8 ms·

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 informa

by 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.
- anonymous 14y ago
  > It's up to the user to prove that the child porn isn't on his computer. You're abandoning central pillars of modern law here, namely the presumption of innocence as well as the right not to incriminate oneself.
  - dwj 14y ago
    No, not exactly. Perhaps I didn't word it correctly. A crime has been committed using the user's internet connection, so in most civilized countries (i.e. places I would like to live in), that means the police have the legal and moral right to investigate that crime. Until proven otherwise, the 'tor' user is a suspect - watch a few episodes of CSI if you want to get a rough idea how it works.
    - anonymous 14y ago
      > A crime has been committed using the user's internet connection, so in most civilized countries (i.e. places I would like to live in), that means the police have the legal and moral right to investigate that crime. I agree so far. > Until proven otherwise, the 'tor' user [operator?] is a suspect The burden of proof lies with the police, not with the suspect. If the police fails to come up with reasonable evidence, the operator is to be acquitted, furthermore the operator has to do nothing to aid the police. It's definitely not up to him to prove the child porn isn't on his computer. This is an important point. Consider what happens if the seized hard drives were encrypted (I don't know whether this is the case). Then it's virtually impossible for the police to prove that the operator was downloading the data himself. The operator on the other hand is not required to give up his passwords. In the end it all comes down to the question of whether relaying data via Tor is in itself enough to constitute an offense. And this is the question we all care about so much, because it will have implications for all exit node operators in the area. > watch a few episodes of CSI if you want to get a rough idea how it works. Oh come on.
      - dwj 14y ago
        Agreed. The issue is that people are getting upset with the police seizing the computers, which would seem to be reasonable in the given situation.
    - flyinRyan 14y ago
      >watch a few episodes of CSI if you want to get a rough idea how it works. Please don't watch CSI if you want to see how anything works. CSI is bullshit from top to bottom. If you want to see reality, watch "The Wire".
anonymous 14y ago
> Interesting how many downvotes I got here... Maybe you should stop spreading misinformation then: ISPs are not generally required to log IPs, neither on global scale, nor on European scale, nor on Austrian scale. The last two ISPs I've used, for example, were both exempted from the recently passed data retention law. The irony is that the raided guy owns an ISP himself that (as far as I know) wouldn't be required to log IPs. If the data would have been distributed directly over that equipment, he would not be liable. Even if I'm wrong and he would have been required to keep logs and didn't, he could only be charged with that particular offense. But since the traffic went over Tor he is now at risk to getting his life ruined.
- baak 14y ago
  A surprising amount of people seem to be just flat out defending child pornography itself, actually. The fact that everyone talks about it so nonchalant is frightening. People seem to care more about this guy's life being ruined than all the kids' lives ruined.
  - Karunamon 14y ago
    The civil liberties encroachments perpetrated in the guise of "stopping child porn" do a hell of a lot more damage to a hell of a lot more people than all the child porn ever produced.
    - baak 14y ago
      I honestly can't tell if you're being serious or not. I'd like to know how you measure the damage done to a child who is raped on film, much less all of them. "A lot more damage"... I guess you're right though. Children being victimized is a small price to pay for free movies on bittorrent.
      - Karunamon 14y ago
        >Children being victimized is a small price to pay for free movies on bittorrent. If you're going to go straight to the "hurr this is just about piracy" stupidity there's no need to waste any time talking with you.

by dwj 14y ago

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.

anonymous 14y ago
> It's up to the user to prove that the child porn isn't on his computer. You're abandoning central pillars of modern law here, namely the presumption of innocence as well as the right not to incriminate oneself.
- dwj 14y ago
  No, not exactly. Perhaps I didn't word it correctly. A crime has been committed using the user's internet connection, so in most civilized countries (i.e. places I would like to live in), that means the police have the legal and moral right to investigate that crime. Until proven otherwise, the 'tor' user is a suspect - watch a few episodes of CSI if you want to get a rough idea how it works.
  - anonymous 14y ago
    > A crime has been committed using the user's internet connection, so in most civilized countries (i.e. places I would like to live in), that means the police have the legal and moral right to investigate that crime. I agree so far. > Until proven otherwise, the 'tor' user [operator?] is a suspect The burden of proof lies with the police, not with the suspect. If the police fails to come up with reasonable evidence, the operator is to be acquitted, furthermore the operator has to do nothing to aid the police. It's definitely not up to him to prove the child porn isn't on his computer. This is an important point. Consider what happens if the seized hard drives were encrypted (I don't know whether this is the case). Then it's virtually impossible for the police to prove that the operator was downloading the data himself. The operator on the other hand is not required to give up his passwords. In the end it all comes down to the question of whether relaying data via Tor is in itself enough to constitute an offense. And this is the question we all care about so much, because it will have implications for all exit node operators in the area. > watch a few episodes of CSI if you want to get a rough idea how it works. Oh come on.
    - dwj 14y ago
      Agreed. The issue is that people are getting upset with the police seizing the computers, which would seem to be reasonable in the given situation.
  - flyinRyan 14y ago
    >watch a few episodes of CSI if you want to get a rough idea how it works. Please don't watch CSI if you want to see how anything works. CSI is bullshit from top to bottom. If you want to see reality, watch "The Wire".

anonymous 14y ago

> Interesting how many downvotes I got here... Maybe you should stop spreading misinformation then: ISPs are not generally required to log IPs, neither on global scale, nor on European scale, nor on Austrian scale. The last two ISPs I've used, for example, were both exempted from the recently passed data retention law. The irony is that the raided guy owns an ISP himself that (as far as I know) wouldn't be required to log IPs. If the data would have been distributed directly over that equipment, he would not be liable. Even if I'm wrong and he would have been required to keep logs and didn't, he could only be charged with that particular offense. But since the traffic went over Tor he is now at risk to getting his life ruined.

baak 14y ago
A surprising amount of people seem to be just flat out defending child pornography itself, actually. The fact that everyone talks about it so nonchalant is frightening. People seem to care more about this guy's life being ruined than all the kids' lives ruined.
- Karunamon 14y ago
  The civil liberties encroachments perpetrated in the guise of "stopping child porn" do a hell of a lot more damage to a hell of a lot more people than all the child porn ever produced.
  - baak 14y ago
    I honestly can't tell if you're being serious or not. I'd like to know how you measure the damage done to a child who is raped on film, much less all of them. "A lot more damage"... I guess you're right though. Children being victimized is a small price to pay for free movies on bittorrent.
    - Karunamon 14y ago
      >Children being victimized is a small price to pay for free movies on bittorrent. If you're going to go straight to the "hurr this is just about piracy" stupidity there's no need to waste any time talking with you.