11 ms·

Tor exit node operator prosecuted in Austria

286 points by msl 12y ago

dewey 12y ago
Official statement from the guy who got sentenced: https://rdns.im/court-official-statement-part-1 https://rdns.im/court-official-statement-part-1
- lawl 12y ago
  Came here and to post this too. It's really a shame how the current system of law enforcement is designed to destroy completely destroy people. I'm idling in some of the same public IRC channels as will (since way before he was raided for running a TOR node) it was/is painful to watch how this completely destroyed him. It has really put me off, and probably many others, from ever hosting a TOR node, which might what makes this even worse. If you want to help people in heavily censored (or monitored, but what would be every single one of them, as of now) countries you get punished and your life gets completely ruined. Seriously, the guy was like 20 or so when the police raided his home because of a TOR relay. Financially and mentally ruining someone when he didn't even do anything wrong is just... It makes me really angry.
  - icehawk219 12y ago
    It has really put me off, and probably many others, from ever hosting a TOR node The cynic in me can't help but assume that that's the entire point.
    - malka 12y ago
      The realist in me can't help but assume that that's the entire point.
      - josephb 12y ago
        It's definitely the point.
  - teamhappy 12y ago
    Unfortunately this hasn't been the first case like that and it probably won't be the last one either. Saying they destroy peoples lives on purpose isn't fair though. Everybody setting up an exit node knows there's some chance the police will knock on your door one day or at the very least you'll end up getting a lot of letters. Projects like https://www.torservers.net https://www.torservers.net exist for that very reason. I understand donating money isn't as fulfilling/fun/cool as hosting an exit node yourself but at this point everybody should be well aware of the possible consequences.
    - sp332 12y ago
      Saying they destroy peoples lives on purpose isn't fair though. Everyone knows it might happen, therefore it doesn't happen? I don't get how the rest of your comment supports this statement.
    - cookiecaper 12y ago
      People are aware that they may draw law enforcement attention, but many believe the issue will be cleared up when they politely explain how Tor works and that it's not really their fault that someone did something naughty through their endpoint. Unfortunately, sometimes it's not that simple. It should be underscored that unless you have access to unlimited good, free legal help, you probably have no business running an exit node, and you should have that good, free lawyer make sure that the laws in your jurisdiction are Tor-friendly, as some places have been passing laws that hold the IP's owner responsible for all activity, regardless of excuses ("open wifi" doesn't fly either). The sad part is that this means Tor exit nodes will continue to be primarily the province of large organizations who are more likely to be in cahoots with ruling authorities, which weakens the strength of the network for everyone.
    - teamhappy 12y ago
      @sp332: >> I don't get how the rest of your comment supports this statement. It doesn't. I didn't make that statement - you did. I said they don't destroy lives _on purpose_. Neither are they trying to stop people from running exit nodes. They don't know what an exit node is. Somebody is doing nasty things using Tor. They look at the Whois record. Your name pops up. They knock on your door. End of story (I don't like the story either). @cookiecaper: The last paragraph of your comment isn't true. The Tor Project itself trusts and supports these organizations (like torservers.net - I'm sure there are many others like it). All nodes under control of one organization are marked as such inside the network so Tor clients can avoid using more than one of them at a time. This talk might help: Defcon 21 - Safety of Tor Network Look at Network Diversity, Relay Operators & Malicious Relays (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=864FxA3jmHk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=864FxA3jmHk) --- By the way. What's with all the downvotes? You do realise that I'm not responsible for anybody's house getting raided by the police, yes? I'm tired of blaming the police while nobody is willing to sit down with them and explain to them how Tor works. It's just not helpful.
  - xienze 12y ago
    > If you want to help people in heavily censored (or monitored, but what would be every single one of them, as of now) countries you get punished and your life gets completely ruined. I know that's the dream of everyone running a Tor node but let's face it, you're mostly helping drug dealers and child pornographers operate. Not saying that's your intention, but that's what's happening. That's why it's absolutely crazy to operate a node. Find some other way to help if you value your freedom.
    - VexXtreme 12y ago
      I had to downvote and here's why: > you're mostly helping drug dealers and child pornographers operate You could argue the same about encryption, so should encryption be banned or deemed immoral now? > That's why it's absolutely crazy to operate a node. Again, you could say this for any company that builds crypto software. > Find some other way to help if you value your freedom. You can still operate a TOR exit node safely by anonymously getting a server paid for with a cryptocurrency. It's perfectly safe.
