11 ms·

It seems like a lot of people are objecting to the raid/seizure itself in addition to the possibility of conviction, so I have a question. Is it reasonable for

by tomku 14y ago

It seems like a lot of people are objecting to the raid/seizure itself in addition to the possibility of conviction, so I have a question. Is it reasonable for the police to investigate an exit node operator for traffic coming from his node, even if they know he's an exit node operator? The way I see it, it's their job* to determine whether the traffic in question was relayed, or whether it was the exit node operator himself generating that traffic. In an ideal world, they could just call him up and ask nicely - but if he was actually guilty, he'd say "No, no way it was me!" and immediately start destroying any evidence. On the other hand, raiding someone's home or server rack and confiscating all of their computers isn't a great solution if most exit node operators are not guilty themselves. I'm not aware of a good solution that avoids inconveniencing exit node operators without giving them some kind of blanket immunity to investigation that goes beyond just relayed traffic. * - I'm aware that this might be impossible, but you can't know whether it will be ahead of time. It's possible that they could raid him and find no proof, even if he's guilty. It's also possible that they could raid him and find exactly what they were looking for. Like many investigation tactics, there's no guaranteed payoff.

ChuckMcM 14y ago
In the strict public policy sense you could argue the raid/seizure either way; The pro-raid argument would go "This activity harms society by allowing criminal activity which is part of the economics of exploiting children, thus it is right for the state to step in and make these raids to identify and contain those threats." Then you could make the anti-raid argument, "The economic disruption of taking a legitimate business off-line and possibly causing irreparable harm to innocent citizens does not warrant such a drastic measure without solid evidence of complicity in the commission of a crime." In the United States there is an analogous situation which is that of the 'high speed pursuit.' In the pursuit situation the officers have strong reason to believe the driver of a vehicle was involved in a crime and seek to arrest them. The driver of the vehicle doesn't want to be arrested and so they drive away quickly. If the officers give chase, they greatly increase the chance that harm will come to innocent bystanders. If they don't give chase they risk losing their suspect. Generally those debates come down to things like "what crime might they have committed?" and if it was failure to stop for a right turn, that is seen as not being as 'reasonable to chase' as hit and run vehicular manslaughter. I tend to fall into the "Do the police work to figure out who the crooks are and if you need the co-operation of an end-node provider then get a warrant to compel that co-operation." But I also have spoken to officers who feel that such restrictions are 'red tape' and keep them from doing the job they were paid to do. In this particular case we don't have the police version of the story. Perhaps they think this guy is complicit? Did they raid/seize any other end nodes? Did they have a warrant and what did it say? Had this person been involved in other questionable activities? "Presumption of innocence" is not a principle that extends outside of US borders so its always difficult to contextualize police action in other countries to Americans who take their constitution for granted.
- morsch 14y ago
  > "Presumption of innocence" is not a principle that extends outside of US borders so its always difficult to contextualize police action in other countries to Americans who take their constitution for granted. What? There's nothing particularly American about the principle, it's an accepted core tenet of all democratic countries and many of the others.
  - hkmurakami 14y ago
    There is a wide spectrum for how strictly "presumption of innocence" is followed in various societies in practice though. The creator of the Winny filesharing program in Japan was dismissed from his Tokyo University Research Assistant position as he went to trial: "On May 10, 2004, Kaneko was arrested for suspected conspiracy to commit copyright violation by the High-tech Crime Taskforce of the Kyoto Prefectural Police. Kaneko was released on bail on June 1, 2004. The court hearings started in September 2004 at Kyoto district court. On December 13, 2006, Kaneko was convicted of assisting copyright violations and sentenced to pay a fine of ¥1.5 million (about US$13,200).[3] He appealed the ruling. On October 8, 2009, the guilty verdict was overturned by the Osaka High Court.[4] On December 20, 2011, Kaneko was cleared of all charges after a panel of judges agreed that the prosecution could not prove that he had any intention to promote the software for illegal use.[5] [6]" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winny#Criminal_procedure http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winny#Criminal_procedure) He was definitely treated by society as if he were guilty of the crime as soon as he was arrested.
    - marvin 14y ago
      By that standard, suspects are often presumed guilty by society even in the USA (for instance, suspected rapists and other sex offenders). The presumption of innocence is still considered one of the core principles of democracy and/or the rule of law.
