●Stories
●Firehose
●All
●Popular
●Polls
●Software
●Thought Leadership
Submit
●
Login
●or
●
Sign up
●Topics:
●Devices
●Build
●Entertainment
●Technology
●Open Source
●Science
●YRO
●Follow us:
●RSS
●Facebook
●LinkedIn
●Twitter
●
Youtube
●
Mastodon
●Bluesky
Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop
Forgot your password?
Close
wnewsdaystalestupid
sightfulinterestingmaybe
cflamebaittrollredundantoverrated
vefunnyunderrated
podupeerror
×
61815583
story
Posted
by
timothy
ly 03, 2014 @12:08PM
from the blame-thompson-for-babyface-nelson dept.
An anonymous reader writes with this excerpt from TechDirt: Three years ago we wrote about how Austrian police had seized computers from someone running a Tor exit node. This kind of thing happens from time to time, but it appears that folks in Austria have taken it up a notch by... effectively now making it illegal to run a Tor exit node. According to the report, which was confirmed by the accused, the court found that running the node violated 12 of the Austrian penal code, which effectively says:"Not only the immediate perpetrator 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." In other words, it's a form of accomplice liability for criminality. It's pretty standard to name criminal accomplices liable for "aiding and abetting" the activities of others, but it's a massive and incredibly dangerous stretch to argue that merely running a Tor exit node makes you an accomplice that "contributes to the completion" of a crime. Under this sort of thinking, Volkswagen would be liable if someone drove a VW as the getaway car in a bank robbery. It's a very, very broad interpretation of accomplice liability, in a situation where it clearly does not make sense.
You may like to read:
Ask Slashdot: Hosting Services That Don't Overreact To DMCA Requests?
FCC Proposal To Limit Access To 5725-5850 MHz Band
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Load All Comments
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
/Sea
Score:
5
4
3
2
1
0
-1
More
Login
Forgot your password?
Close
Close
Log In/Create an Account
●
All
●
Insightful
●
Informative
●
Interesting
●
Funny
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
byAnonymous Coward writes:
for giving birth to evil people. Arrest them all!
twitter
facebook
byjythie ( 914043 ) writes:
Well, that is where many 'honor' systems are rooted, that the parents are responsible for the child and thus anything the child does wrong becomes the shame of the family or clan.
Parent
twitter
facebook
bycheekyboy ( 598084 ) writes:
The govt teached the person at school,
The telco helped too,
The power company,
The food shop
Hey Austria, you helped Hitler, isnt that illegal.
byBitZtream ( 692029 ) writes:
Sigh ... taught ... not 'teached', taught.
Parent
twitter
facebook
byganjadude ( 952775 ) writes:
i get what you are saying, but if this guy is running an exit node, wouldnt EVERY other node on the route also be an accomplice? where is verizon and ATT on this list? im sure the NSA intercepted it and let it go through, does that make them accomplices as well? why is this single person the only one in the chain of nodes being held to a different standard??
Parent
twitter
facebook
byGameboyRMH ( 1153867 ) writes:
The exit node is what let the traffic get out of the darknet and to the target of the attack...although it would indeed be only slightly more stupid to charge all the parties you listed as accomplices as well (equivalent to charging Michelin, Raybestos, and Shell for helping that Volkswagen be used as a getaway car).
byCaptainDork ( 3678879 ) writes:
I agree, except for the conclusion.
The spirit of the law, or perhaps the spirit of economics? This bloke is not a Verizon.
byColdWetDog ( 752185 ) writes:
for giving birth to evil people. Arrest them all!
To be fair, the birth of each child comes with an 18 year + sentence, often with a similar sentence for the accomplice.
Parent
twitter
facebook
byOpportunist ( 166417 ) writes:
Yet it's illegal to try to avoid giving birth in most areas of the planet to some degree.
Laws are silly.
byAnonymous Coward writes:
We're moving, slowly but surely, towards making your IP address the equivalent of your social security number in the US.
twitter
facebook
byfustakrakich ( 1673220 ) writes:
Not until we get IPv6, which will tattooed on your arm.
