5 ms·

The fundamental misunderstanding here is that police (and, down the chain, other authorities) actually care about the nature of an exit node. From their perspec

by 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.
GHFigs 14y ago
In all likelihood... What are you basing that on, exactly?
- Udo 14y ago
  It's the primary reason why running an exit node on your own is considered an unwise move. That guy is responsible for the IP addresses he uses. A telecom company, on the other hand, wouldn't be. https://www.torproject.org/eff/tor-legal-faq.html.en https://www.torproject.org/eff/tor-legal-faq.html.en
  - GHFigs 14y ago
    I don't see how that answers my question. A non-zero risk does not mean "In all likelihood" things would unfold as you have depicted them.
AnthonyMouse 14y ago
You're describing a show trial. Not to say that they don't exist (or are even particularly rare), but if you're in a country that has them, you're pretty well already screwed regardless of Tor or anything else, because all it takes to throw you in prison for a decade or more is for a cop in your vicinity who needs to make his quota to decide he doesn't like anyone with a beard (or anyone without a beard, or people who are taller or shorter than he is, or brown people, etc.) In countries where you get a legitimate opportunity to make your case, cases like these get thrown out, because the prosecutor is almost always required to prove that you knew the nature of the material, which in the case of an exit node (where "he ran an exit node" is the only evidence), they can't very well do. For exactly the same reason that ISP employees aren't prosecuted for the same thing. Which brings it back to the issue at hand: You have people who apparently (barring additional evidence beyond running an exit node) are not guilty of the offense in question, but still the police bust into their facilities and steal their stuff. That should not be allowed to happen.
- Udo 14y ago
  That's not what I meant. Given the chronic technophobia of the legal system and the current laws, they practically don't have a choice. He's not a telecom company, so he'll be responsible for whatever his IP address hosts. The seedy nature of Tor doesn't help here either.
  - AnthonyMouse 14y ago
    >He's not a telecom company, so he'll be responsible for whatever his IP address hosts. I would challenge you to point to a specific law that actually says that. I'm not saying you can't (there are a lot of countries in the world with a lot of ridiculous laws), but what you're saying would prohibit internet cafes, public libraries with computer terminals, coffee houses or hotels with wifi, etc., because none of them are telcom companies and they allow unauthenticated or poorly authenticated members of the public to use their IP address. The truth is complicated. But if we're trying to get things to work how they should work, raiding Tor exit nodes just because they're Tor exit nodes is not in the cards. Even if the existing laws are defective in some jurisdictions, they can be fixed, and in the meantime police and prosecutors are very often allowed the discretion to not go out of their way to harass potentially innocent suspects. I may be asking too much asking for them to actually exercise it.
ryusage 14y ago
If the police are sophisticated enough to track illegal activity to this guy's IP address, then they ought to be sophisticated enough that they will also perform some digital forensics on his computers (not to mention, smart enough that they can probably understand vaguely what Tor does). If he's really involved in something, they will expect to find some evidence of that on his machine. If it's coming from other users, through Tor, then the evidence ought to demonstrate that.

by Udo 14y ago

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.

GHFigs 14y ago

In all likelihood... What are you basing that on, exactly?

Udo 14y ago
It's the primary reason why running an exit node on your own is considered an unwise move. That guy is responsible for the IP addresses he uses. A telecom company, on the other hand, wouldn't be. https://www.torproject.org/eff/tor-legal-faq.html.en https://www.torproject.org/eff/tor-legal-faq.html.en
- GHFigs 14y ago
  I don't see how that answers my question. A non-zero risk does not mean "In all likelihood" things would unfold as you have depicted them.

AnthonyMouse 14y ago

You're describing a show trial. Not to say that they don't exist (or are even particularly rare), but if you're in a country that has them, you're pretty well already screwed regardless of Tor or anything else, because all it takes to throw you in prison for a decade or more is for a cop in your vicinity who needs to make his quota to decide he doesn't like anyone with a beard (or anyone without a beard, or people who are taller or shorter than he is, or brown people, etc.) In countries where you get a legitimate opportunity to make your case, cases like these get thrown out, because the prosecutor is almost always required to prove that you knew the nature of the material, which in the case of an exit node (where "he ran an exit node" is the only evidence), they can't very well do. For exactly the same reason that ISP employees aren't prosecuted for the same thing. Which brings it back to the issue at hand: You have people who apparently (barring additional evidence beyond running an exit node) are not guilty of the offense in question, but still the police bust into their facilities and steal their stuff. That should not be allowed to happen.

Udo 14y ago
That's not what I meant. Given the chronic technophobia of the legal system and the current laws, they practically don't have a choice. He's not a telecom company, so he'll be responsible for whatever his IP address hosts. The seedy nature of Tor doesn't help here either.
- AnthonyMouse 14y ago
  >He's not a telecom company, so he'll be responsible for whatever his IP address hosts. I would challenge you to point to a specific law that actually says that. I'm not saying you can't (there are a lot of countries in the world with a lot of ridiculous laws), but what you're saying would prohibit internet cafes, public libraries with computer terminals, coffee houses or hotels with wifi, etc., because none of them are telcom companies and they allow unauthenticated or poorly authenticated members of the public to use their IP address. The truth is complicated. But if we're trying to get things to work how they should work, raiding Tor exit nodes just because they're Tor exit nodes is not in the cards. Even if the existing laws are defective in some jurisdictions, they can be fixed, and in the meantime police and prosecutors are very often allowed the discretion to not go out of their way to harass potentially innocent suspects. I may be asking too much asking for them to actually exercise it.

ryusage 14y ago

If the police are sophisticated enough to track illegal activity to this guy's IP address, then they ought to be sophisticated enough that they will also perform some digital forensics on his computers (not to mention, smart enough that they can probably understand vaguely what Tor does). If he's really involved in something, they will expect to find some evidence of that on his machine. If it's coming from other users, through Tor, then the evidence ought to demonstrate that.