News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:YouTube AI deletes war crimes evidence as 'extremist mate... by mirimir on Sunday August 13, 2017 @02:32AM (#15001793)
> But that's the thing: You don't skip it. You spread it to every user. They both have to deal with whether or not they are willing to host the material and whether or not it is even legal for them.

> How many of us sympathise with the idea of running a Tor exit node, for example, but avoid it because we're worried about the consequences?

Tor isn't the best example, because exits don't cache anything. So mainly, exit operators get complaints. And the exit IPs end up on block lists. Operators don't typically get prosecuted. Maybe they get raided, however, so it's prudent to run exit relays on hosted servers.

Freenet is the better example. The basic design has nodes relaying stuff for other nodes. In an extremely obscure and randomized way. Also, keys are needed to access stored material.

However, nodes see IPs of all their peers. Investigators have used modified clients to identify nodes that handle illegal material. So users get busted. There is "plausible deniability". But it's not so plausible when prosecutors have experts that bullshit juries. So users typically plea bargain. Or, if they use encrypted storage, they get pressed for passwords. Like that guy in Philadelphia.

Re:YouTube AI deletes war crimes evidence as 'extremist mate... by vidarh on Sunday August 13, 2017 @03:46AM (#15001987)
It doesn't matter if operators get prosecuted or not. What matters if is people in general see running exit nodes as somewhat risky. Unless there is a reasonable perceived payoff, even a very minor perceived cost will be enough to stunt the growth of such a network severely.

Same goes for freenet and the like.

Re:YouTube AI deletes war crimes evidence as 'extremist mate... by mirimir on Sunday August 13, 2017 @04:15AM (#15002062)
True. I don't run Tor exits from home.