Raided For Running a Tor Exit Node

Store your data someplace else by bobstreo · 2012-11-30 03:55 · Score: 5, Funny

Cloud storage, and make the exit node a leech off your neighbors wifi.

Re:Store your data someplace else by buchner.johannes · 2012-11-30 04:05 · Score: 3, Insightful

You suggest pumping 30 terabytes of data per day through your neighbors wifi?

--
NB: The message above might reflect my opinion right now, but not necessarily tomorrow or next year.
Re:Store your data someplace else by Zemran · 2012-11-30 04:08 · Score: 5, Funny

Sounds good to me :-)

--
I love stacking my barbecues in the shed at the end of summer - you can't beat a bit of grill on grill action.
Re:Store your data someplace else by Opportunist · 2012-11-30 04:38 · Score: 1

At least it will pump less spam.
What? If he cannot secure his WiFi, chances are his computers are just as insecure and been used as spamsluggers for ages.

--
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Re:Store your data someplace else by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-30 04:39 · Score: 1

I wish I had thought of that before the persecution started. I really hate my neighbors.
Re:Store your data someplace else by Lumpy · 2012-11-30 04:49 · Score: 4, Funny

Load balanced across the 40 unconfigured routers all named "linksys" I can see from here will work nicely.

--
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Re:Store your data someplace else by bill_mcgonigle · 2012-11-30 05:07 · Score: 1

Cloud storage, and make the exit node a leech off your neighbors wifi.
Speaking of which, what happens if you run an exit node from a VPS?

--
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Re:Store your data someplace else by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-30 05:11 · Score: 0

Indeed. Thanks neighbor!
Re:Store your data someplace else by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-30 05:20 · Score: 0

Yes, all of them.
Re:Store your data someplace else by Joce640k · 2012-11-30 05:24 · Score: 1

You suggest pumping 30 terabytes of data per day through your neighbors wifi?
Why not? It's not like he has a better use for it.

--
No sig today...
Re:Store your data someplace else by ch_rob · 2012-11-30 05:45 · Score: 1

I know this was a joke, but it reminded me of a recent article regarding using your neighbor's WiFi: http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2012/11/21/court-police-can-locate-wireless-internet-moochers-without-a-warrant/ Short story: no warrant needed.
Re:Store your data someplace else by Lord+Byron+II · 2012-11-30 05:53 · Score: 4, Insightful

The original question was how does a Tor-running geek prepare for a computer seizure by authorities. One answer is to backup your data to the cloud, so even after they have your computers, you can at least go buy a new beige box and keep working. That's what the GP was getting at.
Re:Store your data someplace else by cayenne8 · 2012-11-30 06:38 · Score: 1

You suggest pumping 30 terabytes of data per day through your neighbors wifi?
Merely a side benefit after honing your metasploit, wireshark and Backtrack skills...I mean, everyone gets bored just doing those on your own network, don't right?
Once you're in, you might as well have a bit of fun...
BAEG

--
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Re:Store your data someplace else by PetiePooo · 2012-11-30 06:45 · Score: 2

The VPS provider notices the continuous high bandwidth you're using and cancels your account for violating their TOS long before the authorities get around to raiding them.
Re:Store your data someplace else by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-30 06:52 · Score: 0

Why not? I'm not using it for anything else.
Re:Store your data someplace else by Jeremiah+Cornelius · 2012-11-30 07:02 · Score: 1

My exit nodes are in VPS colos, around the planet.
What's the big?

--
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
Re:Store your data someplace else by hairyfeet · 2012-11-30 07:08 · Score: 4, Insightful

Or the more sensible thing is unless you have a couple hundred grand in the bank for the lawyer's fee don't be running Tor until we get better laws.
I know many want to do the whole "fight the power!" stance but the laws on kiddy porn are so messed up right now that frankly you don't have to look at squat, just the fact that your connection was used could be enough for you to be looking at 10-20 in PMITA prison.
The way I had it explained to me was thus: Imagine somebody gives you a safe to haul to somewhere, even though you don't actually have the keys to the safe if the cops stop you and open it and find drugs and CP, even though you had zero way of knowing they can still charge you with facilitation and distribution since what you were doing helped a criminal commit a crime.
So you can scream Tor and Freenet is about "freedom!" all you want, all a prosecutor has to do is say CP anymore and the odds of a jury having common sense and letting you off is virtually nil, and of course the judges don't understand dick when it comes to tech so either way you are screwed. If you have a family or anybody that counts on your paycheck? Then frankly you would be insane to run Tor, this guy is gonna have the next couple of years of his life tied up in court and God have mercy if he can't afford to lawyer up, because he's dead meat with a public pretender.

--
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
Re:Store your data someplace else by gorzek · 2012-11-30 07:10 · Score: 2

Well, if the VPS is being paid for in a way that's traceable back to you, I suspect you would be just as easy to arrest and prosecute.

--
Check out my world simulator thingy.
Re:Store your data someplace else by Shoten · 2012-11-30 07:13 · Score: 4, Informative

The original question was how does a Tor-running geek prepare for a computer seizure by authorities. One answer is to backup your data to the cloud, so even after they have your computers, you can at least go buy a new beige box and keep working. That's what the GP was getting at.
Actually, the question had to do with running a Tor Exit Node...essentially, how to protect yourself in this situation.

"What backup plan, if any, should the average nerd have for something like this?"
...for an article about getting busted for running an exit node. And you can't have one, really. From a procedural perspective, that's the point. Half the intent of this kind of enforcement action is to utterly cripple the activity they suspect of taking place. If you're dealing in child porn, as was the trigger for this, they WANT to leave you without a backup plan. They deliberately do everything in their considerable power to leave you unable to send/receive/view/photoshop/make monopoly money out of the images/video/whatever. And they've had practice at it. They will take any computer you have, and demand access to any external storage you have as well. It's just like a physical search and seizure for physical evidence; the warrant covers all storage you own or have rights to, including your home, and even if you have a storage container they know about. And you can be absolutely sure that they will have watched your communications for a little while before raiding you, and would see if you're running backups to an external site. And the guy had dozens of storage devices...HP servers. Good luck backing that up to the cloud without it being incredibly obvious.
The other technical problem is this: your node will be seen as the point of origination for any traffic that goes to the Internet. You don't control that traffic, and don't have any insight into it before it arrives where you are. You're giving up control of your network, to some degree, to parties unknown with reason to hide. In some cases they have reason to hide because other people are bad, and in some cases they themselves are bad, which is why they want to hide. But you can't tell the difference without actually inspecting the content...all of it. (And if you have a way to do that reliably in a situation with no context please do let me know. I know a few VCs who will gladly fund you, because that level of automated content classification on-the-fly on a network is the holy grail of several aspects of information security.) There is no easy way to detect with any level of certainty that you are not actually involved in the activity you're facilitating without seizing your computers and validating that you're not actually running the software behind the traffic or storing the data that was sent to/from your node.
But you know what? None of that matters...because the problem is about running the exit node, not being the one with something to hide. It's not your traffic that got their attention, just the fact that you're the only person they could find who was associated with it. So your options are to take the risk, or don't be an exit node. And again, this is something the article pretty much states outright, so if you've read it, you'd know that.

--

For your security, this post has been encrypted with ROT-13, twice.
Re:Store your data someplace else by tibit · 2012-11-30 07:30 · Score: 1

So, obviously, VPS providers normally only serve users that don't really use the capacity they paid for? WTF? If I pay for certain bandwidth, I better get it.

--
A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
Re:Store your data someplace else by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-30 07:56 · Score: 0

spread out over 3 million users would make it practically undetectable
Re:Store your data someplace else by asmkm22 · 2012-11-30 08:06 · Score: 1

I know this was modded Funny and all, but it's actually the best advice you can get right now. Government and law enforcement officials, for whatever reasons, don't seem to want to acknowledge the fact that an IP address does not equal a specific person. We may as well take advantage of that ignorance while we can. Eventually, after enough innocent people get fined and jailed, the mob mentality of the general population will force them to actually listen to the experts in the field.
It's kind of like global warming really, in that politicians mostly ignored and denied it until they had no other choice but to accept the fact that weather is all kinds of fucked up now, regardless of how the oil lobby tries to spin it.
Re:Store your data someplace else by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-30 09:16 · Score: 0

It's not even that simple.
imagine your sleeping peacefully one morning when the cops bust in and take all your electronics and YOU. You're then put in jail and given a bail high enough that you can't afford it. This happened to a friend of mine. The father of a divorced family trying to get even with his ex-wife got his daughter telling the police that when she stays with mom, her new boyfriend and his brothers were doing very inappropriate things with her. Instant go to jail. This friend is still being held, 8 months after, no trial yet. All it takes is an accusation to send you away.
Re:Store your data someplace else by bill_mcgonigle · 2012-11-30 09:30 · Score: 1

Yeah, most have clearly defined transfer limits in their ToS. It's trivial to configure tor on unix to max at a specified bandwidth, and that calculation is also non-difficult (Google will even do it for you in their search box).

--
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Re:Store your data someplace else by Kergan · 2012-11-30 10:04 · Score: 1

Or the more sensible thing is unless you have a couple hundred grand in the bank for the lawyer's fee don't be running Tor until we get better laws.
I take a slight issue with that. This isn't so much about "Fight the power!" than it is about the nature of law and how it evolves. Because --at least in Western countries-- law is a malleable beast that only evolves through parliaments and courts.
Parliaments are heavily lobbied. You can reasonably forget them if you're expecting any change in the right direction in the immediate. At least until Joe Schmo wakes up to the fact that he is being fucked in the ass to high heaven by lobbyists.
Courts, by contrast, are mostly independent. In addition to precedents that they set, it is a judge's prerogative, at the end of the day, to rule things in such a way that a law --voted by elected lawmakers, no less-- is given closer examination by a higher court on grounds that it isn't constitutional or contradicts customary behavior.
Anyway, my issue is this: by avoiding to run a Tor nod until you get better laws, you basically create customary behavior in the process -- if only kiddy porn, warez, music and movie downloaders ever end up prosecuted for running Tor nods, it will eventually be wrong to run one at all. And the lobbyists will subsequently win a landslide victory in your parliament. In this sense, "until we get better laws" seems like euphemism for "never."
Re:Store your data someplace else by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-30 11:03 · Score: 0

Under such ludicrous laws, why is the US mail system immune to this?
Re:Store your data someplace else by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-30 11:19 · Score: 0

Don't have an internet connection in your name and never have to worry about any of this. :-D
Re:Store your data someplace else by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-30 12:13 · Score: 0

You can run a Tor client and a Tor relay without these problems. The only thing you should not run if you are concerned is a Tor exit node.
Re:Store your data someplace else by Sabriel · 2012-11-30 15:41 · Score: 1

Sounds almost like if you really want to run anything like an exit node, you should get yourself classified as a small ISP and avail yourself of carrier protections. Though that may be easier said than done depending on your country's laws (and those laws may also mean the police/TLAs can show up and "request" that you install their little black box next to your router).
Re:Store your data someplace else by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-30 18:47 · Score: 0

This brings up the question: What backup plan, if any, should the average nerd have for something like this?"
I thought the cloud suggestion was flat out dumb, even if they do not track you for sometime they will find out, unless you can take the data (using physical storage devices) and give them off to an unknown party/partner.
And if you have some sort of hidden storage outside public storage containers or garages without using a credit card they are often not known or found by officers, the warrant says they can search and seize anything associated to data storage, but does not say you have to tell them everything on top of it.
Weber was open about what his intent was, and it was not to do this with the intent on harboring illegal activity. And he himself was not involved or personally providing any of the child porn. But I agree that does not matter because you have to know going into this you are going to have illegal activity running rampant. But he seems to have started this with good intentions and maybe he did not realize or fully realize how many bad people would take advantage of it.
I do not know the guy, he may have started this just to provide an exit node, and really did not care about the people who would be using it.
Re:Store your data someplace else by Sesostris+III · 2012-11-30 19:56 · Score: 1

(and those laws may also mean the police/TLAs can show up and "request" that you install their little black box next to your router).
Would that be a problem? I thought the point about a Tor exit node is to hide the source of any request, not necessarily the destination. A black box would just log the destination (the 'source' being the TOR node itself).

--
You never know what is enough unless you know what is more than enough. - Blake
Re:Store your data someplace else by Sabriel · 2012-11-30 22:38 · Score: 1

As I understand it, the anonymity only works as long as enough nodes aren't being snooped.
Re:Store your data someplace else by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-01 01:14 · Score: 0

So, obviously, VPS providers normally only serve users that don't really use the capacity they paid for? WTF? If I pay for certain bandwidth, I better get it.
Better read what you're paying for. Chances are you're not paying for a dedicated bandwidth solution, in which case there's going to be some vague language prohibiting sustained use of maximum bandwidth.
It's just like your average home internet account. If you want to run that pipe at 100% 24/7/365, you'll need to chip loose for a dedicated connection with a bandwidth guarantee.
Re:Store your data someplace else by bkcallahan · 2012-12-01 06:09 · Score: 1

If that's all I can pump through, sure, it'll do.
Re:Store your data someplace else by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-01 12:47 · Score: 0

You could use the cloud or back things up to more than one 2-3 TB usb disks and keep those in a safe place such as a lock box.

Backup Plan by Sigvatr · 2012-11-30 03:55 · Score: 5, Insightful

Lots of money.

Re:Backup Plan by Z00L00K · 2012-11-30 05:14 · Score: 1

And invest it into heavier computer equipment.
Imagine the headache for the raiders if the average computer weighs half a ton.

--
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
Re:Backup Plan by MightyYar · 2012-11-30 05:27 · Score: 5, Interesting

Instead of trying to run a TOR server yourself, and needing to defend yourself, let a charity take care of it for you. Your money will end up being pre-tax dollars and will then go farther, and if you really want to be more hands-on you could probably volunteer.
For EU residents, there is a tax-deductible German charity of the same ilk.

--
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Re:Backup Plan by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-30 05:47 · Score: 5, Funny

I can see this. The investigators turn up to take his servers, only to be met with a massive impenetrable container made of steel and lead. It humms menacingly at them with intermittent whirrs and bleeps, no obvious way to even begin dismantling the plating of this computational hulk. They quickly locate the power supply in the form of a firehose-sized cable leading directly into the floor and from there to the power main, multiple secondary cables extending from the same hermetically sealed orifice. They ask the power company to cut the power, which immediately makes this horror of technology fall silent. While they begin to ponder how to move this monstrosity it suddenly begins to make clunking sounds that quickly escalate in both speed and volume. A heavy "chunk-chunk-chunk-chunk" begin to dominate the soundscape, while the outer plating begins to vibrate almost imperceptibly. The power company calls them to inform them of a massive spike in their grid as the outlet seem to be receiving power equivalent to that of a minor power plant. Meanwhile the servers have begin to relocate digitally, jumping IPs and updating them on various shady sites.
Three hours later the nukes begin to fall.
Re:Backup Plan by Anrego · 2012-11-30 05:53 · Score: 1

I wish I had mod points, that was excellent :>
Re:Backup Plan by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-30 06:20 · Score: 0

Thank you! Although that "have begin" is nagging me now.
Re:Backup Plan by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-30 06:33 · Score: 0

Entirely defeating the point of wide distribution of exit nodes in the process.
Re:Backup Plan by MightyYar · 2012-11-30 07:28 · Score: 2

What? Why? All it does is concentrate money and talent. They don't need to have a single, huge, exit node. Don't you think that an entire organization set up to run TOR exit nodes might have thought of that?