Parent
twitter
facebook
byAnonymous Coward writes:
Not until we get IPv6, which will tattooed on your arm.
And the other two 6's are?
byAmiMoJo ( 196126 ) * writes:
That's gonna hurt.
byjphamlore ( 1996436 ) writes:
The ruling was in Austria.
Besides, in the US the transition to IPv6 might take the path of Carrier-grade Nat in which case customers would be lucky to get an IP address at all ...
byAnonymous Coward writes:
Is the ISP an accomplice too? And the operating system vendor?
twitter
facebook
byjythie ( 914043 ) writes:
That makes me a bit concerned and curious as to why no ISPs or similar companies got involved in the case. While a judge and jury might not understand the technical details, people working in tech (and their lawyers) probably would and companies should be concerned about how this might come back to them.
Parent
twitter
facebook
byzAPPzAPP ( 1207370 ) writes:
Probably because it is not a precedence based jurisdiction, so this case has no concern for them. They can relax, wait and battle when/if they are actually target of a lawsuit.
Of course this decission may be an indicator of how the law is to be interpreted, but that is a problem with the law itself and winnning this case for the guy will change nothing about that for the ISPs.
byZeroPly ( 881915 ) writes:
Not in America. Here, corporations are good people, and people people are bad people.
byzlives ( 2009072 ) writes:
we don't call them people any more, the 99ers don't deserve that classification since we moved them to subhuman status.
byMinwee ( 522556 ) writes:
We prefer the term "meat popsicle".
byzlives ( 2009072 ) writes:
mmm so soylanty
byCharliemopps ( 1157495 ) writes:
Is the ISP an accomplice too? And the operating system vendor?
The Austrian Government owns over a 30% stake in the primary ISP and used to own 100% so... no. :-)
byAsh Vince ( 602485 ) * writes:
Is the ISP an accomplice too? And the operating system vendor?
Are you really not able to see a difference between your examples and running a tor exit node?
Let me spell it out for you: ISP's are selling you a service but tracking you in order to make sure any people using their network for anything illegal can be traced, a tor exit node is designed to let people be anonymous and untraceable. The judge made the assumption that anyone who wants to be untraceable to law enforcement must be a criminal, which is actually not such a huge stretch.
byMinwee ( 522556 ) writes:
The judge made the assumption that anyone who wants to be untraceable to law enforcement must be a criminal, which is actually not such a huge stretch.
That's true. Except for the people who are not criminals, 100% of people using TOR are criminals.
Parent
twitter
facebook
bymrchaotica ( 681592 ) * writes:
The judge made the assumption that anyone who wants to be untraceable to law enforcement must be a criminal, which is actually not such a huge stretch.
"Not a huge stretch" ...for a totalitarian, sure. But that sort of thing was supposed to have been off Austria's agenda since 1945.
byAthanasiusKircher ( 1333179 ) writes:
The judge made the assumption that anyone who wants to be untraceable to law enforcement must be a criminal, which is actually not such a huge stretch.
Fascinating. And here I thought "Papers, please!" was not an acceptable law enforcement tactic in Austria anymore.
(In case this is unclear -- the default in most democratic countries has generally been that people are effectively "untraceable to law enforcement." I know that may seem completely crazy in this new era of continuous surveillance, fingerprint and DNA databases (even for non-criminals), etc., but it's actually how the world mostly was until just the past couple decades. Exactly why should t
bymjm1231 ( 751545 ) writes:
... while you signed up with something that is known to hide illegal traffic...