      - xienze 12y ago
        > You could argue the same about encryption, so should encryption be banned or deemed immoral now? Sigh. This sounds just like the arguments about cars ("they can kill people, should we ban them too???"). Let's get real, the vast majority of Tor traffic is, shall we say, for nefarious purposes. Encryption has numerous applications which are perfectly legitimate and it could be argued that the legitimate applications outweigh the illegitimate ones. You might have a point if "encryption" meant "operating an open relay where anyone can encrypt anything for any purpose". > You can still operate a TOR exit node safely by anonymously getting a server paid for with a cryptocurrency. It's perfectly safe. Safe for whom? You as an individual, perhaps. Definitely not safe for the guy running the exit node.
        VexXtreme 12y ago
        > Let's get real, the vast majority of Tor traffic is, shall we say, for nefarious purposes. I don't really understand your argument here. Are you saying that Tor should be banned because the ratio of illegitimate to legitimate applications is higher than that of encryption software? I'm not putting words in your mouth, I'm just trying to understand what you're saying here. > Safe for whom? You as an individual, perhaps. Definitely not safe for the guy running the exit node. Well you would be the guy running an exit node on a VPS hosted by a hosting company/ISP (after all, they seem to be protected by law). Looks pretty bullet proof to me. Worst case scenario - they shut down your VPS.
  - jseliger 12y ago
    It's really a shame how the current system of law enforcement is designed to destroy completely destroy people. No one is innocent: http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2013/06/no-one-is-innocent.html http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2013/06/no-... .
  - anon4 12y ago
    Maybe, and I realise this sounds borderline crazy, but hear me out. Maybe we shouldn't be running TOR exit nodes personally. It seems to me a couple of people should form a nonprofit company to run the node and distance themselves from liability that way. You'll still need to shut it down if your company is found guilty of running a server that was used to distribute bad bits, but it would be more "we wanted to make something nice and these gosh darned paedophiles got in our way and we can't continue" and less "you collude with paedophiles and are a paedophile and a criminal". It will be harder and it will take more funds and perhaps it's borderline impossible, but this is where things seem to be going. Be a corporation, because individual people get squashed like bugs.
    - loup-vaillant 12y ago
      Unfortunately, setting up a limited liability corporation tend to require substantial funding up front, I believe several months worth of median income in many places. I'm afraid your advice actually reduces to "be rich, because poor people get squashed like bugs". (Of course, another possibility is to rally many people to your cause. Then you can fund your expensive legal structure with poor people.)
      - anon4 12y ago
        Hmm, that varies from place to place, but yes - not cheap. Aren't there also different fees depending on whether it's for-profit or not? Obviously you'd set it up with more people, there obviously are enough who want to contribute to Tor. You'd gather capital, sign some up as co-founders and use what you can to buy colocation and set up servers. I wonder if you could also switch things around and colocate in people's homes by renting the property and paying for a residential connection, then renting it back to whoever lived there originally at the original fee. Basically, you create a company, have it rent an apartment and pay for a connection, then you rent the apartment and connection from the company, which should end up with you (legally) having (nearly) nothing at all to do with the black box in the corner that connects to the internet.
EthanV2 12y ago
Does this mean that Austrian ISPs can be prosecuted if their customers use their connections to transmit "content of an illegal nature"? Surely the ISP knows that some of their customers could use their services for illicit purposes, meaning they're "guilty of complicity" themselves.
- wfjackson 12y ago
  Perhaps the logic of the court is that the ISPs do no provide essentially anonymous access. ISPs can and do turn over customer info when ordered by courts/law enforcement.
  - SnotJockey 12y ago
    But the customer info turned over is not necessarily the guilty party either. If you have free wifi in your cafe now you're responsible for anything illegal your clients do? It's a bad judgement on all counts.
    - pbhjpbhj 12y ago
      Do you really consider it a bad judgement, or would you rather say it's a bad law?
- teamhappy 12y ago
  For sure. At least in theory. That's always been true though. I don't think Austrian ISPs worry about it to much because precedents don't influence court decisions as much as they do in the US.
- phillc73 12y ago
  I have a VPS with an Austrian ISP. Their Ts&Cs already state the following are specifically not allowed: Tor/i2p/similar exit servers (bridge, entry and middle are fine until further notice) Last update was Jan 17th, 2014, but this clause has been included for as long as I have been a customer, which is a couple of years. So, I would say at least some Austrian ISPs are aware of the risk.
