Slashdot Mirror


How Tor Helps Both Dissidents and the Police

Al writes "Technology Review has a in-depth article about the anonymous networking software Tor and how it is helping dissidents spread information in oppressive regimes such as Syria, Zimbabwe and Mauritania, and opening up the unfiltered web for users in many more countries. In China, for instance, the computers found in some web cafes are configured to use Tor automatically. Interestingly, some police agencies even use the software to hide their activity from suspects. As filtering becomes ever more common in democratic countries such as the US, perhaps Tor (and similar tools such as I2P), will become even more valuable."

28 of 122 comments (clear)

  1. As with most technology by Z00L00K · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It cuts both ways.

    You can use a knife for cooking, mugging or for police action.

    But the more problematic criminals are also the ones that are most likely to be aware of this and be careful with what and who they trust.

    And the most careful persons in organized crime have sometimes only been relying on trusted messengers that have been doing all their communication. That to avoid wiretaps.

    --
    If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
    1. Re:As with most technology by Reorix · · Score: 5, Informative

      Not only does it cut both ways, but it should. The thing about freedom is that 9 times out of 10 it only becomes clear that an action was that of a "freedom fighter" rather than a "terrorist" in hindsight. This is the reason for the high standards for prior restraint of the press.

      I'm not a fan of "sticking it to the man" in general, but when I hear about Tor and similar programs being used for "the wrong purposes" (whether that be organized crime, terrorism, etc), I feel better knowing that the software exists.

      The day when no secure methods exist for organized crime to communicate with each other is likely the day when one is guilty until proven innocent. The broad curtailing of freedoms should give us pause every time it comes up; that doesn't seem to necessarily be the case anymore.

    2. Re:As with most technology by Moryath · · Score: 5, Informative

      Basic things to remember:

      #1 - You should never talk to the cops. Seriously. This is not about your being a "bad citizen" or something else. It is because what you say to the cops can be used AGAINST you, but not FOR you. It is because while the cops have one job, the prosecutors' job is to get convictions, and the prosecutor is perfectly allowed to take some little snippet out of context, ask the cop "did he say that", and you have no recourse.

      #2 - Even the federal government can't tell you how many possible "federal crimes" exist on the books any more. And that's just at the federal level. "Ignorance of the law is no excuse" is one tenet of our justice system which might as well read instead, "fuck the people", because there's no way in hell you could EVER know what the entire body of law (and accompanying precedents, "or in violation of some bullshit treaty the US signed that you didn't get to vote on" clauses, "or in violation of some 'regulation' that Congress didn't vote on but was instead put forth by some unelected government bureaucrats" clauses, etc) says even if you eat, breathed, slept, and shit the stuff for your entire lifetime.

      This doesn't mean you should go out of your way to ignore the law. And much of the law is pretty basic (don't park when there's a NO PARKING sign, don't be a dick while driving, etc). Still, you can NEVER be completely sure you're not breaking some law.

    3. Re:As with most technology by Kell+Bengal · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It is impossible to rule innocent men.

      --
      Scientists point out problems, engineers fix them
      altslashdot.org: The future of slashdot.
    4. Re:As with most technology by interkin3tic · · Score: 2, Interesting

      But the more problematic criminals are also the ones that are most likely to be aware of this and be careful with what and who they trust.

      I'd rather have problematic criminals than problematic government/corporate censorship, and anyway the two are never mutually exclusive. Government filtering the internet doesn't seem to be getting rid of all child porn. What's the point then of censorship if the stuff they mean to censor is still out there?

    5. Re:As with most technology by WaXHeLL · · Score: 5, Funny

      You should never talk to the cops ... "fuck the people" ... violation of some bullshit treaty the US signed ... shit the stuff ... ignore the law ... be a dick while driving

      It's a surprise that you posted that with an account, rather than AC. Now that you've been flagged as a deranged government-hating terrorist, there's plenty of evidence against you now.

      --
      The troll with karma.
    6. Re:As with most technology by DCstewieG · · Score: 3, Funny

      don't be a dick while driving

      Unfortunately this isn't law.

    7. Re:As with most technology by Gerzel · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I believe "Ignorance of the law is no excuse" to be a just tenet but it must also have before it that "Absence of the law may be in some cases."

      In other words the government must put forward the laws of the land for free and make them available for the public otherwise the public is not being ignorant but instead the law is being absent.

      If I make a law and never tell the people whom will be governed by it then it is as just to enforce that law as if the law were never made.

    8. Re:As with most technology by Moryath · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And if ascertaining what the law says requires a full-time research staff just to answer SIMPLE questions?

