5 ms·

No you can easily prove it wasn't you that sent the traffic, simply look at case law for all of the torrenters absolved from having open wifi access points. Th

by o-__-o 7y ago

No you can easily prove it wasn't you that sent the traffic, simply look at case law for all of the torrenters absolved from having open wifi access points. The problem is your hardware is locked up in a criminal trial, which realistically means you ain't getting it back. And they're not just going for that device you used with a VPN, they're taking any possible device that connected to the VPN including routers, laptops, iphones, tablets, connected hard drives, etc. THAT is the reason why a rational actor won't use such a service.

rtempaccount1 7y ago
How do you prove the traffic wasn't sent by you, if you don't know the software that was being used to hijack your connection was even installed?
- o-__-o 7y ago
  You wait for the investigation to finish and you are absolved of any wrong doing. If they don't absolve you, then you ask this question to the judge in court.
Majromax 7y ago
> they're taking any possible device that connected to the VPN including routers, laptops, iphones, tablets, connected hard drives, etc. Mind you, that's just sensible evidence-gathering. If law enforcement thinks that the homeowner did in fact act illegally and is using the VPN for deniability, then there would be ample cause to search attached or potentially-attached devices for direct evidence of illegal behaviour. If some is found, that's compelling circumstantial evidence that other identified VPN activity was also instigated by the connection-owner.
- Drdrdrq 7y ago
  And inefficiency which results in delays in getting this equipment back to the owners is obviously just an unfortunate side effect. /s
  - o-__-o 7y ago
    Yes, the police and courts are here to serve us, the people, but that means we have to wait for them to clear their backlog from other people to get to our case. It will always be resolved within a reasonable time, like <4 years.
derefr 7y ago
In this case, I'm suggesting a world where someone isn't using any VPN services themselves, but their computer ends up infected with this Oxylabs "residential proxy" malware. In such a case, if the person is then charged with cybercrime, a cybercrime expert hired by the defence could do discovery on the confiscated computer, find the Oxylabs proxy installed on it (which the defendant was unaware of), and then present the fact of that installation on the witness stand as an alternative explanation for any evidence of wrongdoing that the prosecution presents, creating reasonable doubt.
- o-__-o 7y ago
  Now how long before the investigation wraps up and trial begins where you can bring your witness to the stand. Could be at least 2 years. So again, a reasonable actor would not want that and thus would avoid questionable services like Oxylabs
  - derefr 7y ago
    > So again, a reasonable actor would not want that and thus would avoid questionable services like Oxylabs Right, but, I'm not talking about a situation where you have any say in the matter, but rather where computers are just being infected by this malware no matter what. Posit a variant of this malware that acts as a worm, rather than as a Trojan horse. Certainly, you'd not want to allow it to be installed on your own personal computer (as, for one thing, it's snooping on you!); but it'd be very good for your presumption of innocence if everyone else had it on their computers—because, if enough people have it on their computers, then it becomes so likely that any random person has it on their computer that prosecution based on only SIGINT-ish evidence would never go forward in the first place, and therefore police forces would stop bothering to even pursue such avenues of investigation. By analogy: the existence of Photoshop protects you from a variety of criminal accusations. You might not want anyone to photoshop you into a picture of e.g. a KKK rally, but the fact that anyone easily could create such an image out of whole cloth, means that such images don't prove anything. There's a higher evidentiary bar for suspicion of guilt of such crimes in a world where Photoshop exists, than in a world where it doesn't. And, in a world where the average person couldn't get away from random people hijacking their Internet connection without their consent, there'd be a higher evidentiary bar for suspicion of guilt of cybercrime. Which would be nice.

by o-__-o 7y ago

rtempaccount1 7y ago

How do you prove the traffic wasn't sent by you, if you don't know the software that was being used to hijack your connection was even installed?

o-__-o 7y ago
You wait for the investigation to finish and you are absolved of any wrong doing. If they don't absolve you, then you ask this question to the judge in court.

Majromax 7y ago

> they're taking any possible device that connected to the VPN including routers, laptops, iphones, tablets, connected hard drives, etc. Mind you, that's just sensible evidence-gathering. If law enforcement thinks that the homeowner did in fact act illegally and is using the VPN for deniability, then there would be ample cause to search attached or potentially-attached devices for direct evidence of illegal behaviour. If some is found, that's compelling circumstantial evidence that other identified VPN activity was also instigated by the connection-owner.

Drdrdrq 7y ago
And inefficiency which results in delays in getting this equipment back to the owners is obviously just an unfortunate side effect. /s
- o-__-o 7y ago
  Yes, the police and courts are here to serve us, the people, but that means we have to wait for them to clear their backlog from other people to get to our case. It will always be resolved within a reasonable time, like <4 years.

derefr 7y ago

In this case, I'm suggesting a world where someone isn't using any VPN services themselves, but their computer ends up infected with this Oxylabs "residential proxy" malware. In such a case, if the person is then charged with cybercrime, a cybercrime expert hired by the defence could do discovery on the confiscated computer, find the Oxylabs proxy installed on it (which the defendant was unaware of), and then present the fact of that installation on the witness stand as an alternative explanation for any evidence of wrongdoing that the prosecution presents, creating reasonable doubt.

o-__-o 7y ago
Now how long before the investigation wraps up and trial begins where you can bring your witness to the stand. Could be at least 2 years. So again, a reasonable actor would not want that and thus would avoid questionable services like Oxylabs
- derefr 7y ago
  > So again, a reasonable actor would not want that and thus would avoid questionable services like Oxylabs Right, but, I'm not talking about a situation where you have any say in the matter, but rather where computers are just being infected by this malware no matter what. Posit a variant of this malware that acts as a worm, rather than as a Trojan horse. Certainly, you'd not want to allow it to be installed on your own personal computer (as, for one thing, it's snooping on you!); but it'd be very good for your presumption of innocence if everyone else had it on their computers—because, if enough people have it on their computers, then it becomes so likely that any random person has it on their computer that prosecution based on only SIGINT-ish evidence would never go forward in the first place, and therefore police forces would stop bothering to even pursue such avenues of investigation. By analogy: the existence of Photoshop protects you from a variety of criminal accusations. You might not want anyone to photoshop you into a picture of e.g. a KKK rally, but the fact that anyone easily could create such an image out of whole cloth, means that such images don't prove anything. There's a higher evidentiary bar for suspicion of guilt of such crimes in a world where Photoshop exists, than in a world where it doesn't. And, in a world where the average person couldn't get away from random people hijacking their Internet connection without their consent, there'd be a higher evidentiary bar for suspicion of guilt of cybercrime. Which would be nice.