--
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Re:Backup Plan by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-30 07:38 · Score: 0

And invest it into heavier computer equipment.
Imagine the headache for the raiders if the average computer weighs half a ton.
Or... just make it look like a fake bomb. The bomb squad then removes it and destroys the evidence for you.
Re:Backup Plan by Trunksword · 2012-11-30 14:37 · Score: 1

I agree mine ran out yesterday, that is the first funny comment on /. that actually made me LOL

There is no preparation for this. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-30 03:56 · Score: 4, Insightful

Look at Kim Dotcom.

Re:There is no preparation for this. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-30 06:31 · Score: 0

Kim Dotcom is a 2 bit scam artist that should be in prison.
Re:There is no preparation for this. by rtfa-troll · 2012-11-30 06:46 · Score: 4, Interesting

Look at Kim Dotcom.
I think Kim is, a definite lesson here. What he was doing is really similar to running a Tor exit node but his attitude to it was almost guaranteed to get him into trouble. If you do plan to run one, you want to do a bunch of things differently from the way he does it. Here are some ideas, but remember that some of them might be a really bad idea in one place and a fine idea in a different one. Talk to not just a lawyer, but a lawyer who is actually working for you (more later).
Make sure you, yourself are squeaky clean. Don't break other laws even if you disagree with them. For example, I'm deeply opposed to the media industry (RIAA & MPAA) but I don't consider it a terrible life threatening hardship to go without their products. Thus, if I actually for some sick reason or other found myself wanting to listen to Lady Gaga I would go out and buy a DRM free CD. I would rip it, however that is legal where I live so it's not a legal risk. Make sure that all your media, software etc. is 100% legal.
Secondly; Kim seems to have been setting out to tweak the whiskers of big media. His moral case was never very strong. Make very sure that the reason that you are involved is strongly about protected free speech. Make your views clear; make sure that they are openly registered somewhere.
Thirdly; People in Kim's organisation seem to have been caught supporting piracy and so on. You might want to see when you can identify pirating connections and block them. Nice is to show a little page telling them you identified them (e.g. from the identifiers in their traffic) and explaining why they are overloading the system. You want to be really active in blocking or even hunting down users that are invovled in things like child pornography. This is a bit difficult; merely reporting something might make you of interest; however if you are active in combatting child pornographers this makes it difficult to accuse you of supporting them.
Forthly; Kim was trying to make a profitable service; this makes it easy to portray him as greedy sponger. Make sure you don't accept any money for your work; not even expenses.
Fifthly; where Kim was all about personality and basically painted a big target sign on himself, consider hiding behind an association. Get together as a group of people who believe in tor, and have a leadership of people who are not actively involved in any way in the day to day running of the service (best if they have no practical knowledge of where the servers are and who owns them. )
Having an association will also allow you to do a bunch of legal things; e.g. hiring a lawyer as a group; which would be difficult otherwise. You will be able to talk to the government as a group. If they say that what you are doing is illegal, you will be able to take them to court without any particular individual having to risk taking the stand for what they are already doing.

--
=~ s,(.*),<sarcasm>$1</sarcasm>,g if any_point_you_wish();
Re:There is no preparation for this. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-30 23:45 · Score: 0

"His moral case was never very strong"
As far as I'm concerned it's war now, we need to destroy the media cartel before things get worse - we've already seen an attempted extradition of a guy who allows other to post links - not a crime in UK or US, and we've seen the police raid on a house because a 10-year old failed to download some music which they then bought - a raid which happened because the media cartel weren't paid the extortion money.
Fuck these scum, any way possible.
Kim is not clean as snow, but he's nowhere near the complete scumbaggery of the media cartel.
Support the artists - not the cartel.
Re:There is no preparation for this. by rtfa-troll · 2012-12-01 00:46 · Score: 1

As far as I'm concerned it's war now [...] Fuck these scum, any way possible.
Totally; but sharing their music is not a way of doing that. Remember the studies that show that "pirates" buy more music. Remember that Bill Gates said "if they are going to pirate then I want them to pirate windows" (more or less; I didn't actually look up the quote). Anything which supports the RIAA keeping their monopoly is a bad thing.
The best way of hurting the RIAA and MPAA is to, whenever you hear of an artist from them, instead publicise some independent artists who are as good or better. Try to push especially artists who are anti RIAA. If you are good at film or music, try to create some art independent of them.
I don't see that breaking the law to distribute their music and so give them publicity has any place in such a war. It might make sense to break in to break into their web sites and delete the music; maybe to put up banners protesting what they do and talking about alternatives.

--
=~ s,(.*),<sarcasm>$1</sarcasm>,g if any_point_you_wish();

Be prepared for the concequences by xtal · 2012-11-30 03:58 · Score: 5, Informative

If you're running Tor, or FreeNet, or anything else with the possibility of pissing off the man - be prepared for the concequences. The authorities repsonse here is pretty standard across the board.

Any Freenet nodes get raided? That's a good test for how secure the system is.

--
..don't panic

Re:Be prepared for the concequences by SuricouRaven · 2012-11-30 04:02 · Score: 4, Interesting

Freenet should be safe, as it has no gateway functionality to the wider internet. It's self-contained.
Re:Be prepared for the concequences by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-30 04:45 · Score: 1

They would just arrest any Freenode users for whom they connected since 'illegal materials' were obviously in the possession of those passing them and since possession is a strict liability it doesn't matter if they didn't know.
Re:Be prepared for the concequences by Applekid · 2012-11-30 05:03 · Score: 5, Insightful

As usual, the global population spans the entire spectrum from massive government censorship and oppression and from relatively free communication. Tor enables those in free countries to operate exit nodes for the benefit of those in oppressed areas. Those operators are basically modern-day information Robin Hoods.
That your government is willing to raid you is a sign that you live in one of those oppressed areas and should not be running an exit node. So, you should prepare to face the consequences if the reach of The Man can grab you.

--
More Twoson than Cupertino
Re:Be prepared for the concequences by cmburns69 · 2012-11-30 05:42 · Score: 1

As with most technology, can't Tor also be used to hide criminal acts? Wasn't this a case where the government of Austria (a country generally considered "free") saw evidence of a crime and traced through the web as far as they could-- and the tracks just so happened to end at this individual's computer (AKA Tor exit node).
It seems that along with running an open WIFI, running a Tor exit node could be an additional defense if you are caught breaking the law.

--
Online Starcraft RPG? At
Dietary fiber is like asynchronous IO-- Non-blocking!
Re:Be prepared for the concequences by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-30 06:43 · Score: 1

Freedom is freedom, and sometimes freedom is abused to be a dick to other people. Some would argue that means we shouldn't have freedom. I would argue that taking away freedom from people who aren't dicks doesn't make people who are dicks any less likely to be who they are.
Re:Be prepared for the concequences by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-30 07:14 · Score: 0

Or it means that your exit node is being used for illicit things, in which case your government has every right to raid it. You take a risk by running a system like this.
Re:Be prepared for the concequences by just_a_monkey · 2012-11-30 08:43 · Score: 1

It seems that along with running an open WIFI, running a Tor exit node could be an additional defense if you are caught breaking the law.
Worse; if there is no other evidence it should mean automatic dismissal. The government should always have to prove that the suspect actually did the crime before exacting punishment. Just saying that they can't identify the perpetrator but this guy was in the vicinity and looks suspicious, let's convict him, should not be enough.

--
How inappropriate to call this planet Earth, when clearly it is Ocean.
Re:Be prepared for the concequences by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-30 09:07 · Score: 0

Freedom is never absolute, you have to accept some restrictions on it if you want to live in a civilised country. If you had absolute freedom you'd be free from laws, and that would mean you couldn't lock up anybody no matter how much harm they caused others. Once you accept there has to be restrictions on freedom for the good of society, then you get to the tricky problem of deciding exactly what restrictions are needed. So the pertinent question here is "do the benefits of letting people run Tor exit nodes outweigh the harm from the protection the exit nodes give criminals?" As much as I am in favour of freedom, I'm not sure the answer to that question is "yes", but I need more information on the extent of the harms and benefits to decide what the answer should be.
Re:Be prepared for the concequences by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-30 09:16 · Score: 0

... on your computer.
Re:Be prepared for the concequences by cayenne8 · 2012-11-30 09:29 · Score: 1

What about the US?
Are there instances where US citizens have been raided for being a TOR or FREENET node?

--
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Re:Be prepared for the concequences by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-30 10:19 · Score: 0

"and he was found running freenet, your lordship, a special software which is used to trade cp"

ISPs as well? by grahamm · 2012-11-30 03:58 · Score: 5, Insightful

If a TOR exit node can be prosecuted for traffic passing through it, should the ISP and backbone router owners not also be held responsible for traffic passing through their nodes? If the ISP and network operators are not held responsible then neither should the TOR node owner.

Re:ISPs as well? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-30 04:09 · Score: 4, Insightful

Just like the mail service can be held responsible if they deliver a package with drugs in it? It's basically the same thing as bringing a bag full of drugs that a stranger gave you while on holidays... right?
No.
Common Carrier vs Doing a Favour for a Stranger.
Totally different.
Re:ISPs as well? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-30 04:09 · Score: 1

It boils down to whom has the bigger legal team. AT&T can say that a user on their network downloading something they shouldn't is that user's fault, not AT&T's.
With the decisions made in court that an IP address == that person, even someone with an open wireless AP can be held criminally responsible for traffic, and that is because there is a big difference between a business and a personal Internet connection in the eyes of the law.
I knew this was going to happen in the days of anonymous remailers, then Tor Exit nodes. It is only a matter of time before people started getting raided, perhaps as part of a false flag operation.
The solution? The exit node uses an encrypted offshore proxy in a country not buddy-buddy in the location where the node is physically located. This is tougher than it sounds because most PPTP proxies, if disconnected, will automatically shunt over to the local Internet connection. Of course, one can have a router block all outgoing packets unless they go through the IP and proxy port.
Re:ISPs as well? by TheRealMindChild · 2012-11-30 04:10 · Score: 3, Interesting

No. Your ISP probably does little more than route traffic properly to the next router. A TOR exit node is an actual entity distributing data to others. A good analogy would be, your ISP is a self checkout line, and the TOR exit node is a physical employee walking the transaction through to completion. One is dumb, one is not

--

"When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
Re:ISPs as well? by KiloByte · 2012-11-30 04:16 · Score: 2

How come? An ISP router shuffles packets from one layer 1/2 protocol to another (ATM, Ethernet, ...), completely changing their encapsulation but not affecting the actual content. A TOR node shuffles packets from an encapsulated form to another, not affecting the content. What's the difference?

--
The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
Re:ISPs as well? by buchner.johannes · 2012-11-30 04:16 · Score: 3, Insightful

For the police it is pretty clear that an ISP almost exclusively forwards traffic, so it makes sense to contact them to get connection details for specific illegal activities. There is no way to know from the outside whether a home line is used by a person or is forwarding someone elses requests like Tor (rare). So you have to hold that person, in the first step, accountable for the traffic that comes from his place.
Then in the process of the allegations, you can show plausible deniability, e.g. you are well-known to run a Tor exit node / participate in the Tor community, and the raid did not turn up any illegal material stored on your drives.
While it is extremely annoying to the guy, I do understand the taken measures (except perhaps the power-cord ripping). It really depends on the judge now though, hopefully they don't decide something silly. The question is really whether it is your responsibility to check each forwarded request (ISPs must not read content, or store anything beyond what is needed for forwarding and billing), and whether you may allow anonymous forwarding (ISPs don't I believe, not sure what the law says there).

--
NB: The message above might reflect my opinion right now, but not necessarily tomorrow or next year.
Re:ISPs as well? by ZombieBraintrust · 2012-11-30 04:25 · Score: 3, Interesting

ISP will work with law enforcement to identify the person who sent the packet. That is why they are not prosecuted. The Tor exit node operator can not do that. The tech is designed to prevent it.
Re:ISPs as well? by hduff · 2012-11-30 04:37 · Score: 3, Funny

ISP will work with law enforcement to identify the person who sent the packet. That is why they are not prosecuted. The Tor exit node operator can not do that. The tech is designed to prevent it.
Well then, the Tor exit node operator can cooperate fully.

--
"I believe in Karma. That means I can do bad things to people all day long and I assume they deserve it." : Dogbert
Re:ISPs as well? by X.25 · 2012-11-30 04:38 · Score: 1

No. Your ISP probably does little more than route traffic properly to the next router. A TOR exit node is an actual entity distributing data to others. A good analogy would be, your ISP is a self checkout line, and the TOR exit node is a physical employee walking the transaction through to completion. One is dumb, one is not
Hahaha.
Wow, I haven't read something this bad in a long time.
Re:ISPs as well? by tilante · 2012-11-30 04:39 · Score: 5, Insightful

Well, here's a couple of differences....
Your ISP has an acceptable use policy that you are required to agree to in order to get service from them, which most likely states that you're not allowed to do anything illegal, and that if you do use their network to do something illegal, you agree that you are wholly responsible for it. It also keeps records, so that it can cooperate with the authorities in tracking down people who are using their network for illegal purposes.
A Tor operator, on the other hand, by design does not know who is using their connection, and thus, cannot enforce that their users must agree to any policy. Further, and again by design, a Tor node does not keep any records that can be used to help authorities track down people using that connection for illegal purposes.
Much of the law operates on the basis of what a 'reasonable person' would understand. A reasonable person would understand that, given their policies and practices, a typical ISP is not attempting to shield people performing illegal activities. On the other hand, a reasonable person who knows what a Tor exit node is and sets one up should understand that there is a high chance that there will be illegal activities being funneled through their node.
So, from a legal point of view, there's a big difference. Now, ethics and morals... those are different things. But honestly, if you're not willing to go to jail to defend the principle that people should be able to anonymously use the Internet, then maybe operating a Tor exit node isn't something you should be doing.
Re:ISPs as well? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-30 04:43 · Score: 1

It boils down to whom has the bigger legal team.
Yes, time for some Grammar Nazi. But I will try to be constructive and not just say "that's wrong!"

The linking verb "has" puts the relative pronoun in the subjective case. They are the "who" who is "having something". The subjective case of that word is "who"; the objective case is "whom".

This is not like "for whom the bell tolls", where the subject is left unspecified (the one tolling the bell) but the object is for whom it tolls.

