7 ms·

So you think it's fine to allow someone to use your computer to transfer child porn and other illegal stuff with no consequences? While tor might have some leg

by dwj 14y ago

So you think it's fine to allow someone to use your computer to transfer child porn and other illegal stuff with no consequences? While tor might have some legitimate uses, I think 99% of the time it's used for trolling or illegal stuff. It's a pain in the ass for me because I have to keep reblocking it when the ips change.

droithomme 14y ago
It's past time for a contrarian viewpoint. How about we legalize child porn? The vast majority of the time when it gets brought up is in the context of using it as a pretext to attack civil liberties of law abiding citizens. When there is a child porn arrest it almost always ends up being a honey trap run by the FBI using decades old photos, so it's not like there are many children being protected by these laws.
- dwj 14y ago
  Sounds like a paedophile's rationalisation...
  - droithomme 14y ago
    Thanks.
  - darkarmani 14y ago
    You spelled paedophile the right way. sounds like you know a lot about it...
- gpvos 14y ago
  Do you have numbers to back that up? I don't have that impression. But maybe our equivalent of the FBI is not as active in setting up honey traps.
jvanenk 14y ago
Ah, I have no rights to encryption either then since ... you know ... child porn. Or UPS for that matter.
- dwj 14y ago
  No, you misunderstood. My point is that someone else's child porn is going through your computer when you operate a tor exit node - that isn't the case when you just use encryption and transfer it yourself. Also UPS maintains logs of who sends and receives stuff, so they can easily track down anyone sending child porn or whatever through their service.
  - jQueryIsAwesome 14y ago
    Someone else's child porn is going through your computer when you operate a ISP. Someone else's child porn is going in your taxi when you are a taxi driver. Someone else's child porn is being recorded at your house when you rent your house to someone unknown to you. By your line of logic we should all sit still and do nothing because otherwise we may be helping a pedophile.
    - dwj 14y ago
      The big difference is ISPs keep track of users' ip addresses and they give that information to the police when they get a warrant. tor doesn't keep that information, so basically the exit node is all that the police have. The trail stops at the person running the tor node. Likely the police won't find the actual perv here, but you can't blame them for trying. Interesting how many downvotes I got here...
      - marshray 14y ago
        But one can "blame them for trying" because they know, as you pointed out, "likely they won't find the actual perv". Many police use Tor on a day-to-day basis in their investigations. It's just as useful for the police to need anonymity as it is anyone else. Tor provides an easy-to-use system to identify the exit nodes. Ignorance of the reality is no excuse.
      - dwj 14y ago
        It's up to the user to prove that the child porn isn't on his computer. As someone pointed out earlier, you could just download a bunch of child porn with a tor exit node running on your computer and say it was someone else.
e12e 14y ago
Are all the network carriers (who arguably profited from carrying the traffic) also charged? I'd very much like to see some protection for carriers, be they network operators, or "softer" Tor etc operators. Yes the most heinous things on the Internet will crawl through. I'm not a supporter of child pornography -- but shouldn't we focus on finding those making porn, actively abusing kids, rather than those distributing it? Is there even a real economic incentive to distribute that filth?
- csense 14y ago
  > Is there even a real economic incentive to distribute that filth? I'm not a predator, and I'm not really trained or experienced in criminal justice or psychology, so everything I say about how they think is pure speculation. But I'd suppose that there is economic incentive: (1) Direct payment. I'm sure some people are probably willing to buy such content. I'm also sure that, if somebody else can figure out how to charge buyers and receive money, without leaving a trail back to themselves, some people are willing to sell such content. (2) Reciprocation/barter. Instead of trading money for content, they could trade content for content between individuals. For people who publish to message boards and the like, I assume they're trying to reciprocate for value they receive from others' posts. Or encourage others to post more, perhaps even saying they'll post an image from their collection for every image posted by someone else. (3) Enjoyment of the act of posting itself. One of the reasons people choose a criminal lifestyle -- or any extreme lifestyle, really -- is the pleasure of taking risks. Distributing illegal content is risky and some people may enjoy it for that reason.
  - e12e 14y ago
    I suppose a more sinister (and perhaps) real profit is that it serves as commercials/advertisement for child sex rings/human trafficers. If by nothing else boosting demand. But then that would have to be conclusively proved (another possibility is that paedophiles are less likely to prey on real children if they have access to child porn. Based on studies of porn in general, I'd doubt that, however).
- VMG 14y ago
  > shouldn't we focus on finding those making porn, actively abusing kids, rather than those distributing it? False dichotomy. Regardless on how you stand on distributing child pornography, a person actively distributing it from their connection and a person allowing others to route CP via their connection are logically equivalent in my opinion.
anonymous 14y ago
> So you think it's fine to allow someone to use your computer to transfer child porn and other illegal stuff with no consequences? Are loaded questions like these really necessary? As opposed to your misinformed comment below, ISPs are generally not required to keep logs in many jurisdictions and even if they are and fail to do so, they aren't made responsible for the crime that was committed over their infrastructure. The same standards should apply to Tor operators. > While tor might have some legitimate uses, I think 99% of the time it's used for trolling or illegal stuff. This number is pulled out of thin air. > It's a pain in the ass for me because I have to keep reblocking it when the ips change. Exit node IPs are documented on a public list for exactly that reason.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
darkarmani 14y ago
> So you think it's fine to allow someone to use your computer to transfer child porn and other illegal stuff with no consequences? You mean you'd like to shutdown all of core routers on the internet?