Doesn't that describe the entire internet (also, the public highways, mass transit systems, etc., etc.) So you really meant yes?
byzlives ( 2009072 ) writes:
i guess the banks are complicit in money laundering... o wait
bynurb432 ( 527695 ) writes:
Most traffic on the internet is legal. As is most traffic on the roads.
byIssarlk ( 1429361 ) writes:
Most traffic on Tor is legal. Or are chineses and iranians inherently evil people ?
bymsauve ( 701917 ) writes:
They contributed at least as much. And, a few backbone providers. This guy was just a single hop, they contribute many.
twitter
facebook
byJason Levine ( 196982 ) writes:
Ah, but the ISPs and backbone providers are likely big companies with lawyers. So they can't possibly be accomplices and must be completely innocent angels. This individual with no team of lawyers on retainer is obviously guilty of helping out nasty criminals.
bygstoddart ( 321705 ) writes:
And, don't forget, the provisions of the DMCA and the things like it were written in such a way as to safeguard the ISPs as long as they played ball with the authorities.
Under the guise of copyright reform, government have rigged the game, and built in a mechanism by which they can continue to illegally spy on everybody and pretend like it's all legit.
We are pretty much fucked. "State Security" has become the catch phrase (along with kiddie porn and copyright) which is being used to ensure we no longer liv
byTWX ( 665546 ) writes:
It'll come down to an opinion as to whether or not the use of Tor implies an intent to allow others to break the law. While an anonymizer service itself can be used for both legal and illegal purposes, if the court later finds that its use is far more illegitimate than it is legitimate, then that will dictate how they rule on the matter.
That's the biggest difference compared to the car analogy, in that the demonstrated legitimate use of cars far, far outweighs the illegitimate use of cars. Using cars is the norm. Using Tor is not the norm, and so then it becomes a matter of scrutinizing what it does, who uses it, and for what purposes.
Same issues held true for networks like Napster and MegaUpload, and holds true for bit torrent.
twitter
facebook
byNoNonAlphaCharsHere ( 2201864 ) writes:
The problem is with saying a particular Tor node might be involved in a "crime" (copyright infringement (shudder)). The summary's example is a little flawed, it's more akin to arresting a car dealer because an auto they sold might be involved in a crime. The same argument could be made about cash (could be involved in something nefarious and untraceable) or, god help us, guns. This is just kowtowing to corporate interests, masquerading as shoddy legal thinking.
bymrchaotica ( 681592 ) * writes:
The same argument could be made about cash (could be involved in something nefarious and untraceable)
Go read about "civil forfeiture" and be very, very upset.
byTWX ( 665546 ) writes:
The United States discontinued the regular thousand dollar bill with that exact reasoning. There are a few large-denomination bills, but they're not for regular transactions and probably couldn't be redeemed at printed value for smaller bills without going through official channels, making them close to useless if you're not part of the Federal Reserve system.
bywagnerrp ( 1305589 ) writes:
It'll come down to an opinion as to whether or not the use of Tor implies an intent to allow others to break the law. While an anonymizer service itself can be used for both legal and illegal purposes
I was under the impression TOR was explicitly designed to allow others to break the law, for the benefit of regions where things like expressing an opinion is illegal. Of course an anonymizer service is only effective if there is plenty of other innocuous white noise on the same channel.
byjxander ( 2605655 ) writes:
TOR is just a mask. A means to obscure yourself
Should we arrest anyone we see wearing a mask? Should we arrest people who sell masks?
byDaHat ( 247651 ) writes:
It's illegal in quite a few states to wear a mask in public due to past attempts on cracking down on the KKK.
byjxander ( 2605655 ) writes:
Interesting, but it was the 2nd question that bears more relevance to the actual issue.
If someone sells masks (i.e. outdoor/hiking stores, Halloween stores, etc) is the seller liable if someone wears the mask to commit a crime?
byDaHat ( 247651 ) writes:
If they have a reasonable belief that the person will used the purchased item in a crime... then yes... sometimes.
This is nothing new... plenty of gun manufacturers and stores have been hit by lawsuits over the years (and in some cases, criminal charges) because items they manufactured or sold were later used in a crime.
Bar tenders have seen civil & criminal prosecutions for continuing to serve someone who was already clearly intoxicated and then later drove home and killed someone.
