3 ms·

The article actually details that the proposal on the table is to make it a crime to run sites whose access is restricted by specific technical measures and who

The article actually details that the proposal on the table is to make it a crime to run sites whose access is restricted by specific technical measures and whose purpose or activity is oriented towards the goal of aiding crime. The notion that it would become a crime to run a tor exit node is actually speculation on the part of the authors of this article. But is not apparent to me how that would follow from such a law: For example, since anyone can access tor, and, by implication, any tor exit node, access to a tor exit node is not restricted in any way, so it would not seem to fall under this law in my opinion. As for running a tor hidden service, this would seem to apply but still: How do you draw the line between running a service where it just so happens that criminal business is conducted over that service, versus running a service whose purpose or activity is actually directed towards aiding crime?

cf498 8y ago
As I understand it it targets people hosting darknet markets and aims to allow for longer sentences for just making the market available independent from having to proof individual crimes committed through it. If i had to guess its a law as a reaction to the last two big busts of darknet markets/Forums in Germany. DeutschlandImDarkweb and Elysium. In both cases, the admins were largely sentenced for crimes unrelated to hosting the site. DeutschlandImDarkweb for aiding a murder by allowing the weapon sales to the munich shooter and Elysium for actually raping kids. With this law it will no longer be necessary to proof that individual sales through the platform actually happened. Not great, but (still) far away from outlawing tor exit nodes.
- mreome 8y ago
  That sounds like a reasonable explanation for the reason behind the law, but vague wordings are still problematic, more so when it comes to any complex technology. You don't want a vague law that could be reinterpreted as making it illegal to provide end-to-end encryption for non-financial or other legally protected data (the argument being that if there is no need for it from a business or legal perspective, then it must be encouraging illegal activities as why else would it need to be encrypted).
  - cf498 8y ago
    Absolutely, and there have been calls to ban tor in the past, so its not unrealistic. I just dont think this is going to be that yet.
    - mreome 8y ago
      But you're giving a tool to the people who want to ban it. Just because it's not an exact fit doesn't mean that someone can't use it to achieve their specific goals. Plus vagueness like this can create chilling effects that limit the establishment of things like Tor, and further serve to solidify the view that things like Tor and End-to-End encrypted chat are inherently bad/illegal.
mreome 8y ago
The problem with laws like these is just as you say... How do you draw the line? Vague laws allow the government to draw the line wherever they want to achieve their goals. It's speculation yes, but abusing and reinterpreting vague laws is something governments do quite regularly when it suites their needs. Unless you specifically clarify things, even the part you seem to think is clear can be interpreted differently. You say that a Tor node does not meet the criteria that "access is restricted by specific technical measures". But one could easily argue that Tor is a "specific technical measures" and access is to a Tor Node is restricted because you need to know what software to install and how to install it in order to access the Node. It could also be argued that any encrypted communications is "restricted" in that it's private. It's restricted to the parties involved and not visible to outside observers.
- beatgammit 8y ago
  Wouldn't an unencrypted website also fail the same test? You need specific software (web browser) to access a website. And if you allow that, encrypted websites (TLS) would probably fail because you further need a browser that supports TLS. If those don't fail, I don't see how Tor would fail, since Tor requires similar software (Tor browser) that if freely available, just like a web browser. Likewise, wouldn't other services, like video games and chat applications also fail because you can only access those through a specific app? Honestly, this seems completely unenforceable. If there's proof you've done something illegal, you can already be charged with that. If there isn't, then this law is too vague to add anything. This law should go straight to the dumpster...
  - kbwt 8y ago
    Latest revision of the law drops the "restricted access" condition. Diff can be found here: https://www.internet-strafrecht.com/wp-content/plugins/download-attachments/includes/download.php?id=2691 https://www.internet-strafrecht.com/wp-content/plugins/downl...

cf498 8y ago

As I understand it it targets people hosting darknet markets and aims to allow for longer sentences for just making the market available independent from having to proof individual crimes committed through it. If i had to guess its a law as a reaction to the last two big busts of darknet markets/Forums in Germany. DeutschlandImDarkweb and Elysium. In both cases, the admins were largely sentenced for crimes unrelated to hosting the site. DeutschlandImDarkweb for aiding a murder by allowing the weapon sales to the munich shooter and Elysium for actually raping kids. With this law it will no longer be necessary to proof that individual sales through the platform actually happened. Not great, but (still) far away from outlawing tor exit nodes.

mreome 8y ago
That sounds like a reasonable explanation for the reason behind the law, but vague wordings are still problematic, more so when it comes to any complex technology. You don't want a vague law that could be reinterpreted as making it illegal to provide end-to-end encryption for non-financial or other legally protected data (the argument being that if there is no need for it from a business or legal perspective, then it must be encouraging illegal activities as why else would it need to be encrypted).
- cf498 8y ago
  Absolutely, and there have been calls to ban tor in the past, so its not unrealistic. I just dont think this is going to be that yet.
  - mreome 8y ago
    But you're giving a tool to the people who want to ban it. Just because it's not an exact fit doesn't mean that someone can't use it to achieve their specific goals. Plus vagueness like this can create chilling effects that limit the establishment of things like Tor, and further serve to solidify the view that things like Tor and End-to-End encrypted chat are inherently bad/illegal.

mreome 8y ago

The problem with laws like these is just as you say... How do you draw the line? Vague laws allow the government to draw the line wherever they want to achieve their goals. It's speculation yes, but abusing and reinterpreting vague laws is something governments do quite regularly when it suites their needs. Unless you specifically clarify things, even the part you seem to think is clear can be interpreted differently. You say that a Tor node does not meet the criteria that "access is restricted by specific technical measures". But one could easily argue that Tor is a "specific technical measures" and access is to a Tor Node is restricted because you need to know what software to install and how to install it in order to access the Node. It could also be argued that any encrypted communications is "restricted" in that it's private. It's restricted to the parties involved and not visible to outside observers.

beatgammit 8y ago
Wouldn't an unencrypted website also fail the same test? You need specific software (web browser) to access a website. And if you allow that, encrypted websites (TLS) would probably fail because you further need a browser that supports TLS. If those don't fail, I don't see how Tor would fail, since Tor requires similar software (Tor browser) that if freely available, just like a web browser. Likewise, wouldn't other services, like video games and chat applications also fail because you can only access those through a specific app? Honestly, this seems completely unenforceable. If there's proof you've done something illegal, you can already be charged with that. If there isn't, then this law is too vague to add anything. This law should go straight to the dumpster...
- kbwt 8y ago
  Latest revision of the law drops the "restricted access" condition. Diff can be found here: https://www.internet-strafrecht.com/wp-content/plugins/download-attachments/includes/download.php?id=2691 https://www.internet-strafrecht.com/wp-content/plugins/downl...