Still, congratulations for even knowing that there is such a word as "whom". The American public schools are producing students with no real grasp of grammar. That's terrible considering that most Americans only know a single language. The media does not help either. All newspapers and broadcasts are deliberately written to target about a fifth-grade reading level, dumbing everything down. Intelligence and higher forms of expression are not generally celebrated in our society.
Re:ISPs as well? by buchner.johannes · 2012-11-30 04:45 · Score: 4, Interesting

I just read up the law (TKG, should be similar to the European law). I learned two things
- Anyone can become a ISP/telecom. You have to register, but the gov doesn't stop you.
- Participants have the right to taken into records (written or electronic, to be made available to other ISPs/telecoms+gov) of each participant: Family name, name, academic title, address, ID, and, if the participant wants, occupation. (18 p1-1, 69 p3)
But apparently, this is only a right of the participants, so it does not say anywhere that you are not allowed to provide anonymous services. In fact, participants have the right to have their records deleted too.
Solution: Register your Tor exit node as a communication service. If records are requested, say that your participants all don't want their records stored.
Caveat: You have to provide your services to anyone, and people who insist on having their names stored have a right on that. Why anyone would want to use Tor and be identified is beyond me though.
Finally, you may have to comply with data retention laws, i.e. store connection data (not records) for 6 months. Since nobody will be able to use this data anyways, with Tor nodes overseas, that's not a killer.

--
NB: The message above might reflect my opinion right now, but not necessarily tomorrow or next year.
Re:ISPs as well? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-30 04:52 · Score: 0

Had to check again to make sure it wasn't BadAnalogyGuy.
Re:ISPs as well? by mrchaotica · 2012-11-30 04:56 · Score: 1

Caveat: You have to provide your services to anyone, and people who insist on having their names stored have a right on that. Why anyone would want to use Tor and be identified is beyond me though.
How are you required to advertise that right? (Do you have to make any particular effort to make the TOR users using your node find out about it?)
I mean, if all you have to do is host a web page saying "by the way, if you want to be identified, send email to [wherever]," that's not an onerous requirement...

--
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Re:ISPs as well? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-30 04:58 · Score: 0

Not entirely true. ISPs are obligated to provide certain information under court order should the ISP posses the information (generally in most countries). Generally (at least until recently) only backwards countries put obligations on ISPs to log anything. Now non-third world countries like the UK and the rest of Europe have started forcing ISPs to log. There are non-third world countries that are backwards too. The UK is an example with the country requiring the forfeiture of passwords/encryption keys. They can also be required to install or permit the installation of intercepts. However the Tor exit node operator can only be forced to do the later since no logging is done. It just doesn't lead anywhere. The question is most likely was he required to log anything or is the country just backwards and the rule of law is selective/not relevant? Russia, Italy, and a number of other countries seem to have very corrupt systems. The United States is maybe a bit less corrupt in certain ways although don't think for one moment that the powers that be aren't just as powerful. The difference is money is passed to the parties in the clear vs under the table. Then the laws are passed in the interests of the parties funding the politicians.
Re:ISPs as well? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-30 04:58 · Score: 0

Yeah, one makes lots of money, the other one doesn't. Its the same all over; here in Sweden prostitution is Illegal but it IS legal to make hardcore buttrape porn. Why? The make money of porn and there for it is in the "interest" if the community. Go figure... and If you want to be with a prostitute in Sweden make sure you have a porn production company, then its "casting".
Re:ISPs as well? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-30 05:03 · Score: 4, Insightful

We (including the very smart lawyers at the EFF) believe Tor nodes qualify as transmission providers under DMCA 512(a), not 512(c). This makes them exempt from "notice and takedown" procedures, including the need to issue "putback" responses. The EFF has even prepared a template response for improper DMCA 512(c) takedown notices.
Question: What are the criteria a service provider must satisfy in order to qualify for safe harbor protection under Subsection 512(a) of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act?
Answer: Subsection 512(a) provides a safe harbor for service providers in regard to communications that do not reside on the service provider?s system or network, but merely pass ?through? the system or network. Any copies of the communications on the system must be temporary, i.e., ?intermediate or transient.?
A service provider must satisfy the following critical elements in order to qualify for the ?safe harbor? or protection from liability provided by subsection 512(a) (note that subsection 512(k)(1)(A) defines ?service provider? as used in subsection 512(a)):
(a) The service provider is an entity offering the transmission, routing, or providing of connections for digital online communications [512(k)(1)(A)];
(b) The service provider did not initiated the transmission of the material [512(a)(1)]
(b) The transmission, routing, provision of connections, or storage is carried out by an automatic technical process [512(a)(2)];
(c) The Internet user, not the service provider, must select the origination and destination points of the communication [512(a)(3) and 512(k)(1)(A)];
(e) The service provider must not modify the communication selected by the Internet user [512(a)(5)];
(f) The communication is transmitted ?through? the system or network of the service provider [512(a)(2)];
(f) No copy of the communication is maintained on the system or network in a manner ordinarily accessible to anyone other than anticipated recipients [512(a)(4)]; and
(g) No copy is maintained on the system or network in a manner ordinarily accessible to anticipated recipients for a longer period than is reasonably necessary for the transmission, routing, and provision of connections [512(a)(4)].
https://www.torproject.org/eff/tor-dmca-response.html
Re:ISPs as well? by Fallingcow · 2012-11-30 05:14 · Score: 2

Deliberately making resources available to anonymous parties to do anything they like sounds like a great way to be charged with some form of criminal negligence, and probably held liable (to some degree, at least) in civil proceedings, too.
I'm having trouble thinking of a real-world analogy for it where you wouldn't be held responsible for that, in fact.
Re:ISPs as well? by Githaron · 2012-11-30 05:16 · Score: 3, Insightful

Tor does not attempt to shield illegal activities. It attempts to keep private data private. To do so completely, the network operators themselves must not be able to track back the data to the original request or view the contents. Yes, this can be abused by criminals but that doesn't make the network operator responsible. I don't see the police busting down the door of sport stores, confiscating the contents, and arresting the manager whenever they sell a ski mask to a random, cash paying customer that so happens to later use it in a bank robbery. They should be going after the criminals not the network operators.
Re:ISPs as well? by Shagg · 2012-11-30 05:18 · Score: 1

An ISP has a lot more money/lawyers than a TOR node owner.

--
Unix is user friendly, it's just selective about who its friends are.
Re:ISPs as well? by ewieling · 2012-11-30 05:41 · Score: 2

The problem with this logic is that ISPs are not considered Common Carriers in the actual USA LAWS. ISPs don't want to be Common Carriers because Common Carriers are highly regulated. Acting like a dog doesn't make you a dog. Acting like a common carrier does not make you a common carrier.

--
I really shouldn't have used someone else's email address for this account.
Re:ISPs as well? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-30 05:46 · Score: 0

That's nice in theory, but in practice we can see that "cooperating fully" means not fighting the police when they come to take all your stuff. And even then you'll likely face charges.
As it turns out, the typical layperson's idealistic interpretations of foreign and international law is seldom an accurate prediction of what happens when real people with real guns come a'knocking.
Re:ISPs as well? by Intropy · 2012-11-30 05:59 · Score: 5, Insightful

Since you asked. Real-world analogies where you wouldn't be held responsible:
You deliberately have no fence around your yard so that anyone who likes can walk across it from one side to the other. You will not be charged if someone flees from the police through your yard.
You and your neighbors pool various gardening tools and keep them in an unlocked tool shed so that anyone can use them with a policy being that you trust people to bring the tools back. You will not be charged if someone steal a shovel and uses it to kill someone.
You are zip car. Someone uses one to commit any of the ten million crimes you can commit with cars. You will not be charged.
Re:ISPs as well? by Kjella · 2012-11-30 06:00 · Score: 1

Your ISP has an acceptable use policy that you are required to agree to in order to get service from them, which most likely states that you're not allowed to do anything illegal, and that if you do use their network to do something illegal, you agree that you are wholly responsible for it.
Seriously, you're going to bring that up as a point? Apart from stating the obvious and that TOR could implement that as a one-time yes/no dialog to no effect whatsoever, it's not the operator's rules. It's the law, and it's not their job to teach you about it or make sure you don't break it. If I borrow you my car I might check that you have a driver's license, but I'm not going to explain to you that you can't drive at 200 mph and run people over and that it's fully your fault if you do even if it's my car.

A Tor operator, on the other hand, by design does not know who is using their connection, and thus, cannot enforce that their users must agree to any policy.
Most services can't, maybe a few may point to some IP that may or may not belong to me or me alone and that keeps changing. Having to agree to a policy and having proof of identity is two quite different and separate things.

Further, and again by design, a Tor node does not keep any records that can be used to help authorities track down people using that connection for illegal purposes.
Also my cash doesn't have a written history of who I got them from to help the police track down people who use them for illegal purposes. I'm sure it would be nice for them, just like a ton of other information they might have wanted. But unless there's some requirement in law you'd care to point to, there's no need. Besides, the two points above taken together essentially you mean running an open wifi should be illegal, since it typically has no AUP and no meaningful logs of who connected.

Much of the law operates on the basis of what a 'reasonable person' would understand. A reasonable person would understand that, given their policies and practices, a typical ISP is not attempting to shield people performing illegal activities. On the other hand, a reasonable person who knows what a Tor exit node is and sets one up should understand that there is a high chance that there will be illegal activities being funneled through their node.
A "reasonable person" as you define him would conclude that allowing ISPs to pass torrent traffic has a "high chance that there will be illegal activities being funneled through" like copyright infringement and should be blocked. Hell, at some point before legal music and video stream took off it's highly doubtful ISPs should be allowed to operate at all. I guess you like the "USPS should open every package to make sure they don't contain anything illegal" world.

But honestly, if you're not willing to go to jail to defend the principle that people should be able to anonymously use the Internet, then maybe operating a Tor exit node isn't something you should be doing.
Yeah, and you should totally not use that freedom of speech unless you're prepared to go to jail for it. Fortunately most of us that use our freedoms don't go to jail for it, that's pretty much what freedom is. Yes, there's a risk that if you do something the government won't like they'll be nasty to you - it's another thing to accept it as a fact of life and therefore you shouldn't do anything the government doesn't like.

--
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Re:ISPs as well? by KingMotley · 2012-11-30 06:02 · Score: 1

It attempts to keep private data private. To do so completely, the network operators themselves must not be able to track back the data to the original request or view the contents.
No, it doesn't. One is keeping people from being able to see what is being sent, the other is keeping people from knowing WHO sent it. Big difference.
Re:ISPs as well? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-30 06:19 · Score: 0

Well, the ISPs have money, legal departments, and lawyers, whereas the average joe has no such resources. So naturally, the cops never think twice about going after the little guy.
I hope he gets some help to beat the rap.
Re:ISPs as well? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-30 06:35 · Score: 0

Are UPS or FedEx held accountable for delivering contraband?
Re:ISPs as well? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-30 06:58 · Score: 0

It boils down to whomever has the bigger legal team.
Yes, time for some Grammar Nazi. But I will try to be constructive and not just say "that's wrong!"
The linking verb "has" puts the relative pronoun in the subjective case. They are the "who" who is "having something". The subjective case of that word is "who"; the objective case is "whom".
This is not like "for whom the bell tolls", where the subject is left unspecified (the one tolling the bell) but the object is for whom it tolls.
Still, congratulations for even knowing that there is such a word as "whom". The American public schools are producing students with no real grasp of grammar. That's terrible considering that most Americans only know a single language. The media does not help either. All newspapers and broadcasts are deliberately written to target about a fifth-grade reading level, dumbing everything down. Intelligence and higher forms of expression are not generally celebrated in our society.
There, is that better?
Re:ISPs as well? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-30 07:12 · Score: 0

Still wrong.
"Invite whomever you like," but "invite whoever wants to go."
Re:ISPs as well? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-30 07:37 · Score: 0

If you and your neighbors left a gun in the shed, you could be held liable for criminal negligence. The question really is if TOR is like a gun.
Re:ISPs as well? by Fallingcow · 2012-11-30 07:42 · Score: 1

But in those cases you're not going out of your way to hide the identities of the perpetrators, or to deliberately keep yourself ignorant of how your resources are being used.
The whole "I made sure I couldn't know what was going on and you couldn't know who was doing what, then advertised that fact widely, but I didn't personally commit a crime so I can't be held responsible at all" seems like exactly the kind of argument that would (rightly) piss a judge way the hell off. It looks to me like the kind of argument some people seem to think represent the "technicalities" people acquitted on sometimes, but in fact isn't one of those at all.
Try building a pool, not putting up a fence, putting up signs saying it's free for use at any time by anyone all over the place and advertising the fact that you'll be leaving town for a week, then trying to argue to a judge that it's not at all your fault when teens throw a kegger there and one of them drowns.
Re:ISPs as well? by Mike+Buddha · 2012-11-30 07:59 · Score: 1

These hypothetical situations are irrelevent.
The purpose of leaving a fence out of your yard is not to facilitate escape from the Police.
The purpose of pooling tools with your neighbors is not to facilitate murder.
The purpose of using zip car is not to facilitate traffice violations.
The purpose of using TOR is to anonymize data.

--
by Mike Buddha -- Someday the mountain might get him, but the law never will.
Re:ISPs as well? by SecurityGuy · 2012-11-30 08:18 · Score: 1

And in the final analysis, the owner may well not be held liable. Still, I'd not run one of these things. Yes, I understand they can be used for good and noble purposes. They're also used for awful ones. When "the man" gets wind of that and follows the trail of bits to your servers, you will be raided. You may not be prosecuted, but your kit is absolutely now evidence. Of course you might be prosecuted, and then you better be able to afford a good lawyer and hope for a technologically competent judge and jury. You might be served with a search warrant that turns your Tor exit node into a great big log server so they can keep tracking back to the actual criminals.
My backup plan is simply not to run a Tor exit node. Nowhere near worth the hassle.
Re:ISPs as well? by Fned · 2012-11-30 08:22 · Score: 1

These hypothetical situations are irrelevent.
The purpose of leaving a fence out of your yard is not to facilitate escape from the Police.
The purpose of pooling tools with your neighbors is not to facilitate murder.
The purpose of using zip car is not to facilitate traffice violations.
The purpose of using TOR is to anonymize data.
...which we all now know you believe is inherently a crime.
Thank you for being so candid, Mr. Buddha. We will duly take your opinion into consideration when in the future you choose to comment on internet privacy issues.
Re:ISPs as well? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-30 08:58 · Score: 0

I love how this is so completely wrong and still modded insightful.
Okay, your two first examples doesn't count because anyone making use of your yard or gardening tools would be doing so against your explicit will. With a Tor exit node you're inviting people to use it however they please, in your analogies they're doing so against your will. Huge difference. There is also a huge difference in what would be considered likely use of a yard, gardening tools, and the Internet.
The last example would work if not for the fact that there laws against such operations unless you have a registration system in place to account for who uses the cars. For exactly this reason. The analogue would be that you left your car open with the key in the ignition with a sign saying "use for whatever, just return it with a full tank!" by it, which is actually illegal and would result in you being liable for its use.
So yeah, what actual real-world analogies do you have where you wouldn't be held responsible? Still waiting.
Re:ISPs as well? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-30 09:07 · Score: 0

In what world is an honest accident a criminal offence? Unless you want to imply the rest of the party deliberately murdered the unlucky sod?
Re:ISPs as well? by DriveDog · 2012-11-30 09:44 · Score: 1

"An" ISP but not all. Some are very small indeed and can't afford much in the way of legal fees. It would be interesting to know how often small ISPs get dragged into things as a result of the local LEOs being less than fully knowledgeable of safe harbor provisions. Being right and remaining solvent are not synonymous.
Re:ISPs as well? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-30 11:03 · Score: 0

That would be correct if this whole thing was just over DMCA claims; The TOR exit node hosted with these guys in question was transmitting child porn.
Re:ISPs as well? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-30 12:07 · Score: 0

they should be going after the government, not the network,,, FTFY
Re:ISPs as well? by BradleyUffner · 2012-11-30 12:25 · Score: 1

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negligent_homicide
Re:ISPs as well? by Fallingcow · 2012-11-30 13:53 · Score: 1

Exactly what running a Tor exit node has always struck me as, legally speaking: negligence.
You aren't liable for the child porn (or whatever), but it seems to me that you could be held liable for intentionally turning on anonymizing software, then intentionally opening it up to the entire world. If you've got the know-how to do that, you ought to be aware that there's a decent chance your equipment will be used for illegal activity. You can't just shrug your shoulders at a judge and say, "well, I didn't know with certainty that anything bad was happening" and expect that to fly.
It's practically the "I'm not touching you!" of legal defenses, IMO.
(IANAL)
Re:ISPs as well? by Nigel+Stepp · 2012-11-30 15:15 · Score: 1

You can only be charged with negligence if you fail to perform a legal duty. I'm not sure there is a legal duty that's broken by enabling anonymity, especially without any particular intention.