I'm not saying it's r
byAaronLS ( 1804210 ) writes:
Agreed. There are some very noble uses of Tor, but when you operate an exit node you are basically allowing any scum to use your connection to hide their activities, and some are really sick. I wish there were a good solution to allow an exit node to be operated, but prevent some of the more nefarious uses. In the absence of that, it is pretty irresponsible to contribute such a powerful component(the exit node) without discretion for what it will be used for. At least an ISP providing a physical link has
byMarkvW ( 1037596 ) writes:
I think you're making good points. If I own a toll bridge, I know that my bridge is going to be used to transport all kinds of stolen property. Still, I shouldn't be liable for such transport.
byamicusNYCL ( 1538833 ) writes:
Using Tor is not the norm, and so then it becomes a matter of scrutinizing what it does, who uses it, and for what purposes.
The same could be said for any emerging technology. That argument would have applied when SSL was new. Maybe one day Tor will be standard, you buy a new computer, get online, and it's using Tor without you ever changing any settings. The EFF is already saying that everyone should use Tor [eff.org]. At this point, the only reason it's not the norm is because it's fairly new. I wouldn't be surprised if we see computers within a couple years marketed with privacy in mind that come with Tor already installed and con
byrogoshen1 ( 2922505 ) writes:
Yes, but what if the 'law' being broken is one suppressing freedom of speech, freedom of the press, or otherwise reporting on things that uncomfortable for those making the laws?
Things like Tor have an intrinsic value to society. Cases like this show that even in western democracies -- government has an active interest in suppressing hard won liberties :(
byJaime2 ( 824950 ) writes:
Isn't this just another form of the "illegal to be black" line of thinking? Just because you have a certain skin color or live in a certain neighborhood doesn't automatically mean you should be treated like a criminal. Sure it's expedient for cops to make these generalizations, but it's wrong.
byTWX ( 665546 ) writes:
Being black is what one is, not what one does.
Now, it's unfortunately common that participating in thug culture is interpreted as "being black". If someone is aspiring to thug culture in their mannerisms and how they attire and adorn themselves then yes, they will be judged based on their appearance, even if they've never committed a crime, and they will be scrutinized.
Every racial group has their own form of thug culture, and sometimes they overlap in style, or someone of a different ethnicity will
byjythie ( 914043 ) writes:
Or, conversely, if it was routinely and publicly being used for neutral activities it would be a lot safer. At the moment it tends to be filled with a combination of people using it generally for ideological reasons and people using it specifically for nefarious ones. Kinda like torrents, the use of them for piracy is greater then the use of them for other activities, but if the other activities made up a larger part then it would be treated differntly.
byTWX ( 665546 ) writes:
No, because payphones started out being used for general-purpose.
If Irridium or any of the then-new satellite phone systems had been adopted by primarily a criminal or terrorist user base then they probably would be shut down or heavily modified to make it more difficult to use such a service in those circumstances for very long.
byNReitzel ( 77941 ) writes:
In the post-911 world, police departments all over the world are moving into Orwellian territory. They spot someone that they "know" is doing a crime, and they go searching for a law to hammer them.
With laws that don't sunset, and legislative organizations (worldwide) passing more rules and regulations and laws as fast as they can write them down, the state is moving to consolidate it's power. Once, a congressman from the United States said of his constituents, "There are no law-abiding citizens, there are only citizens who haven't yet broken a law."
Wait for it. The police are choosing to persecute (sic) whomever they want to, and due process seems to be fading into the sunset.
twitter
facebook
byjklovanc ( 1603149 ) writes:
Once, a congressman from the United States said of his constituents, "There are no law-abiding citizens, there are only citizens who haven't yet broken a law."
If you are going to quote someone then you need to give a name and, if possible, a reference. Saying "a congressman from the United States" is meaningless. Yes, I did a Google search for that phrase and found nothing.
Parent
twitter
facebook
byGrumpySteen ( 1250194 ) writes:
I believe that would be Senator Strawman who was quoting his Aunt Sally from the UK.
bydunkindave ( 1801608 ) writes:
Once, a congressman from the United States said of his constituents, "There are no law-abiding citizens, there are only citizens who haven't yet broken a law."