PythonicAlpha 12y ago
It seems, in many countries, the knowledge and the acknowledgement of technical facts is very much lacking, both in legislative authorities and in courts.
- teamhappy 12y ago
  You can't expect them to keep up with everything. Important is who they turn to for guidance. The CCC does a great job advising law makers and law enforcement in Germany and the EFF tries really hard to play a similar role in the US. The Tor Project itself works directly with law enforcement as well (pretty much globally as far as I know).
  - igl 12y ago
    A great job?? Can't expect them to do their job? Did you see the outcome of DE-Mail? There is a great presentation about it at ccc-videos. The CCC is currently not advising but sueing the german government. It has also received 0 media attention since it was announced and i am sure it will just fall flat after being stalled for a few years. GG CCC HF Germany.
    - teamhappy 12y ago
      That one was disappointing for sure. I guess you can't win them all. The government not listening to them all the time doesn't mean they didn't do a great job though. Last time I voted I didn't see any fancy touch screens (to name one accomplishment). I didn't say "can't expect them to do their job". I said you can't expect them to keep up with _everything_. Their job is to make legal decisions to the best of their abilities.
      - igl 12y ago
        Do you work for der Spiegel? ;3
- guard-of-terra 12y ago
  Not only their knowledge is lacking after like 15 years of unversal internet use, they usually insist on now knowing anything, ignoring expertise or relying on bogus "expertise", and otherwise lining with authorities and big biz - who are obviously not neutral, therefore court decision is not neutral either. I interpret this as a direct malice against myself.
hellodevnull 12y ago
>The operator of an exit node is guilty of complicity, because he enabled others to transmit content of an illegal nature through the service. This logic would make running an exit node illegal in all of Europe.
- bottled_poe 12y ago
  I believe that's the point yes. But, wouldn't this apply to any party who operates the network in between users as well?
- dtech 12y ago
  The quoted law is Austrian, so this doesn't apply to the whole of Europe. But yes, even running a package delivery service is now illegal because it can be used to transport drugs or firearms and such.
fredsted 12y ago
Is this is the "big brother" plan to eradicate anonymity services? Just argue "child porn!" and arrest everyone? The law quoted was: >Not only the immediate perpetator commits a criminal action, but also anyone who appoints someone to carry it out, or anyone who otherwise contributes to the completion of said criminal action. Anyone who contributes? Wouldn't this include ISPs or perhaps even the application server technologies (HTTP, FTP) used? Or clients, browsers and picture viewers? In any case, kudos to this guy. I can't imagine what he's going through: PTSD, having all his hardware taken away, dealing with clueless police.
- VMG 12y ago
  Assuming Darknet technology is improved to the point that "exit nodes" become unnecessary (something like BitMessage), the next target would be developers of such software and developers of cryptography software in general.
  - rainforest 12y ago
    Exit nodes are already unnecessary; TOR allows you to operate services on the network itself ("hidden services"). However, it seems not everything is kept on the TOR network. I would've assumed that if someone were using TOR for criminal purposes, they wouldn't expose themselves to monitoring by accessing resources off TOR, but that doesn't seem to be the case.
- giancarlostoro 12y ago
  Lawmakers aren't as intelligent as programmers. What's worse is, instead of just telling him to turn off the exit node now he's seen as a criminal by the system for doing absolutely nothing. Imagine applying for a job and trying to explain to them why you were arrested, especially if the interviewer is not tech savvy it might not look so good.
  - the_mitsuhiko 12y ago
    > Lawmakers aren't as intelligent as programmers. What's worse is, instead of just telling him to turn off the exit node now he's seen as a criminal by the system for doing absolutely nothing. Imagine applying for a job and trying to explain to them why you were arrested, especially if the interviewer is not tech savvy it might not look so good. He did not receive a criminal record.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
- oafitupa 12y ago
  Wrong thread? The guy got prosecuted for running a Tor node, not for committing a crime and failing to stay anonymous.
  - jjoergensen 12y ago
    The government is prosecuting a guy for running a system that their own intelligence agency (and their allies) are depending on. A system that is funded by U.S. federal government.
hoggle 12y ago
The war is on, is staying on, indefinitely.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
4ad 12y ago
I live in Austria, used to ran a TOR relay and this worries me deeply. I am unsure what to do.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- the_mitsuhiko 12y ago
  Just stop running a TOR relay?
- mahouse 12y ago
  But this is a problem only if it's an exit node, right?