      - ChuckMcM 14y ago
        Its a fair point, its much more codified elsewhere than it was at one time. And to be fair the US has been doing things like locking people in Guantanamo without due process which is disturbing in itself. The point I was trying to make clear was that I recognize trying to interpret a story involving the actions of a the police in a country which doesn't have the same legal climate as the one I live in, it fraught with dangers in making assumptions that don't or won't hold up.
AnthonyMouse 14y ago
>Is it reasonable for the police to investigate an exit node operator for traffic coming from his node, even if they know he's an exit node operator? Realistically, no. It's a fishing expedition -- it's like raiding the phone company's offices when someone has used a prepaid burner phone because they have the ability to spoof the IP address or phone number of any of their unidentifiable customers. There is no more reason to suspect that the exit node operator is at fault than any other ISP. Especially given the amount of harassment these raids cause for the victims -- can you reasonably state that the police should be able to enter a telco hotel and shut down and confiscate all of the equipment because not all of the traffic passing through it can be traced to an identifiable source? If not then what makes this different? >I'm not aware of a good solution that avoids inconveniencing exit node operators without giving them some kind of blanket immunity to investigation that goes beyond just relayed traffic. The solution is to rely on less disruptive investigative means until sufficient evidence is available to determine whether the exit node operator is the likely source of the traffic. For example, get a warrant and wiretap their phone and email and see if they're trafficking in illicit materials through those channels. Have an undercover cop chat them up and set up a sting if they're doing something illegal. Standard police work.
- Udo 14y ago
  The fundamental misunderstanding here is that police (and, down the chain, other authorities) actually care about the nature of an exit node. From their perspective all they see is that this guy's IP address was used to distribute child pornography. All his stuff is gone, and they will persecute him for that offense. In all likelihood the court trial will go like this: Defendant: "But I was merely running a Tor exit node!" Judge: "What's that?" Court-appointed expert: "It's a computer program that allows pedophiles to exchange pictures online." Judge: "I see. That'll be 10 years jail time plus court costs. Also, please stand by for your copyright infringement trial that came out of searching your computer equipment. Thanks. Next!"
  - unavoidable 14y ago
    If the guy has a halfway competent lawyer, that is not what the judge will think. This grossly oversimplifies the exigencies of law enforcement versus the courts. Law enforcement is forced to take down things like exit nodes because they have no other way of tracking down the originators. Whether that will stick in court is an entirely different matter.
wissler 14y ago
I think the root problem is that modern governments aren't trustworthy with our freedom of speech, which leads people to try to hide their perfectly legitimate free speech activity, but criminals want to hide too so it's an inherently dodgy proposition. The only really good solution is to fix the governments so we can have an era where people can feel free to exercise their freedom of speech without repercussion from barbarians.
- stinkytaco 14y ago
  No, the root problem is not modern governments, it’s modern social norms. Which, frankly, aren't a problem, they just are. That is why anonymity and security are important, despite the government's position (which will often reflect social norms). Try to engage in unpopular speech and then later apply for a job. Or simply try to be a public figure whilst trying to have some privacy. There will always be a place for these tools because there will always be people not just governments, who disagree with you and are willing to show you how much.
  - wissler 14y ago
    So, you actually think that social norms are not a problem? Seriously? What about the norms that led Galileo to house arrest, or many to being burned at the stake, etc. etc.?
    - stinkytaco 14y ago
      I think it's a pointless exercise. They just "are", simple as that. Problem or not, there's no point in trying to judge a society by some arbitrary set of rules that really don't understand how it got there or why those norms exist. My point is that if you feel they are a problem then you need tools to protect yourself while you work to change those "root causes".
      - wissler 14y ago
        It's not "arbitrary" to decide e.g. that German society should not put Jews into a gas chamber. Your ideas here of not judging norms are just deranged and you should fix that, just like societies that have accepted deranged norms should fix them. You may think my standards here are arbitrary but you need to fix that.
downandout 14y ago
