30 ms·

Yes, but they should be able to investigate without placing an undue burden on exit node operators (or regular people with a compromised device that was used as

by gary_0 2y ago

Yes, but they should be able to investigate without placing an undue burden on exit node operators (or regular people with a compromised device that was used as a proxy). Unfortunately it's hard not to be cynical and assume that these kinds of overreactions (and worse) are going to continue. But in my opinion, any society where policing is convenient for the police is a horrible place to live. (Is it really such a radical concept that law enforcement should be focused on protecting the innocent, not punishing the guilty?)

lolinder 2y ago
> but they should be able to investigate without placing an undue burden on exit node operators Is the burden undue? A Tor exit node operator has made the ethical judgment call that they're doing more good than harm. That might be a reasonable position to take, but I don't think it's unreasonable for us to expect an operator to face up to exactly what it is that they are doing. I'm fully on board with any bomb threats (as just one example) leading to a subpoena on the exit node operator who shielded the threat actor, even if the answer is the same every time. Making the decision that you're doing more good than harm requires you to fully understand the harm that you're justifying, and law enforcement subpoenaing you every single time is one way to make it very clear what it is that you're choosing.
- gary_0 2y ago
  I can think of very few cases where the possibility of your home being raided by heavily armed police officers, and your property seized, is appropriate if it's clear all you're doing is running software. (Side note: I'm surprised how often attitudes on this site are at odds with the "hacker" part of "Hacker News".) It is fair that running an exit node might be inconvenient, maybe even to the point where consulting a lawyer is advisable, but I think we should draw a hard line at direct threats to an innocent person's liberty, livelihood, and physical safety. That kind of fear is definitely an "undue burden".
  - lolinder 2y ago
    Yes, I can agree that an armed raid or the threat thereof is definitely an undue burden. > it's clear all you're doing is running software. (Side note: I'm surprised how often attitudes on this site are at odds with the "hacker" part of "Hacker News".) I do not view software as amoral. It's a tool, and like any tool it is an extension of myself. Software that I run is acting on my behalf, and what my software is designed to do is something that I should be held morally accountable for. I'm not sure when the hacker ethos came to mean that "just running software" absolved you from having to account for the damage your software causes, but if that's what the hacker ethos is about then yes, you can count me out.
    - gary_0 2y ago
      My point was that running any kind of software should not come with a presumption of guilt. But in the eyes of the establishment, it often does; see: Aaron Swartz, or how pressing F12 might be illegal[0], or many other such cases. A "hacker" should not have any sympathy for this kind of draconian knee-jerking. [0] https://techcrunch.com/2021/10/15/f12-isnt-hacking-missouri-governor-threatens-to-prosecute-local-journalist-for-finding-exposed-state-data/ https://techcrunch.com/2021/10/15/f12-isnt-hacking-missouri-...
      - lolinder 2y ago
        > should not come with a presumption of guilt Where is the presumption of guilt? A threat of violence was traced to their IP and they were served a subpoena to provide information that might lead to finding the threat actor before they actually hurt anyone. No one even accused OP of a crime, much less presumed their guilt.
        gary_0 2y ago
        I don't mean in the judicial sense, I mean in terms of how they are treated by law enforcement.
        2y ago
- dgfitz 2y ago
  Scenario: LEOs knock on your door and take everything connected to the internet. Why? Your home was running an exit node. Who? Your 12 year old. Yeah yeah “parents should know” but given the rash of shootings by young people, fuck that argument.
- Hizonner 2y ago
  > law enforcement subpoenaing you every single time is one way to make it very clear what it is that you're choosing. That's not what subpoenas are for, and it would be a really stupid waste of time and resources. If you really want to do that, just send them an email.
  - lolinder 2y ago
    An email can be filtered, doing that with a subpoena would be... silly. > a really stupid waste of time and resources Subpoenas are used all the time in cases where they're not expected to be inherently useful for acquiring information. If law enforcement is going to take 10x as long to find the perp because you hid them, I don't see a problem with them sharing that burden with you a bit—there are externalities here that should be internalized.
- ruthmarx 2y ago
  > Is the burden undue? Yes. > A Tor exit node operator has made the ethical judgment call that they're doing more good than harm. They are. Absolutely. It's not really a question. > Making the decision that you're doing more good than harm requires you to fully understand the harm that you're justifying, and law enforcement subpoenaing you every single time is one way to make it very clear what it is that you're choosing. No, that's just harassment.