  - anaphor 12y ago
    It's still a legal problem as much as running an exit node is, they just can't easily figure out that you did anything because of how Tor works. You couldn't even confess to anything either if you wanted to.
- teamhappy 12y ago
  Given that you used to run one there really isn't much you cant do now. Austria has lots of organizations that got your back. If you ever end up in trouble and don't know who to ask for help just mail the Tor Project directly they know who you want to talk to. @mahouse: Yes. Exit nodes only.
imdsm 12y ago
So, am I right in assuming that if I transfer illegal content from my laptop to my friends laptop via a cafe wireless network, they are complicit in my crimes and will also be at fault?
peterjancelis 12y ago
It's too easy to scare people from hosting tor exit nodes right now. I think the way forward is to incorporate some use based digital currency payments to compensate exit node operators for their risk. Make it a business and let the market decide the insurance premium needed.
- pritambaral 12y ago
  Who do you think can pay more? Dissident journalists or internet drug dealers?
  - peterjancelis 12y ago
    Companies don't just serve those who can pay the most. They serve, absent transaction costs, all customers who can pay more than the marginal cost.
  - tomjen3 12y ago
    Who cares who pays? Dissident journalists financed by drug dealers? I consider that awesome.
gioele 12y ago
If the convicted will appeal, and if the appeal will arrive up to the EU Court of justice, this would be the first care in which it is debated whether TOR operators are protected by the "mere conduit" doctrine that is base on which ISPs are not held responsible. [1] Too bad that it may take up to 10 years for this case to be appealed up to EU court of justice. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_Commerce_Directive_%28EU%29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_Commerce_Directive_...
- acqq 12y ago
  And that the accused considers him already destroyed and definitely not healthy and wealthy enough anymore to appeal, see dewey's post here.
phn 12y ago
I know what I am suggesting is wrong on some levels, and creates a myriad of other problems, but bear with me. If I run a Tor exit node, can I block outgoing packets to known illegal servers/addresses? Would some kind of update mechanism of this list (of course, the question is controlled by whom?) warrant that known illegal servers are not available, and thus show/prove my intent that no ill use was endorsed by me?
- schoen 12y ago
  Tor has a notion of exit policy, but it's only expressed in terms of permitted and forbidden TCP port numbers. This lets you, for example, decline to deliver SMTP traffic on TCP port 25. The exit policy can't list IP subnets (contrary to my recollection; I thought it could, and maybe it once did). A lot of government investigations of Tor users do involve the use of pretty mainstream, popular services like Gmail, accessed over Tor. Someone can access Gmail over Tor and send e-mails that provoke a government investigation.
  - haakon 12y ago
    I'm pretty sure you can still express IP subnets in exit policies. From https://www.torproject.org/docs/tor-manual.html.en https://www.torproject.org/docs/tor-manual.html.en, heading "ExitPolicy policy,policy,…": Each policy is of the form "accept|reject ADDR[/MASK][:PORT]". If /MASK is omitted then this policy just applies to the host given. Instead of giving a host or network you can also use "*" to denote the universe (0.0.0.0/0). PORT can be a single port number, an interval of ports "FROM_PORT-TO_PORT", or "*". If PORT is omitted, that means "*".
    - schoen 12y ago
      Huh. That looks like what I remembered, but I don't actually see any policies that use that form in the cached consensus.
zmanian 12y ago
Running a Tor exit node, developing encryptions tools , working on government transparency and protecting journalists are all seen as dissent in the current environment. The reason to engage in these activities is a duty to protect democracy and democratic values in an extremely adversarial environment. It is unwise to do these things without some kind of strategy to manage the escalation of political repression. It is advisable to do participate in these things as part of the broader activist community. Nothing is riskier that being a solo democracy activist.
- brasky 12y ago
  I think the people running exit nodes gave up on democracy a while back and for good reason.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
whodaman 12y ago
I didn't think Austrian judges are this retarded... then again, the greatest retard of all times was born there, Adolf... so anything's possible.
shmerl 12y ago
> it is a sensible precaution to turn off hosted services where data from third parties is transmitted (like Jabber, IRC, VPN, FTP, TOR exit nodes, TOR RELAYS!! …) TCP/IP as well?
comboy 12y ago
It's like sending knife maker to jail because "he knew it could be used to kill somebody".
sarciszewski 12y ago
This is frustrating to hear. I don't know the laws in Austria, but I hope there's an appeal process and he wins it.
joesmo 12y ago
Wouldn't this make all ISPs illegal in Austria then? What is the difference that Austrian law sees between a TOR exit provider and an ISP as far as enabling criminal action? Is it only the differentiation between natural and legal persons?

