7 ms·

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. place

by 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".

by dwj 14y ago

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".