Sorry, what? Within America, that principle ultimately derives from English common law (from which the legal systems of most former colonies are derived). Moreover, it is a specific part of the European Convention on Human Rights, to which all EU members are party.
Of course it doesn't necessarily apply everywhere in the world (though it'd be foolish to expect any legal doctrine to apply universally, although in this case the doctrine is part of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which makes it about as close to universal law as is possible) - but it clearly extends beyond the borders of the US (and in fact, the notion of it 'extending beyond the borders' is pretty offensive, as it suggests the US as the origin of the principle).
From a recent New York State supreme court decision [0], citing federal law on page 12: "to possess the images in the cache, the defendant must, at a minimum, know that the unlawful images are stored on a disk or other tangible material in his possession". And on page 14, "a defendant cannot knowingly acquire or possess that which he or she does not know exists".
Variations of the word "know" appear over and over again in the decision, particularly in the line "knowing the character and content thereof." All three judges concurred on this point -- possession requires knowledge.
[0] http://www.nycourts.gov/ctapps/Decisions/2012/May12/70opn12....
What? There's nothing particularly American about the principle, it's an accepted core tenet of all democratic countries and many of the others.
The creator of the Winny filesharing program in Japan was dismissed from his Tokyo University Research Assistant position as he went to trial:
"On May 10, 2004, Kaneko was arrested for suspected conspiracy to commit copyright violation by the High-tech Crime Taskforce of the Kyoto Prefectural Police. Kaneko was released on bail on June 1, 2004. The court hearings started in September 2004 at Kyoto district court. On December 13, 2006, Kaneko was convicted of assisting copyright violations and sentenced to pay a fine of ¥1.5 million (about US$13,200).[3] He appealed the ruling. On October 8, 2009, the guilty verdict was overturned by the Osaka High Court.[4] On December 20, 2011, Kaneko was cleared of all charges after a panel of judges agreed that the prosecution could not prove that he had any intention to promote the software for illegal use.[5] [6]" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winny#Criminal_procedure)
He was definitely treated by society as if he were guilty of the crime as soon as he was arrested.
No, many countries have "innocent until proven guilty" laws/standards.
e.g. Artictle 6.2 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_6_of_the_European_Conve... ) says:
> 2.Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law.
The ECHR is more than just EU, e.g. Russia is bound by it. (USA is not and would be in breech of it because they have capital punishment).
Article 48.1 of the Charter of Fundamental Freedoms of the European Union ( http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Charter_of_Fundamental_Rights_... ):
> Everyone who has been charged shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law.
I think any similarity in these situations is only superficial. In a high speed pursuit, the suspect is alerted to the police's interest in their actions and chooses to run, which is an indicator the suspect has something to hide as well as a crime in itself. The act of running from the police is breaking the law.
The exit node scenario is nothing like that--the person being raided is not aware of the police interest and there is no evidence the operator committed a crime. Even if the the suspect was notified in advance and refused to willingly submit their equipment for investigation, it still wouldn't be the same situation unless they were legally compelled to provide the equipment.
Not only that, but they increase the risk to the person they are pursuing. It is general policy for UK police not to pursue motorbikes whose riders aren't wearing helmets for this reason. Presumably causing the person to die in a crash is worse than most offences they would be pursued for. It would also cost the taxpayer a lot more.
In the United States there is an analogous situation which is that of the 'high speed pursuit.' In the pursuit situation the officers have strong reason to believe the driver of a vehicle was involved in a crime and seek to arrest them. The driver of the vehicle doesn't want to be arrested and so they drive away quickly. If the officers give chase, they greatly increase the chance that harm will come to innocent bystanders. If they don't give chase they risk losing their suspect. Generally those debates come down to things like "what crime might they have committed?" and if it was failure to stop for a right turn, that is seen as not being as 'reasonable to chase' as hit and run vehicular manslaughter.
I tend to fall into the "Do the police work to figure out who the crooks are and if you need the co-operation of an end-node provider then get a warrant to compel that co-operation." But I also have spoken to officers who feel that such restrictions are 'red tape' and keep them from doing the job they were paid to do.
In this particular case we don't have the police version of the story. Perhaps they think this guy is complicit? Did they raid/seize any other end nodes? Did they have a warrant and what did it say? Had this person been involved in other questionable activities? "Presumption of innocence" is not a principle that extends outside of US borders so its always difficult to contextualize police action in other countries to Americans who take their constitution for granted.