--
4096R/EF7BAFA6 79E1 DF98 D09D 898F 9A11 F6F0 DDDC 23FA EF7B AFA6
Re:ISPs as well? by Fallingcow · 2012-11-30 19:00 · Score: 1

Interesting, didn't know that. Probably falling in to the error of mixing up (part of) a common definition of a word with a technical (legal, in this case) one.
Re:ISPs as well? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-03 04:53 · Score: 0

I guess that depends on what you count as criminal.

Hmm... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-30 03:58 · Score: 1

Ummm, don't run an exit Tor node if you aren't prepared to be sued for distributing child porn?

Re:Hmm... by Lumpy · 2012-11-30 05:01 · Score: 2

"Ummm, don't run an exit Tor node if you aren't prepared to be sued for distributing child porn?"
How about not running an Exit node raw onto the internet. Honestly, you can run one safely. You have the exit node behind a firewall that filters out most nefarious crap.
Problem is TOR is not used for it's intended purpose... to let persecuted people in far away lands access to our yummy yummy freedom. It's mostly for Kiddie porn and Warez.

--
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Re:Hmm... by idontgno · 2012-11-30 06:00 · Score: 2

Problem is TOR is not used for it's intended purpose... to let persecuted people in far away lands access to our yummy yummy freedom. It's mostly for Kiddie porn and Warez.
One man's yummy yummy freedom is another man's hideous freedom porn. If the second man is an operative in the exit node's country's draconic internal security apparatus, the exit node is no less screwed just because the EFF or Amnesty International thinks the exit node is used to empower the oppressed.
On some practical level, the only criterion as to whether an exit node will be raided or not is whether it pisses off the authorities. However, what happens after that may be a useful diagnostic as to the oppressiveness of the government. (Like this case, in which the cops may be backing down because the violation they're after wasn't specifically the TOR exit node's action.)

--
Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
Re:Hmm... by Lumpy · 2012-11-30 06:08 · Score: 1

Actually the cops will back down because they will have no evidence at all. It's hard to convince a judge to convict someone on server logs that have no proof that a computer in that house accessed the illegal content.

--
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.

Don't run an exit node. by Hatta · 2012-11-30 03:59 · Score: 3, Insightful

Run a dark net.

--
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!

Re:Don't run an exit node. by fustakrakich · 2012-11-30 04:12 · Score: 1

A 'dark net' is very easy to shutdown. If a protocol is not white listed by the authorities, any packets that are using it will be dropped. Until the internet becomes peer to peer over a mesh network, there is no hope.

--
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Re:Don't run an exit node. by Hatta · 2012-11-30 04:36 · Score: 1

Sure, if you're somewhere where encryption is actually prohibited. We're not there yet. And still, there are workarounds. You can encapsulate encrypted data in HTTP.

--
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Re:Don't run an exit node. by Ceriel+Nosforit · 2012-11-30 04:37 · Score: 4, Interesting

A mesh network isn't far away. Wireless APs are becoming redundant in homes so with a bit of community spirit and recycling you can establish a darknet like that. That community spirit is most easily found in hackerspaces and the Pirate Party, and since the latter type has the ability to support the former type you can get the message into people's homes without coming off as a lunatic fringe.
A lot of people don't understand why you want to build this and assume it's for child porn. I have learned that the appropriate response to crap isn't logic nor debate since it is just lazy rhetoric, but instead instant anger or suggesting 'that's what you'd use it for, isn't it'. Then assuming an air of accepting their apology you can move on with the issue. - As a partisan you should never for any reason permit discussion of child porn in what is a discussion about freedom online. Even throwing a tantrum is much more constructive.
So quit whining and start advocating!

--
All rites reversed 2010
Re:Don't run an exit node. by X0563511 · 2012-11-30 04:41 · Score: 1

So, what stops one from encapsulating the darknet traffic within a whitelisted protocol such as HTTPS?

--
For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
Re:Don't run an exit node. by Lumpy · 2012-11-30 05:05 · Score: 1

If you have a limited knowlege to how the internet and TCP/IP works? yes.
If you actually know what is going on? nope.
All VPN traffic is blocked here at work, yet I can VPN home easily... Why? I use an Https system. My initial connection looks like a https request, then the encrypted data flows.... Just like a real https connection.
It was trivial for me to do this to circumvent the idiots in IT, and I'm a n00b at this stuff compared to some of the guys out there. Anything you can think of already has a circumvention in place and ready to go.
the ONLY way to stop a darknet is to have whitelisted ip addresses only. Only approved servers on the internet allowed, your home connections are all firewalled for consumption only.

--
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Re:Don't run an exit node. by Lumpy · 2012-11-30 05:07 · Score: 1

nothing at all, that is exactly what I do to circumvent It departments.

--
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Re:Don't run an exit node. by Z00L00K · 2012-11-30 05:20 · Score: 1

In that case if you need to provide security you can run by obfuscation and steganography. It will only work for small amounts of carried data, but that may be enough.

--
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
Re:Don't run an exit node. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-30 05:20 · Score: 0

PROTIP: Half the point of good encryption is, that you can't tell whether it's random noise or encrypted data.
So unless you are lucky enough to find the right encryption format *and* the right key, you can't even prove that it's not just random noise.
Prohibiting encryption as dumb as prohibiting suicide. Are you gonna stick the dead body in jail, or what? Stupid, stupid, stupid!
Re:Don't run an exit node. by Hatta · 2012-11-30 05:38 · Score: 1

If we live in a place so tyrranical that encryption itself is outlawed, transferring HD video is going to be the least of our concerns. You only need text to communicate strategy and battle plans for the resistance.

--
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Re:Don't run an exit node. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-30 09:23 · Score: 0

SSL
Re:Don't run an exit node. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-30 11:53 · Score: 0

I've been thinking we should all move to wireless mesh for quite a while. Prevent any governmental power from taking communication away from the people/etc. I've recently changed my mind. Wireless is quite blockable. A better idea would be fiber neighborhood networks. If they aren't that well planned with not a whole lot of documentation, it would make it VERY hard to shut the whole thing down. Plus, very low latency / very high bandwidth!
Re:Don't run an exit node. by fustakrakich · 2012-11-30 17:29 · Score: 1

I know enough to see that engorging your packets with encrypted data will not go unnoticed should anyone decide to take a peek. Your optimism borders on the naive if you think otherwise. Be thankful your IT department isn't really serious, or competent enough to block your feeble attempts at circumvention. If whitelisted IPs and protocols are what it takes to do the job, then that is what you will get.

--
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Re:Don't run an exit node. by fustakrakich · 2012-11-30 17:38 · Score: 1

Perfectly fine... until the authorities want to see what's inside your HTTPS packets, and why they appear to be filled with nothing but "noise". You'll have to throw up a whole lot of chaff to cover your tracks. There goes your useful bandwidth.

--
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Re:Don't run an exit node. by fustakrakich · 2012-11-30 17:45 · Score: 1

If the use of encryption becomes widespread, you can bet it will become restricted, if not totally banned. Sure, we're not there yet, but we are moving in that direction. We should be ready for it when it does happen. And mere encapsulation will not go unnoticed. We must get ourselves off the corporate wire. That is our only hope on the long run.

--
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Re:Don't run an exit node. by scared+masked+man · 2012-12-01 18:57 · Score: 0

Actually, even a fibre-based mesh network would be quite bad for latency, since a lot of latency comes from switchgear.
What you'd probably want to do is have a hierarchy with a highly redundant mesh, so you have lines which only connect every 10km or so, but the endpoints of each segment are connected to local lines and to house-to-house links, so that there are many redundant paths between any two nodes but so that latency can be kept down when the network is intact.

The backup plan. by NettiWelho · 2012-11-30 04:00 · Score: 5, Funny

"What backup plan, if any, should the average nerd have for something like this?"

Select a new exit node, duh.

dont run a tor node by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-30 04:00 · Score: 0

Dude,
You know a lot of bad stuff could be traded through the Tor network (child porn,terrorism anyone ?).
You also know a lot of stupid people are lobbying any gov against anything remotely related to the children or ben laden.
it is to be expected that people running exit node could face charges if something bad go through their pipe.

be smart and stop your Tor node unless you want to be a freedom martyr.

Re:dont run a tor node by lister+king+of+smeg · 2012-11-30 04:13 · Score: 1

yes and all of that same stuff can be traded o the open internet securely via ssl ssh pgp and other encryption schemes.

--
---Saying gnome 3 is better than windows 8 not so much a compliment as it is damning with light praise.
Re:dont run a tor node by tylikcat · 2012-11-30 04:34 · Score: 2

You say freedom martyr like that's a bad thing.
My co-resident at the zendo at which I reside and I have been discussing setting up a Tor exit node for a while. The arguments against, are obvious - last I checked the general recommendation was to lease a server at a facillity that was set up for the likely eventual legal problems. But we're both fairly squeaky clean, and would be happy to talk at length about why we feel this is important. (And are in situations where spending time in jail, while not fun, wouldn't ruin us. Or would ruin us less quickly than most, anyway.)
And good friends who are lawyers in the right specialties.
I guess the argument really is that someone has to stand up for freedom. And frankly, some people have more wherewithal than others to do so. ...but it might be hard on the zendo. And so we haven't, yet.
Re:dont run a tor node by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-30 05:07 · Score: 0

I say freedom martyr like it is a bad thing if you are not ready to face the consequences of maybe going to jail for charges that might scare your reputation forever even if your story and your background make a conviction unlikely.
You shouldn't speak lightly of going to jail. It is NOT fun as you say and i really really want to make a bad joke about jail ruining at least a part of you.
I do feel that standing up for freedom of speech and privacy is important but i dont think running a tor node is helping.
I m pretty sure China has a lot of exit Tor nodes to be able to monitor who is using it anyway.
Re:dont run a tor node by Lumpy · 2012-11-30 05:08 · Score: 1

"You also know a lot of stupid people are lobbying any gov against anything remotely related to the children or ben laden."
Holy crap... now his half brother Ben is hated across the globe? What is wrong with the Laden family?

--
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Re:dont run a tor node by Lumpy · 2012-11-30 05:10 · Score: 1

You need to set up a fake alias and buy the server and pay for it with your fake alias. make sure it does not point at you in any real way.
Step 1 get a fake ID for an address that you have never lived at.
Step 2 get a credit card for that alias.
Step 3 Profit!
It's 100% illegal, but if you do it carefully, when the server is raided, there is no direct trace back at you.

--
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Re:dont run a tor node by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-30 05:22 · Score: 0

"ben laden" - classic.
Re:dont run a tor node by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-30 06:32 · Score: 0

You say freedom martyr like that's a bad thing.
You may think differently once some giant thug's dick is burrowing past your prostate in jail.
Re:dont run a tor node by toddestan · 2012-12-01 05:54 · Score: 1

At some point you'll have to pay the credit card bill if you want to keep the server running, at which point they'll be able to trace it to you. A possible solution may be to buy one of those prepaid VISA gift cards with cash (preferably at a location not close to where you live or work) and use that to pay for the server.
Re:dont run a tor node by tylikcat · 2012-12-01 07:08 · Score: 1

Well, I suppose by recent nomenclature one could say I have a prostate - though classically they would be called Skene's glands. But it seems unlikely, on any number of levels.
(The extent to which prison rape is considered to be both acceptable and a great topic for jokes is pretty sad, really.)
Re:dont run a tor node by tylikcat · 2012-12-01 07:09 · Score: 1

Running a Tor node only helps a tiny bit.
Taking the issue through the courts has the potential to be much more useful. It would be nice for a right to privacy to mean something again, y'know?

Don't run a TOR exit node? by h4rr4r · 2012-11-30 04:01 · Score: 3, Insightful

I think not running TOR is about all you can do.

Of course if this is something they can prosecute you for, can they also prosecute your ISP as well?

Re:Don't run a TOR exit node? by shentino · 2012-11-30 04:07 · Score: 2

Selective prosecution is pretty handy.
Re:Don't run a TOR exit node? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-30 04:38 · Score: 0

I think not running TOR is about all you can do.
Of course if this is something they can prosecute you for, can they also prosecute your ISP as well?
Which of you has lobbyists? Which of you has well-paid lawyers.
Re:Don't run a TOR exit node? by Lorens · 2012-11-30 05:02 · Score: 1

can they also prosecute your ISP as well?
If the ISP was running the Tor node, why not? But the ISP says you are running the Tor node, so that makes it your problem and your consequences to face. You're not saying you were running a Tor node unwittingly, right? Hmmm . . . a virus that installs a Tor node . . .
Re:Don't run a TOR exit node? by bill_mcgonigle · 2012-11-30 05:11 · Score: 3, Informative

I think not running TOR is about all you can do.
You can run a relay. Not as valuable as an exit node, but still important. A reporter once noticed the relay I run and wrote a story about it.

--
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)

thermite by WillgasM · 2012-11-30 04:02 · Score: 4, Funny

You mean to tell me you guys don't have your cases rigged with thermite?