Depending on the specific laws in Austria, being an exit node operator may make him as guilty as whomever was actually perpetrating the crime. Even if this specific case works out, governments in general won't take Tor or similar services lying down. For every privacy innovation, there is a lawmaker with the will and the means to destroy it. As Tor becomes a part of more and more investigations, courts and lawmakers will begin to address the issues such networks present. Based on the unsavory reputation of the Tor network as a whole, prosecutors will begin arguing that the exit node operators know of the strong likelihood that they are enabling criminal activity, and will start asking juries to convict them as co-conspirators. If that doesn't work, they will begin lobbying their lawmakers to codify criminal responsibility for them.
lazyjones 14y ago
> Is it reasonable for the police to investigate an exit node operator for traffic coming from his node, even if they know he's an exit node operator? In theory, you are right and the police would probably need to examine his servers to determine whether Tor was involved in this. In practice, they will probably just harrass people in the hope that they will confess and keep his servers for a long time (or forever) because they lack the expertise for such an investigation.
arrrg 14y ago
It’s a separate issue, but raids and seizures itself are very problematic. The police will usually take everything with them and keep it for months. That made sense some decades ago when they took mostly binders with paper, now it in itself can act a lot like a punishment. Computers are not just vessels containing data, they are also tools. It’s unreasonable for the police to take away tools for months.
- jre 14y ago
  Wouldn't it help if exit node were run by associations renting some office space instead of individuals ? I mean, the president (and other members) of the association can still be charged with criminal offence, but having a legal structure might help. At least they should raid the association's office instead of the member's homes.
- csense 14y ago
  It's probably part of the police mentality of "He's a suspect, that means he's guilty, but if we can't prove it in court we know he'll get off." So they punish him extrajudicially by taking as much stuff as they can, delaying as long as they can sending it back, and sending it back in as poor condition as possible. If they Google him and realize he's begging for legal defense funds online, they'll know he's not strong enough to sue them.
- cloverich 14y ago
  What is the reasoning for taking anything more than the Hard drives?
  - DanBC 14y ago
    The people doing the taking are not technical. Thus, "take anything" is safer than "take these things but don't bother with these other things". Hopefully the irrelevant stuff can be returned quickly. It'd be good if forensic images could be taken quickly and then all the equipment returned.
    - WilliamAT 14y ago
paweln 14y ago
It is reasonable if the government wants to kill the tor network and start censoring internet, by scaring people off running tor nodes. If they succeed in this case more countries may follow, so it is important to win this.
- tomku 14y ago
  So given that attitude, how do you deal with the problem of exit node operators possibly performing illegal activities themselves? Should running an exit node give you blanket protection from any kind of investigation due to traffic coming out of your network?
  - AdmiralBeotch 14y ago
    I am a TOR exit operator and I strictly follow the guidelines established by the EFF. I never connect to my exit nodes for any purpose other than routine maintenance and when I do, it's well documented: times, purpose, etc. By minimizing my access, I remove myself from suspicion for any activity done through my node.
  - paweln82 14y ago
    We either have freedom or speech: sending any data to anyone or we do not. "He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither." -- Benjamin Franklin I choose freedom.
    - DanBC 14y ago
      You don't have freedom of speech. You don't have freedom of speech in the US and you certainly don't have it in Austria.
      - jlgreco 14y ago
        What does the reality of what freedoms we actually enjoy have to do with what freedoms we should expect others to demand? I may not have freedom of speech in the US, but I sure as hell can demand it. I expect to be given that freedom, even though I do not expect that will ever happen.
drcube 14y ago
It wouldn't be that big of a deal if the cops just searched his computers/hard drives, concluded he wasn't involved in the child porn, and gave him his hardware back with a "sorry for the inconvenience". But it doesn't happen that way. If Austria is anything like the US, he will never get his property back. So it isn't a temporary inconvenience, he's been punished permanently before even getting a trial. And when this case does go to court, even if he wins he'll be very lucky to get his property back.
- tomku 14y ago
  I absolutely agree that seizure rules need to be SEVERELY reformed, and that the way that seizures are currently carried out is unacceptable. However, I don't think that it fundamentally changes the situation in this case. Until seizure rules end up getting reformed, law enforcement plays with the hand they've got, not the hand we wish they had. If the choices are between "permanent" seizure or just walking away from a suspect, they'll go for the seizure every time. Seizing equipment for at least some period of time is absolutely necessary for any kind of forensic examination. It's part of the cost of having laws, and the imperfect nature of human justice means that that cost will occasionally be paid by the innocent as well as the guilty. I agree that that cost should be lower so that innocent people are not unduly punished, but there will always be a cost.