Funny, I tried googling your quote to see what congressman said it and when, but Google didn't find any matches. I also tried some variants of the wording but still no luck. It seems to me that such a quote would produce a lot of search results if it happened. Citation please?
byNReitzel ( 77941 ) writes:
My apologies. I searched myself for the quotation and did not find it. The person in question was Charles Schumer (US Senator), and his remarks were in response to a rather over-the-top NRA assertion that the government was trying to take guns away from "Law Abiding Citizens" subsequent to some multiple shooting event. The event made at least one video outlet -- which is how I saw it -- but apparently was not recorded. This I actually understand, and find nothing nefarious about it -- after all, there was a hugely more serious event to report on.
Since I was unable to provide an actual citation, I did not "name names" -- and the comment was more to illustrate an attitude by lawmakers (not necessarily Mr Schumer personally) that government should have the power to go after someone that "they think" is a Bad Guy, and screw the legal process.
In the US, there have been countless cases of cops trying to charge someone recording their actions on video, because having their actions stand up to careful scrutiny seems (to them) to be an undue burden. The current trend towards categorizing all "illegal immigrants" as drug mules is another example. "They are here illegally, right? So we know they've broken a law." Yes, but _drug mules_ ? That's a stretch.
As a person who witnessed the 1968 events in Chicago, I know that there are some police forces who have the attitude of "We know who the bad guys are and we need to be able to go after them" and the phrase "burden of proof" seems to be missing from their repertoire. Thankfully, in the US, the majority of police forces are not there, at least not yet.
Parent
twitter
facebook
bydrinkypoo ( 153816 ) writes:
Under this sort of thinking, Volkswagen would be liable if someone drove a VW as the getaway car in a bank robbery.
No. Under this sort of thinking, the owner of a Volkswagen would be liable if someone drove their VW as the getaway car in a bank robbery. And indeed, in some countries you can be held [partially] liable for misuse of your vehicle even if all you did was leave the keys in the car, especially if you have even a passing relationship with the perpetrators.
twitter
facebook
byJaime2 ( 824950 ) writes:
I would like to have seen the original example as "The city government that maintains the roads and traffic control devices would be liable for allowing the suspect to get away fast enough to evade capture".
byBitZtream ( 692029 ) writes:
The owner of the VW would be liable if they put the keys somewhere with a big sign that says 'use my car to keep the law from knowing what YOU are doing by making it look like it was me!'
byterbeaux ( 2579575 ) writes:
You can spin up your own Tor exit node in Austria here: http://lowendbox.com/tag/austria/ [lowendbox.com]
Or, if you prefer, you can just donate to people that are running nodes here: https://www.torproject.org/docs/faq#RelayDonations [torproject.org]
twitter
facebook
byHogGeek ( 456673 ) writes:
"Under this sort of thinking, Volkswagen would be liable if someone drove a VW as the getaway car in a bank robbery"
That may be the case, but probably only if VW knowingly pursued bank robbers as customers (e.g.; in their ads they said something to the effect of "Perfect as a get-away vehicle!")
I'd bet the courts/prosecutor said something to the effect "As the 'administrator' of a TOR exit node, It's not unreasonable for the operator to expect illicit or illegal activity to take place, as the intent of TOR
byJason Levine ( 196982 ) writes:
Comcast is turning users' cable modems into public hotspots. So anyone could connect to a user's modem and use it for any purpose that one might connect to the Internet for. If said use is illegal, would the person who owned (or leased it from Comcast as the case may be) be liable as an accomplice? After all, if you provide open Internet access, you've got to expect that someone is going to do something illegal with it.
(I know that the story is in Australia and this is in the US, but this sounds like a v
byaccount_deleted ( 4530225 ) writes:
Comment removed based on user account deletion
byDF5JT ( 589002 ) writes:
(I know that the story is in Australia and this is in the US, but this sounds like a valid comparison.)