    9. Re:As with most technology by wdef · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "Ignorance of the law is no excuse" is one tenet of our justice system which might as well read instead, "fuck the people"

      Now that's quotable! The Law of Fuck the People has corollaries like:

      We can watch anything you do just in case it's bad.

      We can abduct you in the middle of the night without charge and hold for you as long as we feel like.

      We can't torture you legally here so we'll take you in secrecy to a jurisdiction where we can get away with it.

      No President will ever stand up for the Constitution and prosecute predecessors who allowed these things to happen.

      We (the Government) will never prosecute ourselves.

      We are a smart convergence of powerful interests that masquerades as democracy. You, the citizen, deserve what you get from us.

      We create demons that keep you afraid so we stay strong.

      Eat your Cheesey Poofs, drink beer, watch TV and STFU.

    10. Re:As with most technology by One+Monkey · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Interestingly this makes a relevant point about the nature of human society.

      If you imagine human society as performing a function that function is blanket growth and development. A good citizen is happy and/or quiet. A bad citizen is unhappy and/or not quiet.

      By "or not quiet" I mean to say that in order for society to measure its own success we apply statistical measures to features of our society to look for noise. Noise, in this case, meaning people whose metrics do not conform to the metrics of a happy, quiet citizen. This is a technique for finding societal "cheats", e.g. criminals, outlaws, societal parasites. One of the metrics of the good society is a low incidence of these cheats, or, apparently, a good rate of societally mandated effective punishment for cheating.

      Of course one of the problems of the definition of this paradigm is that it relies on statistical noise as a factor in determining a citizen's likelihood of being a "cheat". In these circumstances the mere fact the police are talking with you indicates that you have broken the covenant of silence. You are creating some sort of a noise. The police are talking to you because there is a problem in your statistics.

      In these circumstances it is probably enough to most governmental bodies that you are loud whether you appear to be a "happy" citizen or not. It's a society where if you are noticed you are probably guilty.

      What we would need to do to change this is change the way we fundamentally define a "good" society. After all not everyone who is loud and unhappy is a cheat. Someone can abide by the law even if they don't like it.

      The problem remains, cheats cheat in secrecy. So if a society wants to reduce cheating it has to have some method of cheat detection. This is a problem of defining what that method is. Until we can detect cheats without relying on their statistical non-conformity (or have some profiling mechanism that is more reliable than a guess) we're stuck with this attitude from authority.

      --
      www.nodicerpg.com - Some RP stuff for free, some not so for free, but still cheap.
  2. Where is it common in the US?? by cayenne8 · · Score: 2, Insightful
    "As filtering becomes ever more common in democratic countries such as the US, perhaps Tor (and similar tools such as I2P), will become even more valuable.""

    Ok, where and when in the US did filtering become 'common'??

    I'm hearing about it becoming common in other western countries...and am afraid it will happen here, but, I'm not aware of it being common here?

    --
    Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
  3. Fine Line by torvik · · Score: 2

    I'm starting to see less and less of a difference between the police and the criminals.

    1. Re:Fine Line by Hatta · · Score: 4, Interesting

      As long as the police arrest more people for having Cannabis than they do all violent crimes combined, they ARE the criminals. The police victimize more people than they protect. It's that simple.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
  4. Great article but by island_earth · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I'd like to see a discussion of the legal ramifications of letting your system be used as a Tor relay. Suppose I volunteer some of my home network capacity to Tor.

    Putting aside the fact that it's probably a violation of my broadband provider's agreement to share my connection in this way, what if someone uses Tor for kiddie porn and happens to make the final connection to the police honeypot (so to speak) from my IP address?

    If anyone can point to a good discussion of this, it would be great. I'd like to let my system be a relay for Tor, but the risk seems large.

    1. Re:Great article but by Reorix · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I recall slashdot discussing this previously in terms of Freenet, although it's probably not a full discussion of legal ramifications (since everyone here says IANAL compulsively). You'll find it here.

      As far as I can tell, much like any legal issue, most of what you'll find as far as legal discussion is mainly a lot of "Well, such-and-such may or may not apply here. Please consult your lawyer."

      As if we all just have consitutional (if you're in the US) lawyers on retainer. I wish people would just give some advice, even though it will not be authoritative.

      For some specific dissembling on this topic, you can also see freenet's legal FAQ.

    2. Re:Great article but by SimplePaul · · Score: 5, Informative

      As I understand it, you are pretty safe. It's not *you* accessing the content.

      The Tor guys recommend you have a web server on the machine which says "This is a Tor relay", presumably so that anyone who finds your machine during an investigation will know what is going on.