by tomku 14y ago

ChuckMcM 14y ago

In the strict public policy sense you could argue the raid/seizure either way; The pro-raid argument would go "This activity harms society by allowing criminal activity which is part of the economics of exploiting children, thus it is right for the state to step in and make these raids to identify and contain those threats." Then you could make the anti-raid argument, "The economic disruption of taking a legitimate business off-line and possibly causing irreparable harm to innocent citizens does not warrant such a drastic measure without solid evidence of complicity in the commission of a crime." In the United States there is an analogous situation which is that of the 'high speed pursuit.' In the pursuit situation the officers have strong reason to believe the driver of a vehicle was involved in a crime and seek to arrest them. The driver of the vehicle doesn't want to be arrested and so they drive away quickly. If the officers give chase, they greatly increase the chance that harm will come to innocent bystanders. If they don't give chase they risk losing their suspect. Generally those debates come down to things like "what crime might they have committed?" and if it was failure to stop for a right turn, that is seen as not being as 'reasonable to chase' as hit and run vehicular manslaughter. I tend to fall into the "Do the police work to figure out who the crooks are and if you need the co-operation of an end-node provider then get a warrant to compel that co-operation." But I also have spoken to officers who feel that such restrictions are 'red tape' and keep them from doing the job they were paid to do. In this particular case we don't have the police version of the story. Perhaps they think this guy is complicit? Did they raid/seize any other end nodes? Did they have a warrant and what did it say? Had this person been involved in other questionable activities? "Presumption of innocence" is not a principle that extends outside of US borders so its always difficult to contextualize police action in other countries to Americans who take their constitution for granted.

morsch 14y ago
> "Presumption of innocence" is not a principle that extends outside of US borders so its always difficult to contextualize police action in other countries to Americans who take their constitution for granted. What? There's nothing particularly American about the principle, it's an accepted core tenet of all democratic countries and many of the others.
- hkmurakami 14y ago
  There is a wide spectrum for how strictly "presumption of innocence" is followed in various societies in practice though. The creator of the Winny filesharing program in Japan was dismissed from his Tokyo University Research Assistant position as he went to trial: "On May 10, 2004, Kaneko was arrested for suspected conspiracy to commit copyright violation by the High-tech Crime Taskforce of the Kyoto Prefectural Police. Kaneko was released on bail on June 1, 2004. The court hearings started in September 2004 at Kyoto district court. On December 13, 2006, Kaneko was convicted of assisting copyright violations and sentenced to pay a fine of ¥1.5 million (about US$13,200).[3] He appealed the ruling. On October 8, 2009, the guilty verdict was overturned by the Osaka High Court.[4] On December 20, 2011, Kaneko was cleared of all charges after a panel of judges agreed that the prosecution could not prove that he had any intention to promote the software for illegal use.[5] [6]" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winny#Criminal_procedure http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winny#Criminal_procedure) He was definitely treated by society as if he were guilty of the crime as soon as he was arrested.
  - marvin 14y ago
    By that standard, suspects are often presumed guilty by society even in the USA (for instance, suspected rapists and other sex offenders). The presumption of innocence is still considered one of the core principles of democracy and/or the rule of law.
    - ChuckMcM 14y ago
      Its a fair point, its much more codified elsewhere than it was at one time. And to be fair the US has been doing things like locking people in Guantanamo without due process which is disturbing in itself. The point I was trying to make clear was that I recognize trying to interpret a story involving the actions of a the police in a country which doesn't have the same legal climate as the one I live in, it fraught with dangers in making assumptions that don't or won't hold up.