This may be news to you, but there is actually a country called Austria and it's not the one with the kangaroos.
byWookact ( 2804191 ) writes:
There are two letters added, its an easy mistake to make depending on screen resolution, amount of attention being paid, etc. When I first read it I too thought Australia. Possibly because I was skimming the text, and my brain assumed Australia because it appears far more often on Slashdot for these types of things
byCulture20 ( 968837 ) writes:
More like arresting a taxi driver for transporting a bank robber when the taxi driver didn't know he was a bank robber.
twitter
facebook
byCulture20 ( 968837 ) writes:
Rephrased: how often does someone who is not hiding criminal activity wear a mask on their face?
Maybe it's embarrassing but perfectly legal activity. Or maybe they just like being anonymous.
byRegistered Coward v2 ( 447531 ) writes:
1. Apparently a final ruling has not been reached. While a court has found the operator guilty it's not clear if that will ultimately hold.
2. None of TFA provide any details of what the ruling was based on, beyond the TOT node being used for illegal activity by someone else. Without more details, it is impossible to conclude that merely running a TOR node is illegal; the only conclusion from TFA is someone was prosecuted for running one. A relationship between the operator and the user committing fraud, or if the operator new the user was using the node of illegal purposes, is vastly different than merely running a node where a user is using it for illegal activities. The former is much more reasonable to prosecute than the latter.
3. As others point out, in keeping with /. traditions, the car analogy is bogus.
twitter
facebook
byBlue Stone ( 582566 ) writes:
Thanks. Its contributions like yours thant make /. a still tolerable place.
bynospam007 ( 722110 ) * writes:
Let's hope lots of kidnap victims will now sue the phone company and the post office because they aided the kidnapper by allowing and delivering anonymous phone calls and ransom notes.
bygstoddart ( 321705 ) writes:
So is the gist of this that anything which prevents the government from spying on you is now illegal?
Have we come that far already?
Sad, the world used to be such a nice place, but governments have become so demanding in their surveillance that anything which they can't defeat is now illegal.
twitter
facebook
bynurb432 ( 527695 ) writes:
Ultimately you are responsible for the traffic that exits your PC. Sure, if you are infected with a virus, you have a potential 'out' but if you *allow* it, then not so much.
The "VW" analogy in the story line, is ludicrous. If you want to use a car analogy; its like letting your friends store gym bags in your trunk while you drive cross country. You didnt ask what was in the bags, but know there could be drugs..
bysmooth wombat ( 796938 ) writes:
The car analogy is so flawed it really should be removed from the story for this significant reason: cars are designed to move people and stuff. They can be used to commit crimes, but that is not their intended use.
Tor on the other hand, is explicitly designed to allow people to remain anonymous, to prevent detection. While honest people most certainly use Tor, so do criminals and it is because of Tor's intended purpose that the police are justifying their actions.
Before anyone flames me, I am not justifying what is taking place. I am only giving a much better explanation than that ridiculous car analogy for why this is taking place.
twitter
facebook
byrichlv ( 778496 ) writes:
"While honest people most certainly use cars, so do criminals"
so you were saying ?
byAthanasiusKircher ( 1333179 ) writes:
Tor on the other hand, is explicitly designed to allow people to remain anonymous, to prevent detection.
Amazing how faulty logic can be disguised by just putting a comma into a sentence. If you had an "AND" or "OR" at the end of the sentence, I might have agreed with you.
But by using a comma, you implicitly claim that "to remain anonymous" = "to prevent detection." Those are not the same at all. There are all sorts of reasons people might want to remain anonymous, most notably just because they believe in something called "privacy" and don't want other people (governments, online businesses, internet ad
byJim Sadler ( 3430529 ) writes:
If history has taught us anything at all it has taught us that Austria has a tendency to be way over the edge of reasoning in its legal practices.