by gary_0 2y ago

lolinder 2y ago

> but they should be able to investigate without placing an undue burden on exit node operators Is the burden undue? A Tor exit node operator has made the ethical judgment call that they're doing more good than harm. That might be a reasonable position to take, but I don't think it's unreasonable for us to expect an operator to face up to exactly what it is that they are doing. I'm fully on board with any bomb threats (as just one example) leading to a subpoena on the exit node operator who shielded the threat actor, even if the answer is the same every time. Making the decision that you're doing more good than harm requires you to fully understand the harm that you're justifying, and law enforcement subpoenaing you every single time is one way to make it very clear what it is that you're choosing.

gary_0 2y ago
I can think of very few cases where the possibility of your home being raided by heavily armed police officers, and your property seized, is appropriate if it's clear all you're doing is running software. (Side note: I'm surprised how often attitudes on this site are at odds with the "hacker" part of "Hacker News".) It is fair that running an exit node might be inconvenient, maybe even to the point where consulting a lawyer is advisable, but I think we should draw a hard line at direct threats to an innocent person's liberty, livelihood, and physical safety. That kind of fear is definitely an "undue burden".
- lolinder 2y ago
  Yes, I can agree that an armed raid or the threat thereof is definitely an undue burden. > it's clear all you're doing is running software. (Side note: I'm surprised how often attitudes on this site are at odds with the "hacker" part of "Hacker News".) I do not view software as amoral. It's a tool, and like any tool it is an extension of myself. Software that I run is acting on my behalf, and what my software is designed to do is something that I should be held morally accountable for. I'm not sure when the hacker ethos came to mean that "just running software" absolved you from having to account for the damage your software causes, but if that's what the hacker ethos is about then yes, you can count me out.
  - gary_0 2y ago
    My point was that running any kind of software should not come with a presumption of guilt. But in the eyes of the establishment, it often does; see: Aaron Swartz, or how pressing F12 might be illegal[0], or many other such cases. A "hacker" should not have any sympathy for this kind of draconian knee-jerking. [0] https://techcrunch.com/2021/10/15/f12-isnt-hacking-missouri-governor-threatens-to-prosecute-local-journalist-for-finding-exposed-state-data/ https://techcrunch.com/2021/10/15/f12-isnt-hacking-missouri-...
    - lolinder 2y ago
      > should not come with a presumption of guilt Where is the presumption of guilt? A threat of violence was traced to their IP and they were served a subpoena to provide information that might lead to finding the threat actor before they actually hurt anyone. No one even accused OP of a crime, much less presumed their guilt.
      - gary_0 2y ago
        I don't mean in the judicial sense, I mean in terms of how they are treated by law enforcement.
        2y ago
dgfitz 2y ago
Scenario: LEOs knock on your door and take everything connected to the internet. Why? Your home was running an exit node. Who? Your 12 year old. Yeah yeah “parents should know” but given the rash of shootings by young people, fuck that argument.
Hizonner 2y ago
> law enforcement subpoenaing you every single time is one way to make it very clear what it is that you're choosing. That's not what subpoenas are for, and it would be a really stupid waste of time and resources. If you really want to do that, just send them an email.
- lolinder 2y ago
  An email can be filtered, doing that with a subpoena would be... silly. > a really stupid waste of time and resources Subpoenas are used all the time in cases where they're not expected to be inherently useful for acquiring information. If law enforcement is going to take 10x as long to find the perp because you hid them, I don't see a problem with them sharing that burden with you a bit—there are externalities here that should be internalized.
ruthmarx 2y ago
> Is the burden undue? Yes. > A Tor exit node operator has made the ethical judgment call that they're doing more good than harm. They are. Absolutely. It's not really a question. > Making the decision that you're doing more good than harm requires you to fully understand the harm that you're justifying, and law enforcement subpoenaing you every single time is one way to make it very clear what it is that you're choosing. No, that's just harassment.