AnthonyMouse 14y ago

>Is it reasonable for the police to investigate an exit node operator for traffic coming from his node, even if they know he's an exit node operator? Realistically, no. It's a fishing expedition -- it's like raiding the phone company's offices when someone has used a prepaid burner phone because they have the ability to spoof the IP address or phone number of any of their unidentifiable customers. There is no more reason to suspect that the exit node operator is at fault than any other ISP. Especially given the amount of harassment these raids cause for the victims -- can you reasonably state that the police should be able to enter a telco hotel and shut down and confiscate all of the equipment because not all of the traffic passing through it can be traced to an identifiable source? If not then what makes this different? >I'm not aware of a good solution that avoids inconveniencing exit node operators without giving them some kind of blanket immunity to investigation that goes beyond just relayed traffic. The solution is to rely on less disruptive investigative means until sufficient evidence is available to determine whether the exit node operator is the likely source of the traffic. For example, get a warrant and wiretap their phone and email and see if they're trafficking in illicit materials through those channels. Have an undercover cop chat them up and set up a sting if they're doing something illegal. Standard police work.

Udo 14y ago
The fundamental misunderstanding here is that police (and, down the chain, other authorities) actually care about the nature of an exit node. From their perspective all they see is that this guy's IP address was used to distribute child pornography. All his stuff is gone, and they will persecute him for that offense. In all likelihood the court trial will go like this: Defendant: "But I was merely running a Tor exit node!" Judge: "What's that?" Court-appointed expert: "It's a computer program that allows pedophiles to exchange pictures online." Judge: "I see. That'll be 10 years jail time plus court costs. Also, please stand by for your copyright infringement trial that came out of searching your computer equipment. Thanks. Next!"
- unavoidable 14y ago
  If the guy has a halfway competent lawyer, that is not what the judge will think. This grossly oversimplifies the exigencies of law enforcement versus the courts. Law enforcement is forced to take down things like exit nodes because they have no other way of tracking down the originators. Whether that will stick in court is an entirely different matter.

wissler 14y ago

I think the root problem is that modern governments aren't trustworthy with our freedom of speech, which leads people to try to hide their perfectly legitimate free speech activity, but criminals want to hide too so it's an inherently dodgy proposition. The only really good solution is to fix the governments so we can have an era where people can feel free to exercise their freedom of speech without repercussion from barbarians.

stinkytaco 14y ago
No, the root problem is not modern governments, it’s modern social norms. Which, frankly, aren't a problem, they just are. That is why anonymity and security are important, despite the government's position (which will often reflect social norms). Try to engage in unpopular speech and then later apply for a job. Or simply try to be a public figure whilst trying to have some privacy. There will always be a place for these tools because there will always be people not just governments, who disagree with you and are willing to show you how much.
- wissler 14y ago
  So, you actually think that social norms are not a problem? Seriously? What about the norms that led Galileo to house arrest, or many to being burned at the stake, etc. etc.?
  - stinkytaco 14y ago
    I think it's a pointless exercise. They just "are", simple as that. Problem or not, there's no point in trying to judge a society by some arbitrary set of rules that really don't understand how it got there or why those norms exist. My point is that if you feel they are a problem then you need tools to protect yourself while you work to change those "root causes".
    - wissler 14y ago
      It's not "arbitrary" to decide e.g. that German society should not put Jews into a gas chamber. Your ideas here of not judging norms are just deranged and you should fix that, just like societies that have accepted deranged norms should fix them. You may think my standards here are arbitrary but you need to fix that.

downandout 14y ago

Depending on the specific laws in Austria, being an exit node operator may make him as guilty as whomever was actually perpetrating the crime. Even if this specific case works out, governments in general won't take Tor or similar services lying down. For every privacy innovation, there is a lawmaker with the will and the means to destroy it. As Tor becomes a part of more and more investigations, courts and lawmakers will begin to address the issues such networks present. Based on the unsavory reputation of the Tor network as a whole, prosecutors will begin arguing that the exit node operators know of the strong likelihood that they are enabling criminal activity, and will start asking juries to convict them as co-conspirators. If that doesn't work, they will begin lobbying their lawmakers to codify criminal responsibility for them.

