbor-protection http://www.haynesboone.com/alerts/dmca-safe-harbor-protectio...
  - albertgoeswoof 9y ago
    The GP just incriminated themselves now though I.e. “The defendant installed software that they knew could be used to store illegal materials, proceeded to profit off it, and did not put any protections in place to try to limit this” For some judges that’s all they’d need to hear. Amazon have lawyers and essentially an endless budget, processes and teams to defend their position and support law enforcement, they have no trouble defending themselves, but an individual could find themselves in a really tough position.
    - Nuzzerino 9y ago
      There needs to be a point at which one can reasonably determine that someone has done everything they possibly can, short of not running the node, to keep illegal content off of their machines. I don't think the only solution need be to abstain from using the system. This is an age-old problem, almost as old as the Internet itself.
      - albertgoeswoof 9y ago
        Completely agree
- regulation_d 9y ago
  IANAL, but these statements seem to fly in the face of the general requirement that a actor must have the requisite mens rea to commit a crime. There certainly are exceptions to the mens rea requirement, but it seems like if you're making a conclusory statement like "Yes, you could be held legally responsible.", then you should provide some reasoning for why that would be the case.
  - sowbug 9y ago
    There's contributory infringement in copyright law, but copyright law is so far out of balance these days that I'm hesitant to draw an inference from it. This otherwise sounds like worrying that you'll be charged with armed robbery because the robbers threw their gun onto your lawn while escaping the cops. Yeah, sure, that could happen, but only through a series of factual misunderstandings about who did what, not because you actually committed a crime.
- jessriedel 9y ago
  Source?
throwwwwaway9 9y ago
>> if an encrypted shard of [illegal file X] is sitting on my IPFS node without my knowledge, could I be held responsible legally for holding/distributing that illegal file? It's a very interesting question. If it ever happens. So let's freeze it for now. I mean if they use the funds to develop the company, instead of buying Ferraris and mansions.
prophesi 9y ago
From what I've heard on the ipfs irc, there should be a whitelist/blacklist feature so that you could make sure you're not hosting anything shady.
- siavosh 9y ago
  Ip? Hashes?
  - krisives 9y ago
    Hashes. You have to know a hash to get content and the content.
    - siavosh 9y ago
      Can't imagine that would work for preventing? Folks can just do a minor edit of the file to go around the blacklist. That said I imagine the solution for any hosting company applies to would be filecoin'ers too, on request of the government, certain hashes are publicized and update your node to blacklist them after the fact?
      - krisives 9y ago
        That's how all blacklists work.
      - toomuchtodo 9y ago
        Extra step would be using tineye.com or local machine vision to generate hashes for your blacklist based on visually similar images.
blacksmith_tb 9y ago
It seems like a safer way to dabble would be to set IPFS up on a VPS hosted somewhere with more favorable laws (OVH, e.g.) - though I suppose you might run into bandwidth limits.
- jsmthrowaway 9y ago
  You are still the operator, subject to the laws of your jurisdiction.
- dx034 9y ago
  Neither Canada nor France (main data centre locations of OVS) are favorable when it comes to child pornography (for a good reason!). Same for terrorism-related material. We're not talking about copyright breaches only.
thescriptkiddie 9y ago
If the government starts making files illegal, we have bigger problems.
- TylerE 9y ago
  Ever hear of child pornography?
dx034 9y ago
My concern too and the reason why I think it'll never truly work. IF someone can proof that you stored child pornography on your system then good luck fighting that. Professional storage providers have legal departments that very carefully design systems in a way to avoid any responsibility. Also, those are limited liability companies and companies can't go to jail. As a private individual, I'd never offer to store anyone's data.
sowbug 9y ago
I spent a little time searching for evidence of people getting in trouble for running an open WiFi AP that someone else used for illegal activity. Didn't find anything. Possibly relevant to your question.

viraptor 9y ago

Most likely this depends on the country. For the US, I guess it would be most interesting to read the DMCA safe harbour definitions and see if they apply to you as ipfs storage provider.

heyplanet 9y ago

What would be 'mainstream adoption' in this context?