Re:thermite by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-30 04:09 · Score: 1

It really isn't that difficult. Aluminum powder (aluminum foil in the blender works nicely) and iron oxide (rust) with a catalyst and a trigger for the reaction. Creates some nicely melted iron. Use a bucket with water and sand underneath to catch the liquid metal and you're good to go. It was always my favorite experiment in my high school chemistry class.
Re:thermite by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-30 04:12 · Score: 1

Or just use magnesium ribbon to get the reaction started http://www.thecatalyst.org/other/thermite/
Re:thermite by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-30 04:22 · Score: 0

I thought about something else. Wireless storage. Use it for everything sensitive (= everything except boot and SW). A disk enclosure communicating with the computers in the room/house using very short range wireless. Have it bricked into the wall, floor, or somewhere similar. Have a remote kill switch handy that shuts it down to be completely EM passive until further instructed. And, of course, don't tell anyone that you have something like this. Devices can be replaced, and they won't help the prosecutor any bit at all. Data is much more precious.
Re:thermite by Opportunist · 2012-11-30 04:44 · Score: 0

Marine signal flares work pretty well too. And they're easy and legal to obtain while also being very easy to operate even by people without a chemistry background.

--
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Re:thermite by blueg3 · 2012-11-30 05:24 · Score: 1

This is not really a good idea. Not for a Tor exit node. (Of course, you shouldn't be *storing* much of anything if you're a Tor node.) See, the authorities will take all the computer hardware and networking equipment they can find. On one of these, there will almost certainly be tons of small bits of evidence that indicate that you were using exactly the setup you describe here. The normal course of using an operating system and working with data on an external server leaves countless markers that indicate that fact. The authorities will figure it out, they'll ask you, and they'll go back to your house and search harder. Outcomes range from "you might get off on a technicality because they can't find the server and you don't talk" to "they tear up your walls looking for it, find it's been destroyed, and prosecute you for destruction of evidence". None of them are good. None of them are substantially better than simply encrypting your disks with a password that's hard to guess and not written down. If you're running a Tor exit node, though, even encrypting your disk is unlikely to be a better approach than convincing a jury (or better, the prosecutor) that you're really not liable for the traffic other people send through you. If you're running a Tor exit node, it really should be on a clean computer where are you are not doing anything even remotely illegal so that it's easy for the authorities to look at that computer and verify that hey, you're telling the truth, all of the illegal activities that "seem" to come from your IP are due to the Tor exit node.
Re:thermite by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2012-11-30 06:58 · Score: 1

On one of these, there will almost certainly be tons of small bits of evidence that indicate that you were using exactly the setup you describe here
Could you elaborate on that?

--
Ezekiel 23:20
Re:thermite by imsabbel · 2012-11-30 07:44 · Score: 1

Because arson, especially if you are not living along in your own house (i.e. added endangerment of others) will bring you into WAY bigger shit than just about anything they could find on your HD.

--
HI O WISE PRINCE. WHT TOOK U SO DAM LONG?
Re:thermite by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-30 09:25 · Score: 0

...your cases rigged with thermite?

That would extra equipment to stop it igniting accidentally. I've just got motion detectors. If the network cable unplugs or the case moves slightly, the encrypted HDDs are unmounted and primary memory is scrubbed.
Re:thermite by jonwil · 2012-11-30 13:16 · Score: 1

Here is an idea I thought of for this:
1.All access to the hard disk goes through a special board that encrypts (with 256-bit AES or whatever else is considered strong cryptography these days) the data on your hard disk in real time as it passes back and forth.
2.When you turn the computer on, you need to input a strong password (done via a bootloader or BIOS rom stored somewhere on the security board), if you input the correct one, the hard disk keys become accessible, if you input the wrong one more than x number of times, the stored keys are erased.
3.The security board contains special memory holding the keys that is connected to mains power (via a nice big UPS in case of power failures). This power supply remains active even if the PC is shut down. If the power is totally lost (e.g. power is disconnected, UPS runs out of juice) then the stored keys are erased.
The memory would be built on-chip with the encryption processor to thwart cold boot type attacks. If the system ever needs to be moved for a legitimate reason, the security can be disabled first and new encryption keys generated once the system
4.Any attempt to open the computer case without disabling the security causes the stored keys to be erased and the system to reset.
5.If the network cable is unplugged without first disabling the security, the stored keys are erased and the system is reset. To account for accidental loss of network (e.g. if you bump the network cable) and to make it harder for attackers to detect this feature, it will not erase the keys until 2 minutes after the network was disconnected.
and 6.To counter an attacker who is able to keep power AND network running whilst they transport the machine, there is a GPS receiver on the security board. If this receiver detects that the GPS signal has strayed outside of a predefined area (as it would if it is being transported to a new location by a hacker), it notifies the security processor to erase the decryption keys and reset the machine. The area would be large enough to account for the variations in signal that you get from most consumer level GPS receiver chips.
Unless the attacker is able to spoof GPS, this should prevent them from reading any viable data off the machine. Attempting to open the case and image the disk directly will give them nothing but an unreadable encrypted block of data. Moving the machine without keeping network intact will erase the keys and render the disk unusable about 2 minutes after the attacker disconnects the network connection. Moving the machine without keeping power intact will render the disk unusable immediately due to loss of key data. And if they keep both power and network, they will be thwarted by the GPS.
Thats assuming the defender doesn't simply kick out the power in the 5 seconds between the attacker making their presence known and the attacker reaching the defender's computer.
Attackers power the computer and all they see is a message saying "encryption keys missing, unable to access primary disk" (or similar)
Re:thermite by blueg3 · 2012-11-30 18:13 · Score: 1

Sure. Take Windows as an example (though the same sorts of things exist on other OSes). You'd be using this storage for things, yes? Probably setting it up as a NAS so that it runs a file server and you connect to that? Of course, if you bind that file server to a drive letter, it's quite clear exactly what's going on. Even if you don't, lots of individual programs (say, image viewers or media players) keep recently-used-item lists that will now have paths to network resources. If you cache your access credentials, that'll be sitting in the registry. Say you run uTorrent on it and access it via the web UI -- now that's in your browser history. Its MAC address is on your router; making it stop wireless communication will eventually flush it off the ARP table, but not very fast. (That's assuming you don't set up MAC address filtering, firewalls, or static-address DHCP and that your router doesn't log per-machine errors or bandwidth usage.)
Operating systems and applications love to store little bits of information about what you are doing with your computer as a side effect of their normal operation. (Consider Safari, which caches the full text, a screenshot, the last-access date, access count, name, and URL of every item in your browser history, just so that it can implement some fancy sparkles.) These little bits reveal a lot about what you use your computer for and how.

My Backup Plan by TheSpoom · 2012-11-30 04:02 · Score: 1

Not running a Tor exit node. Really, they could say that any participant of the Tor network could have been participating in distribution of illegal materials; running an exit node just lets them prove the exit node operator in particular was doing so.

--
It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
- E. Debs

Shipping analogy by LaminatorX · 2012-11-30 04:03 · Score: 4, Insightful

If you ship contraband via FedEx, is FedEx a criminal?

Re:Shipping analogy by knarfling · 2012-11-30 04:13 · Score: 1

That depends. Did you put the words, "Heroin inside. Handle with care." on the outside of the package? Did it still ship with those words on the box?

--
Great civilizations have lived and died on false theories. Don't mess up mine with a few facts.
Re:Shipping analogy by blueg3 · 2012-11-30 04:15 · Score: 2

No, but the authorities are very familiar with what FedEx does and it's very visible. If you ran a local package-delivery service and the authorities found that big boxes of drugs keep managing to come from your facility, you can bet that they will show up, take some of your stuff, demand a bunch of records, and ask some very pointed questions. If you really know nothing about the drug cartels shipping product through your company, you'll probably be fine.
The same goes here, though laws very dramatically by country. If you run a Tor exit node, there's a distinct possibility that a lot of criminal activity will look like it came from your Internet connection. A lot of it you can't, in the end, be prosecuted for, because the laws generally require intent and there's no intent to commit criminal acts on your part. (Strict liability, conspiracy, etc. will make your life difficult, though.) But you should certainly expect to be investigated, at least. After all, the police shouldn't take you on your word that you were running a Tor exit node, and even when they verify that you are, they shouldn't just assume that if you're running an exit node, any criminal activity *must* have been through the exit node -- otherwise it would provide a perfect front for criminal activity.
Re:Shipping analogy by squiggleslash · 2012-11-30 04:17 · Score: 4, Insightful

If FedEx actively advertises the fact that shipping via them prevents law enforcement from prying into what it is you're shipping, then... may be.
The problem with Tor is its advertised application. It's a network designed to prevent you from being snooped upon, but by and large the (work of mouth) advertising isn't "And this way Google will never be able to select ads that are of interest to you" or "You don't have to worry that your affair will be discovered by your spouse" (to use two extremes) but "The government will not be able to snoop on you!"
And while, yes, there are occasions that the government snoops on people maliciously and illegally, it remains the case, today, that the primary reason why the government snoops on people is, well, because they're enforcing laws. Joe Sheriff doesn't care that much about the fact you voted for Obama or believe Bradly Manning is being treated unfairly, but he sure as hell cares about people sending each other child pornography, or orders for illegal drugs, or even getting copyrighted movies without the permission of the copyright holders and not paying for them, or whatever.
And so you have idealistic nerds saying "I know, let's be the next Amnesty International and provide a way for dissidents to swap messages about how terrible the regimes are that they live under", and you get the idealistic nerds using it, because they know it's not going to work otherwise and, sure, maybe one or two of those dissidents using it, and a few paranoid rednecks who are convinced Obama will take their guns away if they talk about them in public.... and you also get a lot of people using this network that's secure against government snooping for doing the things that governments actually legitimately snoop on, you know, doing stuff illegally. Did I say "A lot of people"? Maybe most, I don't know. It would not exactly be surprising if most Tor users are actually using it for illegal stuff, even if the majority of those Tor users are using it for stuff nerds don't see as wrong, such as trading copyrighted movies without the permission of the copyright holder.
I don't think Tor can work as is. It's a nice, idealistic, concept, but...

--
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Re:Shipping analogy by interkin3tic · 2012-11-30 04:21 · Score: 1

No, but that probably has more to do with FedEx's wealth vs a lowly human citizen's wealth than anything else.
Re:Shipping analogy by schlachter · 2012-11-30 04:25 · Score: 1

No because
1. The government needs FedEx and it's too big to fail
2. Because they have money and lobbyists.

--
My God can beat up your God. Just kidding...don't take offense. I know there's no God.
Re:Shipping analogy by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-30 04:36 · Score: 0

Actually, the vast majority of Tor traffic is perfectly legal in most countries (plain ordinary vanilla pornography, gay pornography, news about iran, facebook).
Re:Shipping analogy by Mr.+Slippery · 2012-11-30 04:39 · Score: 2

It's a network designed to prevent you from being snooped upon, but by and large the (work of mouth) advertising isn't "And this way Google will never be able to select ads that are of interest to you" or "You don't have to worry that your affair will be discovered by your spouse" (to use two extremes) but "The government will not be able to snoop on you!"

The "word of mouth" I hear about Tor is that it's software originally developed by the U.S. government that can to help people in China and Syria and other totalitarian nations get net access without being snooped on.
If it occasionally gets in the way of lazy-ass cops who'd rather not be bothered doing legwork to track down real crimes, too bad. We have a word for states where freedom is restricted in order to make things easier for police: a police state.

--
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
Re:Shipping analogy by emt377 · 2012-11-30 04:41 · Score: 1

If you ship contraband via FedEx, is FedEx a criminal?
You have to provide ID to ship, and FedEx will x-ray or otherwise examine the package. If they see what looks like contraband they'll contact the appropriate law enforcement organization (ATF etc). If a TOR operator took similar precautions they'd likely avoid prosecution as well.
Re:Shipping analogy by Opportunist · 2012-11-30 04:46 · Score: 2

Oh c'mon, Western Union has been used as a mule for money laundering in ID theft cases for ages now and they weren't even required to change their policies.
What it comes down to is whether you have enough money to stand up for yourself.

--
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Re:Shipping analogy by pruss · 2012-11-30 04:53 · Score: 1

I suppose there is no way to make Tor work only for users in repressive countries?
Re:Shipping analogy by Clsid · 2012-11-30 05:00 · Score: 1

Hey, it already works in the US :)
Re:Shipping analogy by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-30 05:13 · Score: 0

The problem with your thinking is it is largely working as designed.
Are dissidents using it? I don't know. It doesn't matter though because it is clear that the most persecuted users are. If they weren't then you wouldn't see people getting raided for running exit nodes. You could even argue all persons who are using it are being persecuted and its use is a form of dissent.
All communications should be legally protected. The idea you can censor some information and not other information or communications is an attack on democracy. The same goes for taking away peoples rights to vote. While it may be reasonable to take restrict to the extent necessary to maintain order some peoples free movements for a limited amount of time it is not reasonable to completely cut any person off from the rest of society. Doing so puts certain people into power or maintains the status quo. That status quo is not a representative of the people of all persons capable of voting are prevented from voting. Taking away the voting and free speech rights of some people prevents legitimate governments from forming.
Re:Shipping analogy by Lumpy · 2012-11-30 05:13 · Score: 1

Yup. If you wire money all you need is the confirmation number to get the money at the other end. Money laundering through Western Union is brain dead easy, you can even automate it in small amounts under $500.00 so that it does not trigger any fed flags.

--
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Re:Shipping analogy by Z00L00K · 2012-11-30 05:24 · Score: 3, Funny

You may write whatever you like on the content label. But you will take a risk that it's taken literally.
Like the person that sent his photos in a mail protected by a 1/2 inch aluminum plate and then wrote on the content label "bend this if you can" - it arrived to the recipient neatly bent to 90 degrees...

--
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
Re:Shipping analogy by blueg3 · 2012-11-30 05:28 · Score: 1

or even getting copyrighted movies without the permission of the copyright holders and not paying for them, or whatever.
For the most part, Joe Sheriff doesn't care about that, actually. Those are almost exclusively civil cases and the limited resources of public computer crime investigators is not wasted on civil cases. That's how they prefer it, too, because they (mostly) know that pursuing individuals for copyright infringement is unpopular, expensive (in investigator's time and resources), and doesn't solve any real crimes.
Re:Shipping analogy by misexistentialist · 2012-11-30 05:34 · Score: 1

And while, yes, there are occasions that the government snoops on people maliciously and illegally, it remains the case, today, that the primary reason why the government snoops on people is, well, because they're enforcing laws. Joe Sheriff doesn't care that much about the fact you voted for Obama or believe Bradly Manning is being treated unfairly, but he sure as hell cares about people sending each other child pornography, or orders for illegal drugs, or even getting copyrighted movies without the permission of the copyright holders and not paying for them, or whatever.

Right, Big Brother watches because He loves us. We have nothing to hide so we don't mind: he needs to watch to make sure he doesn't need to watch. It's all a necessary measure because victimless crimes have no detectable effect, and the effects on the victims of such crimes are massive.
Re:Shipping analogy by Ares · 2012-11-30 05:53 · Score: 1

I looked at the contents of the Tor Packet. It looked like random garbage. so I sent it along.
Re:Shipping analogy by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-30 05:56 · Score: 0

> Joe Sheriff doesn't care that much about the fact you voted for Obama or believe Bradly Manning is being treated unfairly...
Joe Sheriff might not. Joe Arpaio, Sheriff, certainly does, and he's what we're trying to avoid. One grade-A nimrod in a position of power, it all goes down the toilet.
Re:Shipping analogy by thisnamestoolong · 2012-11-30 06:30 · Score: 1

So? Most crimes are committed behind closed doors. Should we mandate that people must leave their doors unlocked at all times, so that the police can just barge in and do random crime spot checks?

