6 ms·

The end goal is probably to get you to do what you did, which is shut down the exit node. If they make it painful to run a Tor exit node, they make Tor harder t

The end goal is probably to get you to do what you did, which is shut down the exit node. If they make it painful to run a Tor exit node, they make Tor harder to use.

lolinder 2y ago
Exactly. Which is not as obviously an unethical approach as some here would think—if you are standing between law enforcement and a bomb threat, "I'm intentionally ignorant of the activities of the people that I'm shielding" is a morally dubious place to stand. The law allows law enforcement to subpoena records related to an investigation like this, and I honestly think it's fair to force Tor exit node operators to handle those subpoenas every time, even if the answer is always the same. To have some sort of automated process in place to deflect blame allows an exit node operator to ignore the real damage their work can do. They may still decide that the good that they're doing outweighs the bad, but forcing them to see the negative consequences of shielding anyone who wants a shield has value.
- courseofaction 2y ago
  Is that the horseman we're giving up our rights for today?
  - lolinder 2y ago
    Your right to knowingly run a service that is used by people to kill other people while never having to interact with the consequences of that decision? I'm not suggesting people shouldn't be able to run a Tor exit node. I'm suggesting that people who run Tor exit nodes should occasionally have to a deal with a subpoena that says "your exit node was used by a criminal to hurt people in ${these ways} and we require any information you have to help apprehend the attacker." I don't want to deprive anyone of the right to make a moral decision, but I do want them to feel the weight of the full import of that decision.
    - aspenmayer 2y ago
      If it is moral for the US government to create Tor, it is moral to use it. Sure, it may be it’s a tragedy of the commons, but there’s no individual moral accountability or responsibility for those running Tor because of things other people do or don’t do on it. That’s outside anyone’s ability to control anyway.
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
      - Nursie 2y ago
        > there’s no individual moral accountability or responsibility Of course there is. If I am deciding whether to dedicate resources, money and time to running a service which - a) Helps dissidents in authoritarian regimes communicate freely and b) Enables bad actors to send threats and/or move CSAM around Then that is absolutely a moral choice I need to make. It's not outside your control, you get to decide whether or not to provide the service.
    - AnthonyMouse 2y ago
      > Your right to knowingly run a service that is used by people to kill other people while never having to interact with the consequences of that decision? Can you name a product or service for which this is not the case? Militaries use general purpose software to design weapons. Murderers use vehicles and transit systems. We don't expect the government to harass the makers of cutlery because they provided a product used in a mugging.
      - lolinder 2y ago
        I think that any creator of any tool should be faced on a regular basis with the harm that that tool causes and have to make the call on a regular basis if it's still worth it.
        AnthonyMouse 2y ago
        So steel workers should get a subpoena they have no effective means to respond to on a regular basis because steel is used to make all manner of weapons and machinery that gets used by bad actors?

The end goal is probably to get you to do what you did, which is shut down the exit node. If they make it painful to run a Tor exit node, they make Tor harder to use.

lolinder 2y ago

Exactly. Which is not as obviously an unethical approach as some here would think—if you are standing between law enforcement and a bomb threat, "I'm intentionally ignorant of the activities of the people that I'm shielding" is a morally dubious place to stand. The law allows law enforcement to subpoena records related to an investigation like this, and I honestly think it's fair to force Tor exit node operators to handle those subpoenas every time, even if the answer is always the same. To have some sort of automated process in place to deflect blame allows an exit node operator to ignore the real damage their work can do. They may still decide that the good that they're doing outweighs the bad, but forcing them to see the negative consequences of shielding anyone who wants a shield has value.

courseofaction 2y ago
Is that the horseman we're giving up our rights for today?
- lolinder 2y ago
  Your right to knowingly run a service that is used by people to kill other people while never having to interact with the consequences of that decision? I'm not suggesting people shouldn't be able to run a Tor exit node. I'm suggesting that people who run Tor exit nodes should occasionally have to a deal with a subpoena that says "your exit node was used by a criminal to hurt people in ${these ways} and we require any information you have to help apprehend the attacker." I don't want to deprive anyone of the right to make a moral decision, but I do want them to feel the weight of the full import of that decision.
  - aspenmayer 2y ago
    If it is moral for the US government to create Tor, it is moral to use it. Sure, it may be it’s a tragedy of the commons, but there’s no individual moral accountability or responsibility for those running Tor because of things other people do or don’t do on it. That’s outside anyone’s ability to control anyway.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - Nursie 2y ago
      > there’s no individual moral accountability or responsibility Of course there is. If I am deciding whether to dedicate resources, money and time to running a service which - a) Helps dissidents in authoritarian regimes communicate freely and b) Enables bad actors to send threats and/or move CSAM around Then that is absolutely a moral choice I need to make. It's not outside your control, you get to decide whether or not to provide the service.
  - AnthonyMouse 2y ago
    > Your right to knowingly run a service that is used by people to kill other people while never having to interact with the consequences of that decision? Can you name a product or service for which this is not the case? Militaries use general purpose software to design weapons. Murderers use vehicles and transit systems. We don't expect the government to harass the makers of cutlery because they provided a product used in a mugging.
    - lolinder 2y ago
      I think that any creator of any tool should be faced on a regular basis with the harm that that tool causes and have to make the call on a regular basis if it's still worth it.
      - AnthonyMouse 2y ago
        So steel workers should get a subpoena they have no effective means to respond to on a regular basis because steel is used to make all manner of weapons and machinery that gets used by bad actors?