5 ms·

Whether he knew or not (he says he didn't believe that they were going to do it), the comparison to TOR-related cases is still appropriate. If one of these cas

Whether he knew or not (he says he didn't believe that they were going to do it), the comparison to TOR-related cases is still appropriate. If one of these cases went to trial in the US, you would hear the prosecutor telling the jury about TOR's seedy reputation, and that because of that reputation, any reasonable person would have known that illegal activity was likely to occur. Under federal and most state laws, that's enough to make someone culpable.

danielweber 12y ago
Legally, "you should have known something fishy was going to occur" is a very different beast from "you knowingly participated in a felony conspiracy, and a co-conspirator committed murder that depended on your material aid." Home invasions have a tendency to end up with someone dead. Don't help your friends commit them by giving them guns or the vehicles to get there. (Also, don't be the getaway driver for a bank robbery.) Without the court finding that Holle knew his friends were going to commit burglary, the prosecutor could wave his arms all he wanted about how he should have known his friends were scumbags and he should not have lent them even his watch, but the actual legal requirements for felony murder would have fallen apart.
- downandout 12y ago
  Home invasions have a tendency to end up with someone dead. Don't help your friends commit them by giving them guns or the vehicles to get there. (Also, don't be the getaway driver for a bank robbery.) And, I suspect a jury would add to that...Don't offer up your internet connection with the specific intent to aid in shielding the identities of child pornographers, spammers, and all manner of thieves.
  - danielweber 12y ago
    The jury doesn't get to make up laws or charges. Halle was convicted specifically under Florida's felony murder law, which lists a number of felonies (including arson, escape, home invasion, and carjacking) that, if you participate in them, you are liable for any murders that occur during them. We might someday find that everyone is responsible for their Internet connection. But it won't be because of felony murder laws.
    - downandout 12y ago
      You're being pedantic. The point is that there are similar laws regarding conspiracy that are even more broad, that could easily put an exit node operator in prison.
      - hueving 12y ago
        Could you share some of these laws? I'm curious because I haven't heard of such a case in the US.
        downandout 12y ago
        I don't think one has been pursued here yet, but it doesn't mean they can't or won't. Our conspiracy laws are very broad. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/371 http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/371 That's the federal one, and each state has their own.
        owenmarshall 12y ago
        The essence of a conspiracy charge requires an agreement between two parties to commit a crime. http://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R41223.pdf http://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R41223.pdf Running a TOR exit node almost certainly would not constitute an agreement under federal law. Indeed, see the following jury instructions: http://www3.ce9.uscourts.gov/jury-instructions/node/475 http://www3.ce9.uscourts.gov/jury-instructions/node/475 > On the other hand, one who has no knowledge of a conspiracy, but happens to act in a way which furthers some object or purpose of the conspiracy, does not thereby become a conspirator. Similarly, a person does not become a conspirator merely by associating with one or more persons who are conspirators, nor merely by knowing that a conspiracy exists. There's your defense. An individual running a TOR exit node with the purpose of passing news to people behind the great firewall of China does not become a conspirator because an anonymous individual uses that node to commit wire fraud. They had no knowledge that a conspiracy was being committed - they may have furthered it (by simply running the node) but that is insufficient for a conspiracy charge.
- Retric 12y ago
  It's not hard to argue that TOR has non illegal useses which provide a fair amount of protection. DARPA provided early funding. Further the US State department is currently funding TOR development giving US exit nodes much better legal standing. More importantly TOR is not going to work much worse if your exit node(s) shut down. Selling spray paint to a 15 year old might be used for tagging but you don't know and not selling it is not going to stop crap.
clavalle 12y ago
A better analogy is that a rental-car company owner being prosecuted because someone rented a car and committed a bank robbery.
woodchuck64 12y ago
Loaning a car to seedy friends has no redeeming value to society. Hosting a TOR node, on the other hand, protects the privacy of whistle blowers and likely contributes to bringing down totalitarian governments. It seems quite possible to make the argument that the great good a TOR node can do outweighs the bad it can also do.
Andrew_Quentin 12y ago
So a knife producer, by that logic, is also guilty, because of the reputation of knife's to, you know, kill people.
- rbanffy 12y ago
  Also everyone up to the guy who mined the iron ore. Even the people who designed the machinery used to mine all the way to those who designed the machinery that makes the knives, because, without them, knives would not exist.
  - anon4 12y ago
    You're forgetting the government that set up a common currency allowing for the sale of the knife.
abritishguy 12y ago
Maybe in US law (I'm still not convinced of that), but I disagree with your assertion that this could be used in "most countries". In the UK you would have to prove knowledge that a crime had been or was going to be committed - which kind of seems sensible.