286 points by msl 12y ago

dewey 12y ago

Official statement from the guy who got sentenced: https://rdns.im/court-official-statement-part-1 https://rdns.im/court-official-statement-part-1

lawl 12y ago
Came here and to post this too. It's really a shame how the current system of law enforcement is designed to destroy completely destroy people. I'm idling in some of the same public IRC channels as will (since way before he was raided for running a TOR node) it was/is painful to watch how this completely destroyed him. It has really put me off, and probably many others, from ever hosting a TOR node, which might what makes this even worse. If you want to help people in heavily censored (or monitored, but what would be every single one of them, as of now) countries you get punished and your life gets completely ruined. Seriously, the guy was like 20 or so when the police raided his home because of a TOR relay. Financially and mentally ruining someone when he didn't even do anything wrong is just... It makes me really angry.
- icehawk219 12y ago
  It has really put me off, and probably many others, from ever hosting a TOR node The cynic in me can't help but assume that that's the entire point.
  - malka 12y ago
    The realist in me can't help but assume that that's the entire point.
    - josephb 12y ago
      It's definitely the point.
- teamhappy 12y ago
  Unfortunately this hasn't been the first case like that and it probably won't be the last one either. Saying they destroy peoples lives on purpose isn't fair though. Everybody setting up an exit node knows there's some chance the police will knock on your door one day or at the very least you'll end up getting a lot of letters. Projects like https://www.torservers.net https://www.torservers.net exist for that very reason. I understand donating money isn't as fulfilling/fun/cool as hosting an exit node yourself but at this point everybody should be well aware of the possible consequences.
  - sp332 12y ago
    Saying they destroy peoples lives on purpose isn't fair though. Everyone knows it might happen, therefore it doesn't happen? I don't get how the rest of your comment supports this statement.
  - cookiecaper 12y ago
    People are aware that they may draw law enforcement attention, but many believe the issue will be cleared up when they politely explain how Tor works and that it's not really their fault that someone did something naughty through their endpoint. Unfortunately, sometimes it's not that simple. It should be underscored that unless you have access to unlimited good, free legal help, you probably have no business running an exit node, and you should have that good, free lawyer make sure that the laws in your jurisdiction are Tor-friendly, as some places have been passing laws that hold the IP's owner responsible for all activity, regardless of excuses ("open wifi" doesn't fly either). The sad part is that this means Tor exit nodes will continue to be primarily the province of large organizations who are more likely to be in cahoots with ruling authorities, which weakens the strength of the network for everyone.
  - teamhappy 12y ago
    @sp332: >> I don't get how the rest of your comment supports this statement. It doesn't. I didn't make that statement - you did. I said they don't destroy lives _on purpose_. Neither are they trying to stop people from running exit nodes. They don't know what an exit node is. Somebody is doing nasty things using Tor. They look at the Whois record. Your name pops up. They knock on your door. End of story (I don't like the story either). @cookiecaper: The last paragraph of your comment isn't true. The Tor Project itself trusts and supports these organizations (like torservers.net - I'm sure there are many others like it). All nodes under control of one organization are marked as such inside the network so Tor clients can avoid using more than one of them at a time. This talk might help: Defcon 21 - Safety of Tor Network Look at Network Diversity, Relay Operators & Malicious Relays (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=864FxA3jmHk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=864FxA3jmHk) --- By the way. What's with all the downvotes? You do realise that I'm not responsible for anybody's house getting raided by the police, yes? I'm tired of blaming the police while nobody is willing to sit down with them and explain to them how Tor works. It's just not helpful.
- xienze 12y ago
  > If you want to help people in heavily censored (or monitored, but what would be every single one of them, as of now) countries you get punished and your life gets completely ruined. I know that's the dream of everyone running a Tor node but let's face it, you're mostly helping drug dealers and child pornographers operate. Not saying that's your intention, but that's what's happening. That's why it's absolutely crazy to operate a node. Find some other way to help if you value your freedom.
