William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if
jfmezei_nanog at vaxination.ca
Wed Dec 5 16:36:19 UTC 2012
Does it matter if an anomysing service advertises itself as allowing
free speech to users in countries where free speech is censored,
compared to a service that advertises itself as catering to the mafias
of the world, ensuring their crimes are untraceable ?
In the later case, it makes it very easy to think of the sercice
operator as an accomplice to crime.
But if the primary purpose of a service is legitimate, should the
service operator be held liable if there is *some* misuse which cannot
be prevented by the service operator ?
In my opinion, the operator should remain immune until the police shows
up with a warrant and the operator refuses to cooperate.
Tor exit nodes are not that different from payphones or disposable
pre-paid cellular service where the wireless operator has no verifiable
identity/address for the purchasor of the service.
Are phone companies held liable because the mafia uses a payphone to
plan their crimes knowing that they can't trace calls to an individual ?
More information about the NANOG