danielweber 12y ago

Legally, "you should have known something fishy was going to occur" is a very different beast from "you knowingly participated in a felony conspiracy, and a co-conspirator committed murder that depended on your material aid." Home invasions have a tendency to end up with someone dead. Don't help your friends commit them by giving them guns or the vehicles to get there. (Also, don't be the getaway driver for a bank robbery.) Without the court finding that Holle knew his friends were going to commit burglary, the prosecutor could wave his arms all he wanted about how he should have known his friends were scumbags and he should not have lent them even his watch, but the actual legal requirements for felony murder would have fallen apart.

downandout 12y ago
Home invasions have a tendency to end up with someone dead. Don't help your friends commit them by giving them guns or the vehicles to get there. (Also, don't be the getaway driver for a bank robbery.) And, I suspect a jury would add to that...Don't offer up your internet connection with the specific intent to aid in shielding the identities of child pornographers, spammers, and all manner of thieves.
- danielweber 12y ago
  The jury doesn't get to make up laws or charges. Halle was convicted specifically under Florida's felony murder law, which lists a number of felonies (including arson, escape, home invasion, and carjacking) that, if you participate in them, you are liable for any murders that occur during them. We might someday find that everyone is responsible for their Internet connection. But it won't be because of felony murder laws.
  - downandout 12y ago
    You're being pedantic. The point is that there are similar laws regarding conspiracy that are even more broad, that could easily put an exit node operator in prison.
    - hueving 12y ago
      Could you share some of these laws? I'm curious because I haven't heard of such a case in the US.
      - downandout 12y ago
        I don't think one has been pursued here yet, but it doesn't mean they can't or won't. Our conspiracy laws are very broad. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/371 http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/371 That's the federal one, and each state has their own.
        owenmarshall 12y ago
        The essence of a conspiracy charge requires an agreement between two parties to commit a crime. http://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R41223.pdf http://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R41223.pdf Running a TOR exit node almost certainly would not constitute an agreement under federal law. Indeed, see the following jury instructions: http://www3.ce9.uscourts.gov/jury-instructions/node/475 http://www3.ce9.uscourts.gov/jury-instructions/node/475 > On the other hand, one who has no knowledge of a conspiracy, but happens to act in a way which furthers some object or purpose of the conspiracy, does not thereby become a conspirator. Similarly, a person does not become a conspirator merely by associating with one or more persons who are conspirators, nor merely by knowing that a conspiracy exists. There's your defense. An individual running a TOR exit node with the purpose of passing news to people behind the great firewall of China does not become a conspirator because an anonymous individual uses that node to commit wire fraud. They had no knowledge that a conspiracy was being committed - they may have furthered it (by simply running the node) but that is insufficient for a conspiracy charge.
Retric 12y ago
It's not hard to argue that TOR has non illegal useses which provide a fair amount of protection. DARPA provided early funding. Further the US State department is currently funding TOR development giving US exit nodes much better legal standing. More importantly TOR is not going to work much worse if your exit node(s) shut down. Selling spray paint to a 15 year old might be used for tagging but you don't know and not selling it is not going to stop crap.

clavalle 12y ago

A better analogy is that a rental-car company owner being prosecuted because someone rented a car and committed a bank robbery.

woodchuck64 12y ago

Loaning a car to seedy friends has no redeeming value to society. Hosting a TOR node, on the other hand, protects the privacy of whistle blowers and likely contributes to bringing down totalitarian governments. It seems quite possible to make the argument that the great good a TOR node can do outweighs the bad it can also do.

Andrew_Quentin 12y ago

So a knife producer, by that logic, is also guilty, because of the reputation of knife's to, you know, kill people.

rbanffy 12y ago
Also everyone up to the guy who mined the iron ore. Even the people who designed the machinery used to mine all the way to those who designed the machinery that makes the knives, because, without them, knives would not exist.
- anon4 12y ago
  You're forgetting the government that set up a common currency allowing for the sale of the knife.

abritishguy 12y ago

Maybe in US law (I'm still not convinced of that), but I disagree with your assertion that this could be used in "most countries". In the UK you would have to prove knowledge that a crime had been or was going to be committed - which kind of seems sensible.