  - VexXtreme 12y ago
    I had to downvote and here's why: > you're mostly helping drug dealers and child pornographers operate You could argue the same about encryption, so should encryption be banned or deemed immoral now? > That's why it's absolutely crazy to operate a node. Again, you could say this for any company that builds crypto software. > Find some other way to help if you value your freedom. You can still operate a TOR exit node safely by anonymously getting a server paid for with a cryptocurrency. It's perfectly safe.
    - xienze 12y ago
      > You could argue the same about encryption, so should encryption be banned or deemed immoral now? Sigh. This sounds just like the arguments about cars ("they can kill people, should we ban them too???"). Let's get real, the vast majority of Tor traffic is, shall we say, for nefarious purposes. Encryption has numerous applications which are perfectly legitimate and it could be argued that the legitimate applications outweigh the illegitimate ones. You might have a point if "encryption" meant "operating an open relay where anyone can encrypt anything for any purpose". > You can still operate a TOR exit node safely by anonymously getting a server paid for with a cryptocurrency. It's perfectly safe. Safe for whom? You as an individual, perhaps. Definitely not safe for the guy running the exit node.
      - VexXtreme 12y ago
        > Let's get real, the vast majority of Tor traffic is, shall we say, for nefarious purposes. I don't really understand your argument here. Are you saying that Tor should be banned because the ratio of illegitimate to legitimate applications is higher than that of encryption software? I'm not putting words in your mouth, I'm just trying to understand what you're saying here. > Safe for whom? You as an individual, perhaps. Definitely not safe for the guy running the exit node. Well you would be the guy running an exit node on a VPS hosted by a hosting company/ISP (after all, they seem to be protected by law). Looks pretty bullet proof to me. Worst case scenario - they shut down your VPS.
- jseliger 12y ago
  It's really a shame how the current system of law enforcement is designed to destroy completely destroy people. No one is innocent: http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2013/06/no-one-is-innocent.html http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2013/06/no-... .
- anon4 12y ago
  Maybe, and I realise this sounds borderline crazy, but hear me out. Maybe we shouldn't be running TOR exit nodes personally. It seems to me a couple of people should form a nonprofit company to run the node and distance themselves from liability that way. You'll still need to shut it down if your company is found guilty of running a server that was used to distribute bad bits, but it would be more "we wanted to make something nice and these gosh darned paedophiles got in our way and we can't continue" and less "you collude with paedophiles and are a paedophile and a criminal". It will be harder and it will take more funds and perhaps it's borderline impossible, but this is where things seem to be going. Be a corporation, because individual people get squashed like bugs.
  - loup-vaillant 12y ago
    Unfortunately, setting up a limited liability corporation tend to require substantial funding up front, I believe several months worth of median income in many places. I'm afraid your advice actually reduces to "be rich, because poor people get squashed like bugs". (Of course, another possibility is to rally many people to your cause. Then you can fund your expensive legal structure with poor people.)
    - anon4 12y ago
      Hmm, that varies from place to place, but yes - not cheap. Aren't there also different fees depending on whether it's for-profit or not? Obviously you'd set it up with more people, there obviously are enough who want to contribute to Tor. You'd gather capital, sign some up as co-founders and use what you can to buy colocation and set up servers. I wonder if you could also switch things around and colocate in people's homes by renting the property and paying for a residential connection, then renting it back to whoever lived there originally at the original fee. Basically, you create a company, have it rent an apartment and pay for a connection, then you rent the apartment and connection from the company, which should end up with you (legally) having (nearly) nothing at all to do with the black box in the corner that connects to the internet.