--
To the haters: You can't win. If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine
Re:Shipping analogy by squiggleslash · 2012-11-30 06:49 · Score: 1

I was waiting for some idiot to fail to see the difference between "majority of cases" and "All cases", and you didn't disappoint me. Thanks.

--
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Re:Shipping analogy by fufufang · 2012-11-30 06:50 · Score: 1

If you ship contraband via FedEx, is FedEx a criminal?
I think operating a Tor exit node is more like carrying a parcel through the border, and you don't know the content, and if may or may not contain heroin.
However information surely is not as dangerous as heroin, right?
Re:Shipping analogy by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-30 06:55 · Score: 0

But for Tor to function, it needs exit nodes in less repressive countries. It's the exit nodes that get the heat, never the intermediate or starting nodes.
Re:Shipping analogy by poofmeisterp · 2012-11-30 07:07 · Score: 1

If you ship contraband via FedEx, is FedEx a criminal?
Ask the judge and jury.
Re:Shipping analogy by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-30 08:02 · Score: 0

I looked at the contents of the Tor Packet. It looked like random garbage. so I sent it along.
Yep, and I'm sure FedEx would easily get away with "We looked at the contents of the package. It had some white powdery stuff, and some nondescript metal tubes someone unwisely attached a hand grip and a separate, moving point where one could fit a finger. None of this made any sense to us, so we sent it along. HERP A DERP A INNOCNENTZ!1!!!1!"
It amuses me to no end how the nerd world, once a bastion of idealism and forward-thinking, has been reduced to a cesspool of bitterness and self-absorbed snide sarcasm once they found out that all the books they read and all the fiction they studied didn't mean shit in reality and they didn't know how to react.
Re:Shipping analogy by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-30 12:16 · Score: 0

Write on the box, "Add cash to this hole in the box, then proceed to deliver to recipient."
Re:Shipping analogy by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-30 21:06 · Score: 0

Fedex/UPS are warran tless. USPS is not. Just to inform. I wrote multiple articles but it got deleted :/
Re:Shipping analogy by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-02 01:01 · Score: 0

We are about to find this out. FedEx has been accused by the FBI as being a facilitator to two drug cartels from Mexico.

Never by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-30 04:03 · Score: 2, Insightful

If you want real security, you should be using a network where the data never "exits" from the secure zone. And never let other people use your network blindly for their own purposes, until something like common carrier status is established for that sort of thing.

This was Austria. I can't imagine the FBI or any other local jurisdiction being that much friendlier. Even if the law is technically on your side, expect to have to lose everything defending your rights.

Re:Never by borcharc · 2012-11-30 04:10 · Score: 3, Interesting

They have a history of doing stuff like this in Austria (Germany also). I am now aware of this happening in the US, we have fairly clear laws on the subject. I have ran a 5 mb/sec exit node unmolested, without even one single abuse complaint for 10 years. Anyone who sees the obvious tor-exit hostname in their logs knows whats up, if they are still confused the exit node notice should clear things up. The EU has been trying to get some reasonable laws passed but their broken economy steels the show.
Re:Never by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-30 04:16 · Score: 0, Flamebait

Only an idiot can relate broken economy to this.
Re:Never by Opportunist · 2012-11-30 04:48 · Score: 1

Not necessarily. If people have more pressing things to worry about than freedom, it is fairly trivial to pass laws against it.

--
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.

non-destructive backup plan by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-30 04:04 · Score: 0

Not much you can do, I do not know the specs of the TOR network (not sure if communication from node to node is encrypted) but if you are running an exit node I would recommend building a linux box that has all of it's drives encrypted. Host the encryption key a USB stick that the machine requires at boot time. As soon as you hear "police open the door" destroy USB stick. This will only help you if you are at the machine when they perform the search warrant. Another possibility is that the key needs to be present at boot but can be removed. Chances are they will turn off the machine when they move it so when they boot it back up they won't have access to much.

That being said always nice to have a laptop in a safety deposit box under someone elses name that can generate a copy of key if needed.

Re:non-destructive backup plan by h4rr4r · 2012-11-30 04:06 · Score: 3, Insightful

They likely will not turn it off when they remove it. There are products just for that purpose.
Destruction of the USB stick would get you Obstruction of Justice charges.
Re:non-destructive backup plan by pipatron · 2012-11-30 04:13 · Score: 4, Insightful

The problem is not the exit node, no information of any value contains there, and nothing that can incriminate you will be on the exit node.
The problem is the complete raid of everything of value you own and depend on that had no part in the exit node, no matter what is stored on the machines. Likely keeping them for months, even years depending on how far they want to go with the case.

--
c++; /* this makes c bigger but returns the old value */
Re:non-destructive backup plan by Opportunist · 2012-11-30 04:49 · Score: 1

This is the Austrian police, I know these dunces. Be happy if they manage to get the Server out of the door without too much damage to the rest of your infrastructure because they're even too stupid to unplug it properly.

--
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Re:non-destructive backup plan by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-30 04:49 · Score: 0

Here in the US, a good number of raids are done as "no-knock" entries. That means the door gets blown apart and then people enter. If asleep, one is likely going to get woken up by a rifle butt to the face rather than a demand to open the door.
Expecting to have a USB flash drive and be able to destroy it is a fallacy. It only will result in someone getting time in prison for evidence destruction.
There are better ways; I just don't feel like listing them because I don't want to make the life easier for would-be criminals reading this.
Re:non-destructive backup plan by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-01 02:18 · Score: 0

install 3D accelerometers. movement = kill switch.

Plausible Deniability by Maximum+Prophet · 2012-11-30 04:04 · Score: 5, Insightful

It's hard for the average nerd, you either have to be so small and invisible that you can take off at a moment's notice, or maintain shell corporations that own all the stuff that might get taken. If you own a house, or have a family that you care about, fugetaboutit.

--
All ideas^H^H^H^H^Hprocesses in this post are Patent Pending. (as well as the process of patenting all postings)

Re:Plausible Deniability by DMUTPeregrine · 2012-11-30 12:10 · Score: 1

It's not that hard to maintain an LLC and have it own the equipment. Keep the server at a colo facility and use the LLC for all transactions regarding it.

--
Not a sentence!

Define "average?" by Shoten · 2012-11-30 04:04 · Score: 3, Insightful

What backup plan, if any, should the average nerd have for something like this?

What average nerd runs a TOR exit node?

--

For your security, this post has been encrypted with ROT-13, twice.

Re:Define "average?" by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-30 04:12 · Score: 0

There are some nerds who insist running an exit node helps political dissidents in China/Iran/[firewalled country du jur]
Re:Define "average?" by lister+king+of+smeg · 2012-11-30 04:17 · Score: 1

i would but i cant afford the bandwidth.

--
---Saying gnome 3 is better than windows 8 not so much a compliment as it is damning with light praise.
Re:Define "average?" by Shoten · 2012-11-30 04:43 · Score: 1

Yeah, but if you RTFA, you'll see that he was pushing terabytes of data doing this. It's not a little thing, running an exit node. Yes, running one helps many people, some good, some bad. So what? It's still nowhere near something an "average" anything would do.

--

For your security, this post has been encrypted with ROT-13, twice.
Re:Define "average?" by tilante · 2012-11-30 04:53 · Score: 2

I would guess that the original poster's question is meant to be more "What backup plan should the average nerd have in case all their electronics are seized or destroyed for some reason" rather than "What backup plan should the average nerd have in case the Tor exit node they operate is taken down".
Keeping off-site copies of important data is a good plan - either backed up at a cloud storage provider, or periodically burned to DVD and put somewhere else. Having some paper records of very important things (e.g., phone numbers and email addresses of close friends and family, if you're like me and generally just let your phone remember those things) could be very useful as well - right after you've either gotten in trouble with the police or been in a major disaster is not a good time to not be able to contact people.
Of course, paper can also get damaged - so a fire- and water-proof safe is good to keep some those important papers in. Or a safe deposit box at a bank. (Ideally, both, with copies in each.)
Of course, all of this is essentially basic disaster planning - having off-site backups and either spare off-site hardware or the means to get it quickly.
It won't help in the case of confiscation, but if you absolutely need to have computer access all the time, you might also want to keep a small netbook, tablet, spare phone, or whatever in that safe or safe deposit box. If you're more worried about confiscation, keep enough cash there to buy one of those if you should need it.
Re:Define "average?" by imsabbel · 2012-11-30 07:48 · Score: 1

Backup plan in that case would be: . Have cloud backups of important data (Carbonite/Crackplan/Mozy/etc). Have maybe $500 on a safings account. Thats enough for a cheap laptop and a DSL router / cable modem. With that, you can do literally anything you need to do in terms of communication / esential computer use.

--
HI O WISE PRINCE. WHT TOOK U SO DAM LONG?

Wondered From Day One by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-30 04:06 · Score: 5, Insightful

I've wondered, from day one, why anyone would be crazy enough to run a TOR exit node. Why would you willing serve as the front man for someone else's unknown but likely illegal activity? It's just crazy.

Running an exit node is just begging to get arrested for child porn. I'm positively amazed that it doesn't happen a LOT more often.

Re:Wondered From Day One by pipatron · 2012-11-30 04:15 · Score: 1

Yeah, what crazy people would risk anything at all for a little freedom? Crazytalk. I better just shut up and keep updating my facebook status.

--
c++; /* this makes c bigger but returns the old value */
Re:Wondered From Day One by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-30 04:18 · Score: 0

Probably the same reasons people like Ghandi stand up and risk themselves for others
Re:Wondered From Day One by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-30 04:18 · Score: 1

Most illegal activity is probably done over hidden services.
Re:Wondered From Day One by O('_')O_Bush · 2012-11-30 04:50 · Score: 2

What freedoms is it about? Freedom of speech? You wouldn't have any reason to be arrested. Freedom to do illegal things without interference? Be ready for the consequences. Freedom of privacy? Nice and all, but you need to be prepared to accept the responsibility for protecting others' privacy and them abusing it.

You can't have all flavors of cake, the world is far more selfish and less ideological than you. There is a dream where someone can host a data agnostic service and not be responsible for policing content, but as history has shown (Megauploads, 4chan, now Tor), the law doesn't respect those dreams.

--
while(1) attack(People.Sandy);
Re:Wondered From Day One by Opportunist · 2012-11-30 04:51 · Score: 1

Legality is very subjective, and subject to change depending on your country and the time you live in. In certain countries, saying something bad about your king is already enough to get you into jail.
Wanna support it? I mean, it's legal to put them behind bars 'cause they don't grovel at some random guy's feet who happens to be in this position just because he was lucky enough to be born into it.

--
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Re:Wondered From Day One by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-30 06:27 · Score: 0

But you see, that sort of mentality is WHY such a thing is even happening.
If EVERY SINGLE PERSON on Tor was an exit node, this wouldn't even be an issue.
But no, paranoid thoughts like this ruined the idea behind it.
The more people that run redirection proxy services like this, the better it is for the whole.
Yes, there WILL be child porn, there WILL be terrorism spread via this, but for actual ultimate complete freedom to voice anything you want? Worth it.
A service that is self-moderating will tend towards an equilibrium over time, one that actually has such a system built in to the core of its operation is even better. (something like Freenet on a bigger scale)
You cannot have 100% freedom without being exposed to nasty stuff. People will have to deal with that by just not going to those things and maybe downvoting / filtering it from their results in the case of it being a search or whatever.
I ain't happy with it, you probably won't be either, but that is all you can do. Or you can go 99% freedom. But then who decides what that is? It just becomes a huge mess of "FUCK THAT SHIT" and "THAT IS CRUEL!" shitflinging contest that never ends. 100% freedom or censorship.
Re:Wondered From Day One by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-30 10:25 · Score: 0

" You wouldn't have any reason to be arrested. "
Lol.
Re:Wondered From Day One by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-30 21:16 · Score: 0

No shit you accept the responsibility for protecting others. That's the fucking point.
What defines "illegal", as some crimes seem fair and just, while non-violent do not fill that roll. What you believe in and are willing to sacrifice for what you believe in doesn't mean that if the majority thinks your crazy, that you are actually crazy.
Were the founding father's crazy?
Or saw the whole picture?

average nerd? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-30 04:07 · Score: 0

This goes a bit beyond the daily use case for the "average" nerd. And what exactly do you mean by "backup plan": disaster recovery or bourne style go-bag?
If you are pissing off the man, passports to a country with no extradition would be a good idea.

Patriotic duty? by hendrikboom · 2012-11-30 04:12 · Score: 2

If I were an American nerd, I could just argue that running the exit node is my patriotic duty. After all, the NSA wants there to be a lot of tor traffic so it can send its state secrets securely.

Ditch your computers and go outside by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-30 04:16 · Score: 1

Here is your "backup" plan. Ditch all your computers never use the internet again because the people running the countries are retarded, insane, and looking for a good witch hunt.

It is a bad time in history to be a nerd.

Re:Ditch your computers and go outside by Titan1080 · 2012-11-30 04:21 · Score: 1

It also would help to limit your online activities to 'legal only'.
Re:Ditch your computers and go outside by Opportunist · 2012-11-30 04:52 · Score: 3, Insightful

Give it a while and you're back at his plan.
Quite seriously, unless you've been under a rock lately, you should have noticed that sooner or later laws have gotten to the point where the only legal thing you can do online anymore is buying crap.

--
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.

With that logic by Dishwasha · 2012-11-30 04:17 · Score: 1

I guess they should arrest all pawn shop owners as they often facilitate the fencing of stolen goods.

Re:With that logic by O('_')O_Bush · 2012-11-30 04:41 · Score: 1

What you mean is, "They should arrest pawn shop owners that facilitate fencing stolen goods", which they do, as they aren't arresting all owners of Tor exit nodes, just ones they can show are doing illegal things.

--
while(1) attack(People.Sandy);
Re:With that logic by Dishwasha · 2012-11-30 05:09 · Score: 5, Insightful

No, in both cases the pawn shop owner (or Tor node operator in this case) wasn't explicitly aware that their business (or Tor node) was being used to steal goods (or illegal online activity). The pawn shop owner (or Tor node operator) is likely aware that running a pawn shop (or Tor node) carries the risk that illegal goods (or illegal online activity) will be filtered through, though predictive knowledge itself is not a crime. Rather than seeking the assistance of the business owner (or Tor node operator) in tracking down the perpetrator, the authorities chose to instead implicate the business owner (or Tor node operator) directly for the illegal activities of the perpetrator who utilized the business owner's (or Tor node operator's) property to carry out those illegal activities.
See how that analogy works there? If they arrested all pawn shop owners who had facilitated the stealing of stolen goods without explicit knowledge then likely all pawn shop owners would be arrested.
Re:With that logic by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-30 05:15 · Score: 0

They can and do frequently. Have you never watched pawn stars? Anytime somebody comes in with an item that has a scratch serial (or anything else indicating it might be stolen) he tells them he is not interested.
Re:With that logic by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-30 06:07 · Score: 0

If the pawn shop owner receives goods and simply stores them then he is not likely to be arrested.
If the pawn shop owner delivers a letter which contains (unbeknownst to him) Anthrax on behalf of a customer then he is likely to be arrested.
(Logic and reason aside, imputed agency is important to how people intuit these kinds of situations.)
To which scenario is running a TOR exit node more similar?

