4 ms·

Tor is supposed to hide you online. In this case, it did the opposite

• deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
• TillE 13y ago
  It's not even close to "the opposite". If the kid had sent the email without Tor, they'd be instantly able to prove it was him. With Tor, it could only be a suspicion. Not proof.
  • mike-cardwell 13y ago
    Yeah. "Opposite" would be Tor outing you as the source of the bomb threat. In this case, it was simply ineffective because it was used incorrectly. Tor doesn't claim to hide the fact that you are using it.
• russelluresti 13y ago
  It will be interesting to see this case go to court. Unless I'm not reading the article correctly, it sounds like all they have are (1) an email came through about a bomb threat and (2) that a student was using Tor at the time the email went through. It doesn't seem they actually have concrete proof that the email came from this particular student. Which, to me, sounds like circumstantial evidence.
  • URSpider94 13y ago
    He confessed. Even if he had not, I'm sure they could have run forensics on his laptop to find traces of the email. All they needed was probable cause to narrow the investigation, which they got. You also seem to be under the impression that circumstantial evidence would not be enough to convict -- it often is, when combined with motive. I'm guessing the suspect had finals in those buildings that day, and was under considerable stress.