The reason the car analogy is correct is that in fact the average car will at some point be used to commit a crime. For example driving a bit drunk is a crime. Forgetting to make a timely renewal on the cars insurance is also a criminal act. Speeding is a crime as well. Therefore the average car is sold with the seller knowingly being an accom
bychuckugly ( 2030942 ) writes:
Does this make every link, switch, and router on the route an accomplice? Why not?
twitter
facebook
byMaxwell ( 13985 ) writes:
Postal mail - the original pirate transport mechanism!
they need to be shut down, stat!
bysam0vi ( 985269 ) writes:
This has been a long time coming. Not to say is the right thing, but I think it was bound to happen. Freedom for the masses is a very dangerous thing for the stability of our society ... I mean ... for the billionaire multinational "elite" and their puppet "democratic" governments. I'll consider him a martyr for the evolution of human society (sorry Fritz!).
For things to get better, they sometimes have to get worse :-(
bydenzacar ( 181829 ) writes:
Most of the world uses something called Civil Law [wikipedia.org] as opposed to your Common Law that you inherited from UK.
Which is why in most of the world precedents don't carry as much weight [wikipedia.org] as they do in Common Law legal systems like yours, where the rationale for the decision makes each sentence a binding precedent in other courts.
And that is why this single decision DOES NOT "effectively now make it illegal to run a Tor exit node" in Austria.
NOR would "Volkswagen be liable if someone drove a VW as the getaway car in a bank robbery".
twitter
facebook
byMaquis196 ( 535256 ) writes:
Austria, not Australia.... afaik, UK never owned the former head of the Holy Roman Empire :)
byMaquis196 ( 535256 ) writes:
apologies, misread your comment!
bydenzacar ( 181829 ) writes:
It's OK.
I had to return to the summary to check that I haven't misread it.
And then I had to check the article again to make sure timothy read it right.
After all, it is the Internet.
Half the shit one reads or sees in any given day requires a double check to make sure you saw/read right.
I.e. Transformers 4 made HOW MUCH MONEY?!
Why would anyone go to see that after the last 3 movies which were essentially one and the same movie done 3 times and only made longer? [youtube.com]
bybistromath007 ( 1253428 ) writes:
Isn't this more like if almost all the employees at McDonald's were also dealing drugs out the back door? Pretty sure all the franchise owners would at least be investigated/harassed out of business in that case. Not saying it's right, but it makes way more sense than the car thing.
bysurfdaddy ( 930829 ) writes:
...to know that us Americans are not the only ones who are batshit crazy.
byConfusedVorlon ( 657247 ) writes:
They provide 80% of the Tor Project's funds.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T... [wikipedia.org]
twitter
facebook
byTitus Groan ( 2834723 ) writes:
common carriers are also accomplices to all on-line crimes then.
byHappyHead ( 11389 ) writes:
TFA is actually pretty short - not much longer than the summary. You should go read it!
byrotorbudd ( 1242864 ) writes:
What? Read the article?
This IS slashdot right?
Parent
twitter
facebook
byganjadude ( 952775 ) writes:
i would argue a better one would be a criminal robbed a bank, and in the process of running from the cops he ran through your home, and somehow you are liable
bySarten-X ( 1102295 ) writes:
Well, that depends... did you leave your front door open with a big sign saying "Twisty passages inside! Great for losing pursuers!" posted next to it?
If so, then it's pretty easy to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you were not just aware that your actions could assist criminals, but you actually made overt actions to help them.
byhawkinspeter ( 831501 ) writes:
I'm not sure that analogy works very well as Tor is used for general privacy and there's any number of reasons (legal and illegal) why someone would want some privacy. The sign by your front door should read "Secret passages inside! Great for a bit of privacy with no cameras!".
They should be concentrating on the criminals and not some of the techniques that the criminals may use in pursuit of the crime. Should McDonalds be held accountable for a blackmail email sent from one of its wifi points?
byTooTechy ( 191509 ) writes:
Does this mean that anyone who allows public access through their property, like a store with two doors, or a shopping mall operator, will be responsible too for the bank robbery?
byjeIlomizer ( 3670951 ) writes:
Well, it shouldn't. In any truly free country, the potential for abuse shouldn't mean whatever it is should get banned.
bynitehawk214 ( 222219 ) writes:
Or, in other words, guilty until proven innocent.