FDE by Sparticus789 · 2012-11-30 04:19 · Score: 0

My backup plan is to encrypt my Tor exit node with TrueCrypt FDE. Yes, it means I have to run Windows, since FDE support is not available for Linux yet. However, the FBI has not been able to defeat TrueCrypt. They can say the traffic came from your internet connection, but they cannot prove that you viewed any of it.

--
sudo make me a sandwich

Re:FDE by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-30 04:26 · Score: 0

Yes, it means I have to run Windows, since FDE support is not available for Linux yet.
Have you tried LUKS?
Re:FDE by gl4ss · 2012-11-30 04:33 · Score: 1

My backup plan is to encrypt my Tor exit node with TrueCrypt FDE. Yes, it means I have to run Windows, since FDE support is not available for Linux yet. However, the FBI has not been able to defeat TrueCrypt. They can say the traffic came from your internet connection, but they cannot prove that you viewed any of it.
that's not a backup plan. all that will do in a case like this seem that you did stash the illegal material on your own machine and drag the case on forever.
the real backup if any is keeping a log about every packet, so you can pass the blame.

--
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
Re:FDE by pipatron · 2012-11-30 04:41 · Score: 1
- Nothing is stored on the exit node, it's just pointless to encrypt it.
- I've been running full disk encryption on my Linux systems for years, how to do it is standardized and doesn't need third-party products.
--
c++; /* this makes c bigger but returns the old value */
Re:FDE by Sparticus789 · 2012-11-30 04:47 · Score: 1

Of course, FDE only applies when used in a country with a 5th Amendment style of protection. And this assumes that law enforcement actually follows the law, which is not always the case. In some countries, it can be court ordered to hand over passwords. This would not work there.
Solution: run your Tor exit node in a country that has a 5th Amendment style of protection.

--
sudo make me a sandwich
Re:FDE by Sparticus789 · 2012-11-30 05:03 · Score: 0

I will use LUKS when I read an article about the FBI not being able to crack it. Until then, Red Hat and the NSA have too close of a relationship for me to consider using it.

--
sudo make me a sandwich
Re:FDE by blueg3 · 2012-11-30 05:33 · Score: 1

I made this point elsewhere, but FDE is running counter to your purpose, here. An exit node doesn't store data. They can already tell you transmitted the data, that's why they're at your door. Run a dedicated exit node that isn't used for another purpose. Don't use it for anything even remotely illegal. (Hell, don't use it for *anything*.) Don't encrypt it. If possible, set it up to log information about what connections the exit node makes to the Internet. Hell, log information about who on Tor requested it; the design of the system is such that that information isn't worth anything. Now it's trivial for an investigator to confirm that your story of the exit node producing the offending traffic is actually true.
Re:FDE by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-30 05:57 · Score: 1

If I put on my tinfoil hat, I would say: "Maybe the FBI wants you to think TrueCrypt is uncrackable to encourage its use?"
And if I put on my neckbeard, I would say: "If you think there is something fishy with LUKS, check out the source code. It's also not a Redhat product."

I actually have 2 plans by slashmydots · 2012-11-30 04:19 · Score: 4, Funny

What backup plan, if any, should the average nerd have for something like this?

1. Don't run an exit node
2. if 1 fails, fly to Belize and live blog my evasion of the local police

Filters on Exit Node by ZombieBraintrust · 2012-11-30 04:19 · Score: 0

You could place filtering tech on the exit node.

Don't expect to get your data back. by SuricouRaven · 2012-11-30 04:21 · Score: 3, Insightful

Traditional backup methods are good against media failure, or even natural disaster, but ineffective against seizure. The standard police procedure is 'if in doubt, take everything,' because it isn't practical to train frontline officers to work out what is and isn't potentially evidence. That's why they take cell phones and games consoles. That and, as the more cynical point out, the more miserable they can make the defendent the easier it is to force a plea bargin. So they'll take all your backups too.

You can forget about getting that back, too. Even if all charges are dropped. Law enforcement is well-known all around the world for their reluctance to return siezed evidence, espicially evidence that may one day go into police auction. Even if they are willing to return it, many areas have overwhelmed forensics staff and computers can sit in the locker for months before there is an expert available to poke around and declare them free of anything incriminating.

So if you do have reason to worry about being raided - eg, you run an open wireless hotspot or exit node - then a sensible precaution is to keep backups of critical data somewhere out of reach, like a cloud store hosted overseas, or drives left with trusted friends for safekeeping. Making sure, of course, that no-one else knows - you don't want them to get raided too!

Also beware of another police policy. It varies by country, and even by state and district, but many departments are loathe to let any accused off without charge or found not guilty - it makes them look incompetent, wrongly arresting someone. So they will likely resort to the 'throw the book' approach, going through the evidence looking for any other, unrelated crimes they can find. Sure, you may not have actually launched that attack or trafficked those illegal files they raided you for - but if, in the process of investigating, they discover you've been involved in piracy or find chat logs of you talking about your drunken vandalism or theft of office supplies, or something which would be otherwise borderline illegal, they will happily add more charges - insurance in case you were innocent of the original accusations, and to pile on more pressure for a plea bargin. Prosecutors love guilty pleas - much more reliable than actually having to prove something beyond reasonable doubt.

You can encrypt, of course. But that just makes you look even more suspicious, plus in most countries now it's either an explicit crime to withhold keys from police or considered a form of withholding evidence, either of which gets you jailed anyway. Even if you legally wriggle free from that, good luck getting a jury to see it as anything other than a sign you are trying to hide evidence of whatever terrible act you are accused of.

Re:Don't expect to get your data back. by omnichad · 2012-11-30 04:45 · Score: 1

Traditional backup methods are good against media failure, or even natural disaster, but ineffective against seizure
Off-site backup is part of that.
Re:Don't expect to get your data back. by Opportunist · 2012-11-30 04:55 · Score: 1

Actually, one of my backups resides overseas. Mostly so far for matters of uncontrollable disasters (floods, earthquakes or the like that might not only harm my computer equipment but the very physical space they reside in), but I guess in the future it might even be more important against the uncontrollable disaster our governments have become.

--
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Re:Don't expect to get your data back. by SuricouRaven · 2012-11-30 05:10 · Score: 1

Off-site backup isn't going to do it though. Paying for the space by credit card? Then the police will likely know of it, and sieze all that data either simutainously or shortly after. It has to be off-site backup they either won't know about (data left with a friend, no paper-trail) or can't access (Hosted overseas - even in a friendly country, international law enforcement cooperation is a nightmare of paperwork that could take weeks to complete before anything is done).
Re:Don't expect to get your data back. by omnichad · 2012-11-30 05:33 · Score: 1

If you're the type to host a Tor node, you're likely paranoid to be doing just that anyway. If I left a backup drive with my parents, they won't likely be breaking down their door or even showing up with a warrant.
Re:Don't expect to get your data back. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-30 08:05 · Score: 1

Smart people should be using encryption for everything, whether or not they have anything to hide. If more people encrypted their drives and all their email communications as a routine practice (as is done in my office), then all your data would be safe. Just assume that everything you have could be siezed at any time, and prepare yourself for that worst case scenario. Encryption is not that hard to use and once you get used to locking and unlocking your system with a passphrase, it becomes as natural as locking and unlocking the front door of your home, or your car. Be safe. Be secure. Be encrypted.

The Simple Truth? by fallen1 · 2012-11-30 04:22 · Score: 3, Insightful

Simply tell the prosecution / judge - "I run a TOR exit node to help preserve freedoms on the internet, especially those of people oppressed in countries like Syria and other places. If you choose to prosecute me for running a TOR exit node which, by its stated purpose and nature, is encrypted and anonymous AND which I have no control of the data flowing through it then you must also prosecute EVERY internet service provider over which the same data flowed. I do not know now, nor have I ever known, exactly what data flows over the exit node. Just like ISPs do not know what data is flowing over their networks."

DO NOTHING ELSE. Even if it makes complete sense to you (keeping an encrypted backup of all your data and computer images off-site), the prosecution will do what they can to skew that to "Why did you keep encrypted backups off-site? What are you hiding?" Fuck 'em. Don't give them any ammunition in their fear-mongering quest to rule your life. Come away clean and then lawyer up and sue the police departments, all government levels* involved, and even the prosecutor. Your aim with the lawsuits is not to get paid, it is to get all your electronics back in a timely manner if they refuse to give them back once you are cleared. Of course, if they're being dicks about it then the object is to get your equipment back and get VERY large settlements.

*Not sure how the government levels are in Austria, but here in the United States we have city government, county government, then state, then federal. Depending on who is doing the prosecution, I would start my lawsuits with that level of government and work my way down. Same with the police forces involved.

--

Dream as if you'll live forever.
Live as if you'll die tomorrow.
~Anonymous~

Re:The Simple Truth? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-30 04:49 · Score: 0

If you run a Tor *exit* node then you can see what is going and coming out - this defence only really works for non exit nodes.
If you are providing the exit node for someone who is downloading/distributing child porn then you are enabling them to do this anonymously and I think it's probably only fair for you to be treated as an accessory to be honest. If you can't point at the next link in the chain (like your ISP did to you) then the buck stops with you.
This is not to say that I'm against some of the nobler aims of Tor, but if you are going to give any creepy fucker with a copy of Tor free reign to to the unfiltered internet from your IP address then be prepared for the consequences.
Re:The Simple Truth? by tilante · 2012-11-30 05:04 · Score: 4, Insightful

You can tell them that... but they're not going to buy it. First off, ISPs operate under legally-established safe harbor provisions, which require them to do certain things. If you haven't also done those things, then you're not operating under the safe harbor provisions, and thus, the rules that apply to you aren't the same as those that apply to the ISPs. It's not simply a matter of not knowing what data goes through your network - there are other things you have to do, which include keeping certain types of records about your users... and TOR by design does not do that.
Second, prosecutors have leeway to choose which cases they will prosecute - so your "you must also prosecute" is simply not true, and the prosecution and judge both know this. So they'll simply ignore your speech, and instruct the jury to do so as well.
Now, whether these things are right is a separate question - but there are definite legal differences between an ISP and you, if you're operating a TOR node.
Re:The Simple Truth? by david_thornley · 2012-11-30 07:32 · Score: 1

IANAL, but I have a better idea. First, find a lawyer. Second, take his or her advice. You may well want to talk with one before you get raided, so you know what you can expect and what you should do (very likely clam up until you talk to a lawyer). In the US, your local Bar Association can probably set you up with one for a short but low-cost discussion.
I'd advise this for anybody doing something that might involve illegal activity, even (or especially) somebody else's.

--
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes

"gaming consoles and other electronics" by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-30 04:22 · Score: 1

OK, I know cops don't get paid much and that buying Christmas presents is hell but I had no idea it's this bad.

Safe Harbor Only For Telecoms And ISPs by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-30 04:22 · Score: 2, Informative

If a TOR exit node can be prosecuted for traffic passing through it, should the ISP and backbone router owners not also be held responsible for traffic passing through their nodes? If the ISP and network operators are not held responsible then neither should the TOR node owner.

Your ISP has a legally established "safe harbor" exclusion. In the U.S. you establish yourself as an ISP when you register your company with the FCC as a telecommunications provider/ISP.

Individuals running TOR exit nodes enjoy no similar protections and will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Those that are not prosecuted for the illegal act itself will be prosecuted for facilitating/aiding and abetting the criminal activity.

Not for the faint of heart by mindcandy · 2012-11-30 04:22 · Score: 1

Lawyers, guns, and money.

Not the correct analogy by aepervius · 2012-11-30 04:23 · Score: 1

If you taker packet from somebody without knowing the packet content, hide it on your person or car, then bring it discretely to somebody else, are you a criminal ? In the juridiction I know of, yes you would be seen as a complice of the crime, imagine for example that you are raided while delivering the packet and it turns out it is cocaine, good luck trying to use a defense of "but I did not knew what was inside".

--
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org

Re:Not the correct analogy by X.25 · 2012-11-30 04:45 · Score: 1

If you taker packet from somebody without knowing the packet content, hide it on your person or car, then bring it discretely to somebody else, are you a criminal ? In the juridiction I know of, yes you would be seen as a complice of the crime, imagine for example that you are raided while delivering the packet and it turns out it is cocaine, good luck trying to use a defense of "but I did not knew what was inside".
It would appear that mostly people that have no fucking idea how Tor works are trying to comment on it.
Brilliant.

well fuck me by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-30 04:24 · Score: 1

I run a tor exit node, have open wifi, use free software, and host key parties because I believe in freedom. Also (and this is a common sentiment) running a tor exit node or open wifi gives plausible deniability if the **AA throw a lawsuit at you. The secret service have interviewed (not raided) me a couple times and they've advised me to disable my open wifi. But stories like this make me rethink my stance.

Re:well fuck me by tilante · 2012-11-30 05:09 · Score: 3, Insightful

You might want to think about that plausible deniability. First off, if the **AA sues you, the standard of proof in a lawsuit is "preponderance of the evidence", not "proof beyond a reasonable doubt". Second, much law is written on the basis of what a hypothetical 'reasonable person' would do or understand. It's quite easy to argue that a reasonable person with your level of technical skill would understand that their open wifi and tor exit node would likely be used by people engaging in criminal activity. Going from there to persuading a jury that you were knowingly aiding and abetting criminal activity likely would not be hard - especially if they know that the secret service has spoken to you in the past and advised you to stop it.
Re:well fuck me by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-30 05:53 · Score: 1

IANAL but, according to the US Attorney's Manual, the elements of aiding and abetting are:

1. That the accused had specific intent to facilitate the commission of a crime by another;
2. That the accused had the requisite intent of the underlying substantive offense;
3. That the accused assisted or participated in the commission of the underlying substantive offense; and
4. That someone committed the underlying offense.
The notes also state:

To convict as a principal of aiding and abetting the commission of a crime, a jury must find beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant knowingly and intentionally aided and abetted the principal(s) in each essential element of the crime.... The government must prove that the defendant associated with the criminal venture, purposefully participated in the criminal activity, and sought by his actions to make the venture successful.... A defendant associates with a criminal venture if he shares in the criminal intent of the principal, and the defendant participates in criminal activity if he has acted in some affirmative manner designed to aid the venture.
All together, he has to have wanted to help the commission of the crime or knew that there was an extremely high likelihood that his assistance would help the commission of the crime and he took the action with the purpose of assisting with the crime. This case seems to me to be someone who is selling balaclavas to whomever happens to come into his store, rather than selling them to someone who says, in all seriousness, "I'm going to rob a bank, so give me the one that will conceal my face the best." The reason is that there are plenty of legitimate reasons a person would leave their wifi open or have a TOR exit node which gets rid of the proper mens rea, not to mention the actus reus.
BTW, does anyone find it ironic that mens rea is plural when there is only one per crime and actus reus is singular even though there are multiple for a crime?
Re:well fuck me by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-30 07:54 · Score: 0

he did stop then

do like McAfee... by schlachter · 2012-11-30 04:28 · Score: 3, Funny

bury yourself in your yard with a cardboard box above your head for air when the police come to question you because you know you're innocent!
http://betabeat.com/2012/11/murder-suspect-and-bath-salts-enthusiast-john-mcafee-claims-hes-innocent/

--
My God can beat up your God. Just kidding...don't take offense. I know there's no God.