      Two experiences of running a tor exit relay. One good, one less good:-

      http://blog.torproject.org/blog/five-years-exit-node-operator

      http://calumog.wordpress.com/2009/03/18/why-you-need-balls-of-steel-to-operate-a-tor-exit-node/#comment-2

  5. Newsflash by Dunbal · · Score: 3, Funny

    Policemen eat food, and so do criminals! In a shocking discovery today we learned that a completely ambivalent object such as food could be used for good and for evil. Some fringe elements speculate that food in fact has no innate bias towards good or evil, and in fact does not exert any influence over the person that uses it apart from keeping them alive. But we all know that since it's rumored that TERRORISTS (tm) have been known to occasionally eat, food is obviously evil and should be banned. The fact that law enforcement officers have been spotted eating once in a while (especially in the vicinity of doughnut shops) should not allow us to forget about this lurking evil we call food. In fact, the world would be a better place if it were banned entirely.

    Warning! If you are sarcasm impaired, the above paragraph may cause you to become angry. Breathe slowly and try to relax. If you cannot relax after a few minutes, you might need professional help. Sarcasm may be the lowest form of wit, but it is wit nonetheless.

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
  6. Is TOR really make web surfing anonymous? by ogrisel · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I always wondered whether it is not possible to attack TOR with statistical analysis provided you can dedicate significant resources to it. Suppose you are a big brother-style government agency with many computers and bandwith pipes dedicated to your goals. Could you not register a significant amounts of output and intermediate nodes (like say 10% of all nodes) that are specially improved to cooperatively log output HTTP traffic along with various web services session cookies, headers and originating IP addresses in a centralized DB and then use statistical analysis to identify the candidate source IP addresses of suspicious HTTP traffic?

    1. Re:Is TOR really make web surfing anonymous? by ogrisel · · Score: 3, Interesting

      So it is actually dangerous to market TOR to non tech savy people who do not systematically check that they are surfing only on https websites or orther encrypted protocols. I guess you can harvest a great amount of passwords and other sensitive data by sniffing the http traffic of a single exit node.

    2. Re:Is TOR really make web surfing anonymous? by rrohbeck · · Score: 3, Informative

      Yup. It's been done (google "Dan Egerstad") and you can be pretty sure it's being done.

    3. Re:Is TOR really make web surfing anonymous? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Correct. The exit nodes doing this are opening themselves up to legal liability. But that means nothing in practice.

      They can sniff passwords and other private information from people who don't really understand how Tor works.

      Law enforcement agencies can monitor for fools who are doing illegal communications and leak identifying clues in their messages.

      Tor is great, but it's not magic. You are still using a proxy. Even though the intermediaries cannot see, the final server has to.

      Website providers that care about anonymity should run Tor on their servers and provide a .onion tunnel to their regular websites.

      They don't have to be exit nodes, they will just allow direct encrypted access to their site. It's like SSL, but beefier and easier.

    4. Re:Is TOR really make web surfing anonymous? by srollyson · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yes, this is a weakness. Hopefully multiple alphabet soup agencies from different countries will get this idea and end up competing with each other. An arms race of diminishing returns to get a bigger chunk of the Tor network just means we'll have plenty of free Tor bandwidth on the gov't dime.

      Protip: You can edit the Tor config or source code to pick geographically diverse nodes yourself.

  7. Re:what do you mean? by h4rr4r · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If you do choose to report it, be sure to report it in an anonymous manner. The reporter will be the first suspect, and the easiest mark for a conviction.

  8. Democratic... by Hurricane78 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    As filtering becomes ever more common in democratic countries such as the US [...]

    I'm wondering for a long time, if you really still can call the US and many other (eg European) states "democratic".

    I mean, has the choice between two variants of the same shit still the right to call itself this?

    I'm very lucky, that things like Tor, and research around it, still exist. It might soon be our only chance of freeing ourselves from a regime of total control.

    --
    Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
  9. Privacy is the next killer app by Presto+Vivace · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I have thought for some time that privacy is the next killer app. The person who solves the privacy problem will make a stack of money.

  10. i'm just sick by circletimessquare · · Score: 2, Insightful

    of idiots hyperfocused on western domestic "crimes" while the taliban takes over nuclear pakistan

    but of course, this is no reason to focus your criticisms outside the west, right? because what goes on in pakistan is after all totally the west's fault

    (smacks forehead)

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  11. Re:knowledge of the law by PureFiction · · Score: 4, Informative

    "... there's no way in hell you could EVER know what the entire body of law"

    This is where jury nullification comes in. But they don't like that much either!