EthanV2 12y ago

Does this mean that Austrian ISPs can be prosecuted if their customers use their connections to transmit "content of an illegal nature"? Surely the ISP knows that some of their customers could use their services for illicit purposes, meaning they're "guilty of complicity" themselves.

wfjackson 12y ago
Perhaps the logic of the court is that the ISPs do no provide essentially anonymous access. ISPs can and do turn over customer info when ordered by courts/law enforcement.
- SnotJockey 12y ago
  But the customer info turned over is not necessarily the guilty party either. If you have free wifi in your cafe now you're responsible for anything illegal your clients do? It's a bad judgement on all counts.
  - pbhjpbhj 12y ago
    Do you really consider it a bad judgement, or would you rather say it's a bad law?
teamhappy 12y ago
For sure. At least in theory. That's always been true though. I don't think Austrian ISPs worry about it to much because precedents don't influence court decisions as much as they do in the US.
phillc73 12y ago
I have a VPS with an Austrian ISP. Their Ts&Cs already state the following are specifically not allowed: Tor/i2p/similar exit servers (bridge, entry and middle are fine until further notice) Last update was Jan 17th, 2014, but this clause has been included for as long as I have been a customer, which is a couple of years. So, I would say at least some Austrian ISPs are aware of the risk.

PythonicAlpha 12y ago

It seems, in many countries, the knowledge and the acknowledgement of technical facts is very much lacking, both in legislative authorities and in courts.

teamhappy 12y ago
You can't expect them to keep up with everything. Important is who they turn to for guidance. The CCC does a great job advising law makers and law enforcement in Germany and the EFF tries really hard to play a similar role in the US. The Tor Project itself works directly with law enforcement as well (pretty much globally as far as I know).
- igl 12y ago
  A great job?? Can't expect them to do their job? Did you see the outcome of DE-Mail? There is a great presentation about it at ccc-videos. The CCC is currently not advising but sueing the german government. It has also received 0 media attention since it was announced and i am sure it will just fall flat after being stalled for a few years. GG CCC HF Germany.
  - teamhappy 12y ago
    That one was disappointing for sure. I guess you can't win them all. The government not listening to them all the time doesn't mean they didn't do a great job though. Last time I voted I didn't see any fancy touch screens (to name one accomplishment). I didn't say "can't expect them to do their job". I said you can't expect them to keep up with _everything_. Their job is to make legal decisions to the best of their abilities.
    - igl 12y ago
      Do you work for der Spiegel? ;3
guard-of-terra 12y ago
Not only their knowledge is lacking after like 15 years of unversal internet use, they usually insist on now knowing anything, ignoring expertise or relying on bogus "expertise", and otherwise lining with authorities and big biz - who are obviously not neutral, therefore court decision is not neutral either. I interpret this as a direct malice against myself.

hellodevnull 12y ago

>The operator of an exit node is guilty of complicity, because he enabled others to transmit content of an illegal nature through the service. This logic would make running an exit node illegal in all of Europe.

bottled_poe 12y ago
I believe that's the point yes. But, wouldn't this apply to any party who operates the network in between users as well?
dtech 12y ago
The quoted law is Austrian, so this doesn't apply to the whole of Europe. But yes, even running a package delivery service is now illegal because it can be used to transport drugs or firearms and such.

fredsted 12y ago

Is this is the "big brother" plan to eradicate anonymity services? Just argue "child porn!" and arrest everyone? The law quoted was: >Not only the immediate perpetator commits a criminal action, but also anyone who appoints someone to carry it out, or anyone who otherwise contributes to the completion of said criminal action. Anyone who contributes? Wouldn't this include ISPs or perhaps even the application server technologies (HTTP, FTP) used? Or clients, browsers and picture viewers? In any case, kudos to this guy. I can't imagine what he's going through: PTSD, having all his hardware taken away, dealing with clueless police.

VMG 12y ago
Assuming Darknet technology is improved to the point that "exit nodes" become unnecessary (something like BitMessage), the next target would be developers of such software and developers of cryptography software in general.
- rainforest 12y ago
  Exit nodes are already unnecessary; TOR allows you to operate services on the network itself ("hidden services"). However, it seems not everything is kept on the TOR network. I would've assumed that if someone were using TOR for criminal purposes, they wouldn't expose themselves to monitoring by accessing resources off TOR, but that doesn't seem to be the case.
giancarlostoro 12y ago
Lawmakers aren't as intelligent as programmers. What's worse is, instead of just telling him to turn off the exit node now he's seen as a criminal by the system for doing absolutely nothing. Imagine applying for a job and trying to explain to them why you were arrested, especially if the interviewer is not tech savvy it might not look so good.
- the_mitsuhiko 12y ago
  > Lawmakers aren't as intelligent as programmers. What's worse is, instead of just telling him to turn off the exit node now he's seen as a criminal by the system for doing absolutely nothing. Imagine applying for a job and trying to explain to them why you were arrested, especially if the interviewer is not tech savvy it might not look so good. He did not receive a criminal record.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

oafitupa 12y ago
Wrong thread? The guy got prosecuted for running a Tor node, not for committing a crime and failing to stay anonymous.
- jjoergensen 12y ago
  The government is prosecuting a guy for running a system that their own intelligence agency (and their allies) are depending on. A system that is funded by U.S. federal government.

hoggle 12y ago

The war is on, is staying on, indefinitely.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

4ad 12y ago

I live in Austria, used to ran a TOR relay and this worries me deeply. I am unsure what to do.

