Re:Judge Who Authorized Police Search of Privacy Activists W...
by mulmen on Monday April 11, 2016 @11:55PM
(#11477151)
You don't own the bank, they owned the computer. You aren't responsible for what happens to money the bank loans out since that money isn't yours.
From the article:
"Bultmann and Robinson had publicly advertised that they operated a Tor exit relay node—a node in the global Tor network, whose purpose is to give users the ability to browse the web anonymously. They said they operated the node as a service to dissidents in repressive countries, knowing full well that criminals might use it as well, much like any other communication tool."
So yes, they didn't know which drug dealer they were renting to or which packets were from drug dealers (or child pornographers) but they did know it was possible. And with Tor I think it would even be considered likely.
There seems to be a difference between say running a Tor exit node and running a commercial VoIP service. With VoIP the operator is required by law to record and make available certain information to LEO. Tor by design prevents the operators from having that information. I'm not sure what the legal consequences are but it seems to me that in any other "communication tool" situation the operator is expected to at least make an attempt to prevent illegal use. With Tor that isn't possible so I don't think it's really "like any other communication tool"
Bultmann and Robinson knew they might be enabling criminal behavior with their own personal equipment in their home. I think it's easy to at least see the perspective of law enforcement in this case or how the legal system could find them at least partially responsible.
I'm not saying this is what should happen but I don't think we have a clearly defined right to run an open proxy as a get out of jail free card.
Re:Judge Who Authorized Police Search of Privacy Activists W...
by tracker1 on Tuesday April 12, 2016 @01:40AM
(#11477468)
Then the government is responsible for most crime, because roads are used to transport stolen goods an facilitate a huge number of crimes... we need to stop the roads.
From the article:
"Bultmann and Robinson had publicly advertised that they operated a Tor exit relay node—a node in the global Tor network, whose purpose is to give users the ability to browse the web anonymously. They said they operated the node as a service to dissidents in repressive countries, knowing full well that criminals might use it as well, much like any other communication tool."
So yes, they didn't know which drug dealer they were renting to or which packets were from drug dealers (or child pornographers) but they did know it was possible. And with Tor I think it would even be considered likely.
There seems to be a difference between say running a Tor exit node and running a commercial VoIP service. With VoIP the operator is required by law to record and make available certain information to LEO. Tor by design prevents the operators from having that information. I'm not sure what the legal consequences are but it seems to me that in any other "communication tool" situation the operator is expected to at least make an attempt to prevent illegal use. With Tor that isn't possible so I don't think it's really "like any other communication tool"
Bultmann and Robinson knew they might be enabling criminal behavior with their own personal equipment in their home. I think it's easy to at least see the perspective of law enforcement in this case or how the legal system could find them at least partially responsible.
I'm not saying this is what should happen but I don't think we have a clearly defined right to run an open proxy as a get out of jail free card.