albertgoeswoof 9y ago

Yes, you could be held legally responsible. Do you have the funds to mount a reasonable defense if you were to be prosecuted? Would a negative outcome significantly impact your life? If you can’t afford to fight it don’t risk it

vel0city 9y ago
IANAL, but from my understanding of the DMCA Safe Habor provisions it could be very tricky to hold a host responsible for data stored on their servers unknowingly. However, once they find out about the file's illegality, they must act or then they become liable. Amazon is not immediately liable if someone uploads illegal files to S3.
- xur17 9y ago
  My understanding is that you have to register a DMCA notification agent in order to be eligible for DMCA Safe Harbor: http://www.haynesboone.com/alerts/dmca-safe-harbor-protection http://www.haynesboone.com/alerts/dmca-safe-harbor-protectio...
- albertgoeswoof 9y ago
  The GP just incriminated themselves now though I.e. “The defendant installed software that they knew could be used to store illegal materials, proceeded to profit off it, and did not put any protections in place to try to limit this” For some judges that’s all they’d need to hear. Amazon have lawyers and essentially an endless budget, processes and teams to defend their position and support law enforcement, they have no trouble defending themselves, but an individual could find themselves in a really tough position.
  - Nuzzerino 9y ago
    There needs to be a point at which one can reasonably determine that someone has done everything they possibly can, short of not running the node, to keep illegal content off of their machines. I don't think the only solution need be to abstain from using the system. This is an age-old problem, almost as old as the Internet itself.
    - albertgoeswoof 9y ago
      Completely agree
regulation_d 9y ago
IANAL, but these statements seem to fly in the face of the general requirement that a actor must have the requisite mens rea to commit a crime. There certainly are exceptions to the mens rea requirement, but it seems like if you're making a conclusory statement like "Yes, you could be held legally responsible.", then you should provide some reasoning for why that would be the case.
- sowbug 9y ago
  There's contributory infringement in copyright law, but copyright law is so far out of balance these days that I'm hesitant to draw an inference from it. This otherwise sounds like worrying that you'll be charged with armed robbery because the robbers threw their gun onto your lawn while escaping the cops. Yeah, sure, that could happen, but only through a series of factual misunderstandings about who did what, not because you actually committed a crime.
jessriedel 9y ago
Source?

throwwwwaway9 9y ago

>> if an encrypted shard of [illegal file X] is sitting on my IPFS node without my knowledge, could I be held responsible legally for holding/distributing that illegal file? It's a very interesting question. If it ever happens. So let's freeze it for now. I mean if they use the funds to develop the company, instead of buying Ferraris and mansions.

prophesi 9y ago

From what I've heard on the ipfs irc, there should be a whitelist/blacklist feature so that you could make sure you're not hosting anything shady.

siavosh 9y ago
Ip? Hashes?
- krisives 9y ago
  Hashes. You have to know a hash to get content and the content.
  - siavosh 9y ago
    Can't imagine that would work for preventing? Folks can just do a minor edit of the file to go around the blacklist. That said I imagine the solution for any hosting company applies to would be filecoin'ers too, on request of the government, certain hashes are publicized and update your node to blacklist them after the fact?
    - krisives 9y ago
      That's how all blacklists work.
    - toomuchtodo 9y ago
      Extra step would be using tineye.com or local machine vision to generate hashes for your blacklist based on visually similar images.

blacksmith_tb 9y ago

It seems like a safer way to dabble would be to set IPFS up on a VPS hosted somewhere with more favorable laws (OVH, e.g.) - though I suppose you might run into bandwidth limits.

jsmthrowaway 9y ago
You are still the operator, subject to the laws of your jurisdiction.
dx034 9y ago
Neither Canada nor France (main data centre locations of OVS) are favorable when it comes to child pornography (for a good reason!). Same for terrorism-related material. We're not talking about copyright breaches only.

thescriptkiddie 9y ago

If the government starts making files illegal, we have bigger problems.

TylerE 9y ago
Ever hear of child pornography?

dx034 9y ago

My concern too and the reason why I think it'll never truly work. IF someone can proof that you stored child pornography on your system then good luck fighting that. Professional storage providers have legal departments that very carefully design systems in a way to avoid any responsibility. Also, those are limited liability companies and companies can't go to jail. As a private individual, I'd never offer to store anyone's data.

sowbug 9y ago

I spent a little time searching for evidence of people getting in trouble for running an open WiFi AP that someone else used for illegal activity. Didn't find anything. Possibly relevant to your question.