Parent
twitter
facebook
byCulture20 ( 968837 ) writes:
Prima: I need to do some dodgy shit.
Secunda: I am going to offer a resource for people to do dodgy shit.
Prima: I am going to use your resource to do dodgy shit.
Secunda: OK, please carry on using it.
Prima: I need to be anonymous
Secunda: I offer masks. Masks make you anonymous.
Prima: I am going to use your resource (thinking only to self: to do dodgy shit.)
Secunda: I'm glad someone appreciates my fine craftsmanship.
If a bankrobber robs a bank while wearing a mask purchased from a store, is that mask store held liable? Usually only if the bank robber explicitly said "I'm going to use this mask to do dodgy shit".
users of the tor network don't notify exit node maintainers what they plan to do with the exit nodes they transfer data from. At best, an exit node maintainer might be able to firewall off certain sites, but that's cumbersome and doesn't prevent 99% of evil use cases.
Parent
twitter
facebook
byAndrewBuck ( 1120597 ) writes:
Kind of ironic that you chose to post that comment anonymously, exactly the kind of thing TOR is designed to allow for.
-AndrewBuck
byAndrewBuck ( 1120597 ) writes:
I didn't claim that he was immune from being tracked down, I am well aware of the issues of IP level anonymity vs slashdot just choosing not to display a name which is what the AC parent did. I know the distinction because I run a Tor relay (not an exit node just a relay) and I use Tor myself.
My point was merely that he chose to remain anonymous (at least as well as he was easily able to) while criticising a tool used by others to actully do the same thing.
Whether Tor is used by "bad guys" is beside the po
byjeIlomizer ( 3670951 ) writes:
And, yes, making a request to your computer in your ownership+control is the same as making a request to you.
Besides what others said: No, because a person isn't instantly informed that such a thing took place. Under certain circumstances, they may never even find out.
byAaronLS ( 1804210 ) writes:
No that is not the logic being applied. You are ignoring certain factors in the sake of making a very silly argument. A car manufacturer is not an accomplice because someone used one of their cars to commit a crime, because the design and typical use of a car is for legitimate purposes. If however, the car manufacturer provided features designed specifically to aid criminals, or features which happenstance had more common criminal uses than legitimate, then they would be an accomplice be cause the knowin
byThud457 ( 234763 ) writes:
The government that gives you anonymizing routers [wikipedia.org] so you can subvert your oppressive government. And then develops attacks on said anonymizing networks. [wikipedia.org] WHAAAAA???!!
There may be more comments in this discussion. Without JavaScript enabled, you might want to turn on Classic Discussion System in your preferences instead.
●
443 commentsUSPS Halts All Packages From China, Sending the Ecommerce Industry Into Chaos
●
375 commentsHealth Secretary Wants Every American To Be Sporting a Wearable Within Four Years
●
348 commentsAlleged 'CEO Shooter' Luigi Mangione Raises $297K Online
●
277 commentsAs Stocks (and Cryptocurrencies) Drop After Tariffs, France Considers Retaliating Against US Big Tech
●
276 commentsMicrosoft Sued Over Plans to Discontinue Windows 10 Support
FCC Proposal To Limit Access To 5725-5850 MHz Band
Ask Slashdot: Hosting Services That Don't Overreact To DMCA Requests?
Slashdot Top Deals
Slashdot
●
●
of loaded
●
Submit Story
"Our reruns are better than theirs."
-- Nick at Nite
●FAQ
●Story Archive
●Hall of Fame
●Advertising
●Terms
●Privacy Statement
●About
●Feedback
●Mobile View
●Blog
Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information
Copyright © 2026 Slashdot Media. All Rights Reserved.
×
Close
Working...
Ask Slashdot: Hosting Services That Don't Overreact To DMCA Requests?
148 comments
Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information
Copyright © 2026 Slashdot Media. All Rights Reserved.
×
Close
Working...