lazyjones 14y ago

> Is it reasonable for the police to investigate an exit node operator for traffic coming from his node, even if they know he's an exit node operator? In theory, you are right and the police would probably need to examine his servers to determine whether Tor was involved in this. In practice, they will probably just harrass people in the hope that they will confess and keep his servers for a long time (or forever) because they lack the expertise for such an investigation.

arrrg 14y ago

It’s a separate issue, but raids and seizures itself are very problematic. The police will usually take everything with them and keep it for months. That made sense some decades ago when they took mostly binders with paper, now it in itself can act a lot like a punishment. Computers are not just vessels containing data, they are also tools. It’s unreasonable for the police to take away tools for months.

jre 14y ago
Wouldn't it help if exit node were run by associations renting some office space instead of individuals ? I mean, the president (and other members) of the association can still be charged with criminal offence, but having a legal structure might help. At least they should raid the association's office instead of the member's homes.
csense 14y ago
It's probably part of the police mentality of "He's a suspect, that means he's guilty, but if we can't prove it in court we know he'll get off." So they punish him extrajudicially by taking as much stuff as they can, delaying as long as they can sending it back, and sending it back in as poor condition as possible. If they Google him and realize he's begging for legal defense funds online, they'll know he's not strong enough to sue them.
cloverich 14y ago
What is the reasoning for taking anything more than the Hard drives?
- DanBC 14y ago
  The people doing the taking are not technical. Thus, "take anything" is safer than "take these things but don't bother with these other things". Hopefully the irrelevant stuff can be returned quickly. It'd be good if forensic images could be taken quickly and then all the equipment returned.
  - WilliamAT 14y ago

paweln 14y ago

It is reasonable if the government wants to kill the tor network and start censoring internet, by scaring people off running tor nodes. If they succeed in this case more countries may follow, so it is important to win this.

tomku 14y ago
So given that attitude, how do you deal with the problem of exit node operators possibly performing illegal activities themselves? Should running an exit node give you blanket protection from any kind of investigation due to traffic coming out of your network?
- AdmiralBeotch 14y ago
  I am a TOR exit operator and I strictly follow the guidelines established by the EFF. I never connect to my exit nodes for any purpose other than routine maintenance and when I do, it's well documented: times, purpose, etc. By minimizing my access, I remove myself from suspicion for any activity done through my node.
- paweln82 14y ago
  We either have freedom or speech: sending any data to anyone or we do not. "He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither." -- Benjamin Franklin I choose freedom.
  - DanBC 14y ago
    You don't have freedom of speech. You don't have freedom of speech in the US and you certainly don't have it in Austria.
    - jlgreco 14y ago
      What does the reality of what freedoms we actually enjoy have to do with what freedoms we should expect others to demand? I may not have freedom of speech in the US, but I sure as hell can demand it. I expect to be given that freedom, even though I do not expect that will ever happen.

drcube 14y ago

It wouldn't be that big of a deal if the cops just searched his computers/hard drives, concluded he wasn't involved in the child porn, and gave him his hardware back with a "sorry for the inconvenience". But it doesn't happen that way. If Austria is anything like the US, he will never get his property back. So it isn't a temporary inconvenience, he's been punished permanently before even getting a trial. And when this case does go to court, even if he wins he'll be very lucky to get his property back.

tomku 14y ago
I absolutely agree that seizure rules need to be SEVERELY reformed, and that the way that seizures are currently carried out is unacceptable. However, I don't think that it fundamentally changes the situation in this case. Until seizure rules end up getting reformed, law enforcement plays with the hand they've got, not the hand we wish they had. If the choices are between "permanent" seizure or just walking away from a suspect, they'll go for the seizure every time. Seizing equipment for at least some period of time is absolutely necessary for any kind of forensic examination. It's part of the cost of having laws, and the imperfect nature of human justice means that that cost will occasionally be paid by the innocent as well as the guilty. I agree that that cost should be lower so that innocent people are not unduly punished, but there will always be a cost.