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
the_mitsuhiko 12y ago
Just stop running a TOR relay?
mahouse 12y ago
But this is a problem only if it's an exit node, right?
- anaphor 12y ago
  It's still a legal problem as much as running an exit node is, they just can't easily figure out that you did anything because of how Tor works. You couldn't even confess to anything either if you wanted to.
teamhappy 12y ago
Given that you used to run one there really isn't much you cant do now. Austria has lots of organizations that got your back. If you ever end up in trouble and don't know who to ask for help just mail the Tor Project directly they know who you want to talk to. @mahouse: Yes. Exit nodes only.

imdsm 12y ago

So, am I right in assuming that if I transfer illegal content from my laptop to my friends laptop via a cafe wireless network, they are complicit in my crimes and will also be at fault?

peterjancelis 12y ago

It's too easy to scare people from hosting tor exit nodes right now. I think the way forward is to incorporate some use based digital currency payments to compensate exit node operators for their risk. Make it a business and let the market decide the insurance premium needed.

pritambaral 12y ago
Who do you think can pay more? Dissident journalists or internet drug dealers?
- peterjancelis 12y ago
  Companies don't just serve those who can pay the most. They serve, absent transaction costs, all customers who can pay more than the marginal cost.
- tomjen3 12y ago
  Who cares who pays? Dissident journalists financed by drug dealers? I consider that awesome.

gioele 12y ago

If the convicted will appeal, and if the appeal will arrive up to the EU Court of justice, this would be the first care in which it is debated whether TOR operators are protected by the "mere conduit" doctrine that is base on which ISPs are not held responsible. [1] Too bad that it may take up to 10 years for this case to be appealed up to EU court of justice. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_Commerce_Directive_%28EU%29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_Commerce_Directive_...

acqq 12y ago
And that the accused considers him already destroyed and definitely not healthy and wealthy enough anymore to appeal, see dewey's post here.

phn 12y ago

I know what I am suggesting is wrong on some levels, and creates a myriad of other problems, but bear with me. If I run a Tor exit node, can I block outgoing packets to known illegal servers/addresses? Would some kind of update mechanism of this list (of course, the question is controlled by whom?) warrant that known illegal servers are not available, and thus show/prove my intent that no ill use was endorsed by me?

schoen 12y ago
Tor has a notion of exit policy, but it's only expressed in terms of permitted and forbidden TCP port numbers. This lets you, for example, decline to deliver SMTP traffic on TCP port 25. The exit policy can't list IP subnets (contrary to my recollection; I thought it could, and maybe it once did). A lot of government investigations of Tor users do involve the use of pretty mainstream, popular services like Gmail, accessed over Tor. Someone can access Gmail over Tor and send e-mails that provoke a government investigation.
- haakon 12y ago
  I'm pretty sure you can still express IP subnets in exit policies. From https://www.torproject.org/docs/tor-manual.html.en https://www.torproject.org/docs/tor-manual.html.en, heading "ExitPolicy policy,policy,…": Each policy is of the form "accept|reject ADDR[/MASK][:PORT]". If /MASK is omitted then this policy just applies to the host given. Instead of giving a host or network you can also use "*" to denote the universe (0.0.0.0/0). PORT can be a single port number, an interval of ports "FROM_PORT-TO_PORT", or "*". If PORT is omitted, that means "*".
  - schoen 12y ago
    Huh. That looks like what I remembered, but I don't actually see any policies that use that form in the cached consensus.

zmanian 12y ago

Running a Tor exit node, developing encryptions tools , working on government transparency and protecting journalists are all seen as dissent in the current environment. The reason to engage in these activities is a duty to protect democracy and democratic values in an extremely adversarial environment. It is unwise to do these things without some kind of strategy to manage the escalation of political repression. It is advisable to do participate in these things as part of the broader activist community. Nothing is riskier that being a solo democracy activist.

brasky 12y ago
I think the people running exit nodes gave up on democracy a while back and for good reason.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

whodaman 12y ago

I didn't think Austrian judges are this retarded... then again, the greatest retard of all times was born there, Adolf... so anything's possible.

shmerl 12y ago

> it is a sensible precaution to turn off hosted services where data from third parties is transmitted (like Jabber, IRC, VPN, FTP, TOR exit nodes, TOR RELAYS!! …) TCP/IP as well?

comboy 12y ago

It's like sending knife maker to jail because "he knew it could be used to kill somebody".

sarciszewski 12y ago

This is frustrating to hear. I don't know the laws in Austria, but I hope there's an appeal process and he wins it.

joesmo 12y ago

Wouldn't this make all ISPs illegal in Austria then? What is the difference that Austrian law sees between a TOR exit provider and an ISP as far as enabling criminal action? Is it only the differentiation between natural and legal persons?