by dwj 14y ago

droithomme 14y ago

It's past time for a contrarian viewpoint. How about we legalize child porn? The vast majority of the time when it gets brought up is in the context of using it as a pretext to attack civil liberties of law abiding citizens. When there is a child porn arrest it almost always ends up being a honey trap run by the FBI using decades old photos, so it's not like there are many children being protected by these laws.

dwj 14y ago
Sounds like a paedophile's rationalisation...
- droithomme 14y ago
  Thanks.
- darkarmani 14y ago
  You spelled paedophile the right way. sounds like you know a lot about it...
gpvos 14y ago
Do you have numbers to back that up? I don't have that impression. But maybe our equivalent of the FBI is not as active in setting up honey traps.

jvanenk 14y ago

Ah, I have no rights to encryption either then since ... you know ... child porn. Or UPS for that matter.

dwj 14y ago
No, you misunderstood. My point is that someone else's child porn is going through your computer when you operate a tor exit node - that isn't the case when you just use encryption and transfer it yourself. Also UPS maintains logs of who sends and receives stuff, so they can easily track down anyone sending child porn or whatever through their service.
- jQueryIsAwesome 14y ago
  Someone else's child porn is going through your computer when you operate a ISP. Someone else's child porn is going in your taxi when you are a taxi driver. Someone else's child porn is being recorded at your house when you rent your house to someone unknown to you. By your line of logic we should all sit still and do nothing because otherwise we may be helping a pedophile.
  - dwj 14y ago
    The big difference is ISPs keep track of users' ip addresses and they give that information to the police when they get a warrant. tor doesn't keep that information, so basically the exit node is all that the police have. The trail stops at the person running the tor node. Likely the police won't find the actual perv here, but you can't blame them for trying. Interesting how many downvotes I got here...
    - marshray 14y ago
      But one can "blame them for trying" because they know, as you pointed out, "likely they won't find the actual perv". Many police use Tor on a day-to-day basis in their investigations. It's just as useful for the police to need anonymity as it is anyone else. Tor provides an easy-to-use system to identify the exit nodes. Ignorance of the reality is no excuse.
    - dwj 14y ago
      It's up to the user to prove that the child porn isn't on his computer. As someone pointed out earlier, you could just download a bunch of child porn with a tor exit node running on your computer and say it was someone else.

e12e 14y ago

Are all the network carriers (who arguably profited from carrying the traffic) also charged? I'd very much like to see some protection for carriers, be they network operators, or "softer" Tor etc operators. Yes the most heinous things on the Internet will crawl through. I'm not a supporter of child pornography -- but shouldn't we focus on finding those making porn, actively abusing kids, rather than those distributing it? Is there even a real economic incentive to distribute that filth?

csense 14y ago
> Is there even a real economic incentive to distribute that filth? I'm not a predator, and I'm not really trained or experienced in criminal justice or psychology, so everything I say about how they think is pure speculation. But I'd suppose that there is economic incentive: (1) Direct payment. I'm sure some people are probably willing to buy such content. I'm also sure that, if somebody else can figure out how to charge buyers and receive money, without leaving a trail back to themselves, some people are willing to sell such content. (2) Reciprocation/barter. Instead of trading money for content, they could trade content for content between individuals. For people who publish to message boards and the like, I assume they're trying to reciprocate for value they receive from others' posts. Or encourage others to post more, perhaps even saying they'll post an image from their collection for every image posted by someone else. (3) Enjoyment of the act of posting itself. One of the reasons people choose a criminal lifestyle -- or any extreme lifestyle, really -- is the pleasure of taking risks. Distributing illegal content is risky and some people may enjoy it for that reason.
- e12e 14y ago
  I suppose a more sinister (and perhaps) real profit is that it serves as commercials/advertisement for child sex rings/human trafficers. If by nothing else boosting demand. But then that would have to be conclusively proved (another possibility is that paedophiles are less likely to prey on real children if they have access to child porn. Based on studies of porn in general, I'd doubt that, however).
VMG 14y ago
> shouldn't we focus on finding those making porn, actively abusing kids, rather than those distributing it? False dichotomy. Regardless on how you stand on distributing child pornography, a person actively distributing it from their connection and a person allowing others to route CP via their connection are logically equivalent in my opinion.

anonymous 14y ago

> So you think it's fine to allow someone to use your computer to transfer child porn and other illegal stuff with no consequences? Are loaded questions like these really necessary? As opposed to your misinformed comment below, ISPs are generally not required to keep logs in many jurisdictions and even if they are and fail to do so, they aren't made responsible for the crime that was committed over their infrastructure. The same standards should apply to Tor operators. > While tor might have some legitimate uses, I think 99% of the time it's used for trolling or illegal stuff. This number is pulled out of thin air. > It's a pain in the ass for me because I have to keep reblocking it when the ips change. Exit node IPs are documented on a public list for exactly that reason.

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

darkarmani 14y ago

> So you think it's fine to allow someone to use your computer to transfer child porn and other illegal stuff with no consequences? You mean you'd like to shutdown all of core routers on the internet?