William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if
SNaslund at medline.com
Tue Dec 4 22:19:38 UTC 2012
I think it is a fallacious debate to discuss whether Tor servers or
services are illegal or legal. Like any other tool, it is all about
intent. I know that as engineering types we tend to not like relativism
but the law is very much about that. Intent is ultimately very critical
to obtaining a criminal conviction. Every day someone does something
that might otherwise be considered a crime but because of intent is
****I shoot a bear out of season, this is a crime right? What if I
told you the bear was attacking a four year old little girl, does that
change your mind?
****It is not a crime to send an encoded letter. It is a crime to send
an encoded letter that communicates an impending attack on someone.
****It is not a crime to make a phone call. It is a crime to make a
telephonic bomb threat.
****A gun is not a crime. Shooting someone is a crime (mostly).
****An ISP selling internet service that most people use for legal
purposes is not doing anything illegal when someone uses it to illegally
share music because they did not intend to commit a crime.
****If you build a server solely for hosting copyrighted software for
illegal distribution, you are a criminal. If someone hacks your FTP
server and hides a piece of copyrighted software there for illegal
distribution you are probably not a criminal as long as you take some
action to prevent the crime once you are aware of it.
From: Brian Johnson [mailto:bjohnson at drtel.com]
Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2012 3:26 PM
To: Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu; nanog at nanog.org
Cc: nanog at nanog.org
Subject: RE: William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help
> > This is a misleading statement. ISP's (Common carriers) do not
> > provide a
> > illegal offering, ... TOR exit/entrance nodes provide only the
> This is also a misleading statement. Explain the difference between a
> consumer ISP selling you a cable Internet plan knowing that NN% of the
> traffic will be data with questionable copyright status, and
> 1 of of 5 or so will be a botted box doing other illegal stuff, and a
> TOR node providing transit knowing that NN% will be similarly
> questionable etc etc etc.
You actually are saying what I said, just you misunderstand your own
point. You clipped my entire statement to make it appear to say
A TOR node, in and of itself, is not infrastructure for passing packets.
It's a service on the infrastructure. I never implied that the traffic
through/from the ISP or the TOR was more or less legal than the other.
> In other words, if TOR exit nodes provide a "knowingly illegal
> offering", then Comcast is doing exactly the same thing...
No they are not. See previous.
<SNIP ongoing blathering>
More information about the NANOG