Re:do like McAfee... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-30 06:41 · Score: 0

That isn't really nice. It isn't a box, it is his face.

Exact opposite of what you should do by ZombieBraintrust · 2012-11-30 04:32 · Score: 2

If raided by the policy you need to prove that your innocent of intentionally distributing porn. They will have enough evidence to prove that porn came from your network already. Destroying stuff hurts your case that it didn't start with you. Read the story. The policy became friendly after they checked all his stuff and didn't find anything illegal. He may be able to get his stuff back after paying a fine. If he had destroyed some stuff his chance of going to prison would have encreased dramatically.

"Something like this?" by QuietLagoon · 2012-11-30 04:34 · Score: 1

What backup plan, if any, should the average nerd have for something like this?

That depends upon what you mean by "something like this?

.
Do you mean to imply that an "average nerd" fosters possible illegal activity?

Or do you mean to imply that having a Tor node is OK?

Austria has "precedents"? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-30 04:40 · Score: 0

After all I know, Austria is more like Germany in terms of laws. Which means, unlike in the US, there is no such thing as precedents.

Anyone from Austria here, who's better informed than Weber?

It's in the Legal FAQ by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-30 04:41 · Score: 2, Informative

This situation isn't completely unheard of. It's happened a few times before. Raids by technically-clueless police forces are an occupational hazard for TOR exit node operators. It's happened in the US, too. However, this is interesting, as several very large TOR nodes are run in Austria in major datacenters. EDIS, UPC and Silver Server in particular host some well-known, stable ones. Best of luck to this guy. Has he contacted EFF Europe already?

If you host one, it should be clearly and completely separate from everything else (especially with a separate IP), it should ideally be unencrypted - all the information on there, after all, will only corroborate your defence - and it must not log.

Regardless of any risks or their probability or magnitude, we of the TOR project, and the many people whose lives are quite literally saved by TOR every day, salute you intrepid exit node maintainers. You are doing the right thing. Bravo.

https://www.torproject.org/eff/tor-legal-faq:—
Should I run an exit relay from my home?

No. If law enforcement becomes interested in traffic from your exit relay, it's possible that officers will seize your computer. For that reason, it's best not to run your exit relay in your home or using your home Internet connection.

Instead, consider running your exit relay in a commercial facility that is supportive of Tor. Have a separate IP address for your exit relay, and don't route your own traffic through it.

Of course, you should avoid keeping any sensitive or personal information on the computer hosting your exit relay, and you never should use that machine for any illegal purpose.

Re:It's in the Legal FAQ by lbft · 2012-11-30 04:49 · Score: 2

The node was in a datacentre in another country.
He was raided at home based on the address details the police obtained from the datacentre.

DVD backups in a safebox and... by The123king · 2012-11-30 04:44 · Score: 1

lots and lots of strong magnets to wipe the whole lot! Wipe all the evidence!

--
If you gave me a choice between a printer and a giraffe with explosive diarrhoea, i'll get my ladder and my raincoat

Re:DVD backups in a safebox and... by kelemvor4 · 2012-11-30 06:06 · Score: 1

lots and lots of strong magnets to wipe the whole lot! Wipe all the evidence!
Because magnets are good at wiping data from dvd media? I guess you might be able to use some large magnets to pulverize them into dust but it would probably be easier to just use a shredder.

Average Nerd by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-30 04:47 · Score: 0

The average Nerd is not running a Tor Exit Node. You know the possibilities when you do this, you better have a good lawyer and lots of money. Thats why I stay clear of it.

This is surprising to anyone? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-30 05:06 · Score: 0

If you do anything illegal or anything that pisses off the powers that be can you really be surprised when they come calling?

Thats as stupid as walking into a airport holding a squirt gun and holding it out and then being surprised when security tackles your ass. You can reason or make things look or sound however you want in your head but if you do it in the face of those who dont like what youre doing then there will be consequences.

This guy gets whatever comes to him.

Deadman's Switch by CanHasDIY · 2012-11-30 05:11 · Score: 4, Interesting

Set it up so that if a certain encrypted file isn't updated manually at certain intervals, the entire system self-immolates.

Realistically, though, I've been thinking about building inconspicuous, low-power Tor exit servers that I can dead-drop in places with open wifi. That way, exits can be operated with a minimal threat of legal ramifications for anyone (plausible deniability on the part of the wifi provider).

To that end - anybody know where I can bulk order small form factor, inexpensive low-power computers that are battery pack/solar power friendly?

--
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese

Re:Deadman's Switch by RobinH · 2012-11-30 05:36 · Score: 2

So someone has the courtesy to run an open WiFi node and you screw them by dumping a Tor exit node on their connection. Or better yet, Grandma calls technical support at her ISP because the "internet isn't working" and the first thing the ISP's technical support does is have her do a hardware reset of her WiFi router, erasing it to factory defaults (happened to my parents), and then after determining it was a cable modem problem, never walks her through setting up the WPA2 with a password again (which her dutiful relatives did for her at Christmas). Now you're going to dump a Tor exit node on there so she gets a visit from the police? Nice.

--
"I have never let my schooling interfere with my education." - Mark Twain
Re:Deadman's Switch by CanHasDIY · 2012-11-30 05:56 · Score: 1

So someone has the courtesy to run an open WiFi node and you screw them by dumping a Tor exit node on their connection. Or better yet, Grandma calls technical support at her ISP because the "internet isn't working" and the first thing the ISP's technical support does is have her do a hardware reset of her WiFi router, erasing it to factory defaults (happened to my parents), and then after determining it was a cable modem problem, never walks her through setting up the WPA2 with a password again (which her dutiful relatives did for her at Christmas). Now you're going to dump a Tor exit node on there so she gets a visit from the police? Nice.
First off - calm down.

I'm not talking about your granny or neighbor who's "nice enough" (read: stupid enough) to leave their home network unsecured - I was talking about places like coffee shops, fast food chains, retail stores, etc. I thought that was pretty obvious, my bad for assuming you would see it.

Side note: Where the heck do you get the whole "granny calling tech support" B.S. from? For the record (and apparently, your piece of mind), those ISP provided wifi routers typically have built in default passwords (typically written on a sticker on the device), so even if she did a factory reset, chances are it only resets the router back to the factory password, and does not leave the wifi unsecured. If this actually happened to your granny, I'd recommend taking it up with her ISP.

Back to the point - why would (American) cops bust in and raid someone who runs an exit node, anyway? That would be like arresting the owner of a toll road because someone else used it to transport illegal drugs.

--
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Re:Deadman's Switch by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-30 06:26 · Score: 0

Oddly enough the 'if they were stupid enough to leave it open, they deserve to go to prison for my doing' defense doesn't work as well as you seem to think.
Re:Deadman's Switch by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-30 09:26 · Score: 0

Use a bunch of Rasberry Pi boards with fi-fi dongles?
Re:Deadman's Switch by CanHasDIY · 2012-12-03 03:11 · Score: 1

Use a bunch of Rasberry Pi boards with fi-fi dongles?
Considered it, a bit pricey @ ~$40-50 per complete unit.

I was hoping to keep the hardware costs down in the sub-$25/unit neighborhood.

--
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Re:Deadman's Switch by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-08 20:54 · Score: 0

Ask, and it shall be added unto you:
http://lifehacker.com/5953155/use-a-raspberry-pi-as-a-tor-relay-and-help-others-browser-anonymously

dingus by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-30 05:19 · Score: 0

> What backup plan, if any, should the average nerd have for something like this?

Don't run a TOR exit node?

Why is this news? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-30 05:21 · Score: 0

This happens often in Alberta.

Back in 2008, a Large IT Company based in Calgary was afraid of what an employee knew which could cause the company from being sold to larger IT Company from Japan.

After they had him arrested on false charges and his name posted across Canada. They ensured he never worked in Information Technology since, as the owner of the company had connections to all other IT companies in Alberta.

In addition, they arranged for all of his computers including Web Servers which were used to run variou business web sites (the person had to open his own company after being arrested repeatly), to be seized. This was done under false charges of 'E-Mails' being sent to the owner of the company at that time.

While the computers and other hardware (including TVs, PS3s, Atari 2600, and VIC 20 used for HAM radio), his parents and him were handcluffed, Animal control removed two small poodles and a cat from the home.

The items were returned after more than 6 months, with most of the items broken. The broken items included missing hard drives from PS3s, cut keyboard cables, and missing case covers for Sparc Servers.

All charges were dropped a few weeks after the IT company was bought out.

Once again, why is this news?

Hans by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-30 05:23 · Score: 2, Informative

The same thing happend to me last year in UK. I was running TOR node for just two months back in 2009. Had my all computers sized for over half year as suspicion of possesion and distribution of indecent images.

My advice: DONT RUN TOR EXIT NODES. It's not worth it. Even if you are innocent: your reputation can be destroyed. (neighbors, family, girlfriend etc).
TOR its great idea - but exit node owners are taking huge risk: even if you will be cleared you might be charged by something else instead (like possesion of unlicensed software, music etc).

Also my advice: don't be try to be a smartass. You DONT WANT to take case to court - becasue then your name will automaticly land in newspapers next day.

I beg you: dont run TOR servers in home.

I believe the term that applies here is.. by kelemvor4 · 2012-11-30 05:32 · Score: 2

I believe the term that applies here is "herp derp". How could you be silly enough to allow anonymous individuals to access the internet through your computer? You might as well go buy a pound of cocaine and put a sign on your street corner advertising a free coke party. Of course this idiot got arrested and got his gear confiscated.

Nerds? by sycodon · 2012-11-30 05:43 · Score: 0

A "nerd" has twenty computers?

That's not a nerd, that's someone in business of some kind.

--
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.

Re:Nerds? by zlives · 2012-11-30 05:56 · Score: 0

yeah the 20 bit is a little fishy
Re:Nerds? by cdrudge · 2012-11-30 06:22 · Score: 3, Interesting

20 computers isn't that much. WIth my family of 5, we have 3 home theater PCs, a server, 3 laptops, and 3 tablets that just have easily could have been additional laptops. That's 10 "computers" right there and I don't consider myself particularly nerdy anymore.
From one of the links the guys says that those 20 computers were mainly "barebone PCs, HP storage microservers, and thin clients". And it doesn't state if those were even functional computers. Over the years I've collected and scavenged from many old PCs that were going to be thrown out or were no longer wanted.
Re:Nerds? by TheCarp · 2012-11-30 06:42 · Score: 1

Maybe but you don't know how many of them even have a second core, how many of them are non-ultra sparcs or alphas, and how many of them are an i586
Which gets me thinking.... if I ever do start running an exit node at home (again...I found it to be a bit too limiting once craigslist decided they didn't like posts from my home ip)... maybe I should start up all my old systems that I keep meaning to toss.
I bet the state would just love trying to sort out 4 different architectures, including SCSI drives with the old centronix connectors and a GS/OS filesystem :)

--
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
Re:Nerds? by cayenne8 · 2012-11-30 06:44 · Score: 2

yeah the 20 bit is a little fishy
Really? Geez...I've downsized with moves post Katrina, but I've easily had 20 or more computers in my house on various projects...resurrecting some older servers I bought on the cheap, laptops in every room (being replaced in some cases with tablets), mac workstations, freeNAS set up, an old desktop for learning and running IPtables to run from ISP into an old cisco switch I bought...etc.
You can easily have a lot of projects going on if you like getting your geek on with hardware that is often picked up readily these days.
I'll admit, now that I'm working more with VM's...the actual number of physical boxes is likely to go down, but computers are cheap, and having a lot of them like this isn't that big a deal for some of us out there.
Hell, i didn't even mention the ones for the MAME boxes, mythtv....etc...

--
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Re:Nerds? by TheCarp · 2012-11-30 06:44 · Score: 2

and if any forensics investigators under the age of 40 do end up combing my equipment....all the incriminating data is on the old looking machine in the basement labeled "VT100". Keep looking, I am sure you will find where its hidden.

--
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
Re:Nerds? by tibit · 2012-11-30 07:32 · Score: 1

My car has probably as many on board computers than that. It'd only be fishy if the car ended up in a lake.

--
A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
Re:Nerds? by tibit · 2012-11-30 07:37 · Score: 1

Let's see. Cable modem/router, NAS, TV, two MacBooks, an iMac, two iPods, washer, dryer, microwave, fridge, and a bunch of toys with processors in them. Out of those, 8 have raster displays, and 9 can be considered general purpose since you have at least console-style access to them and can at least run scripts of some kind. Adding two cars to the mix, that's probably close to a 100 CPUs in one household of four people. Yes, I know a microprocessor doesn't really make a general purpose computer, but who said GP computers :)

--
A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
Re:Nerds? by zlives · 2012-11-30 11:47 · Score: 1

yup VM's
i have 2 machines several VM's
Re:Nerds? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-30 11:50 · Score: 0

my computer probably has more computers then your car. plz refrain from defining "computers"
Re:Nerds? by anyGould · 2012-12-01 07:04 · Score: 1

yeah the 20 bit is a little fishy
Really? Geez...I've downsized with moves post Katrina, but I've easily had 20 or more computers in my house on various projects...resurrecting some older servers I bought on the cheap, laptops in every room (being replaced in some cases with tablets), mac workstations, freeNAS set up, an old desktop for learning and running IPtables to run from ISP into an old cisco switch I bought...etc.
Hell, I'm not a hardware geek and I have six PCs, plus phones/iWidgets and other things that law enforcement will call a "computer" to make me look like a Vewwy Bad Man. Everything's not in working order, but I wouldn't expect the cops to notice or care.

Key differences of Tor vs ISP vs FedEx by Revotron · 2012-11-30 05:50 · Score: 1

ISPs are able to track which client sent which packets and can provide information to law enforcement when illegal activity has taken place over their network. ISPs are also a registered business entity whose purpose is widely recognized as providing internet access to other entities who are responsible for the content they access.

FedEx is able to track who sent a package, who it was addressed to, who took delivery of the package, etc. FedEx can provide information to law enforcement when illegal substances or materials are transported through their shipping system. FedEx is also a registered business entity whose purpose is widely recognized as providing parcel transportation services to other entities who are responsible for the items they ship.

Tor is designed to be completely anonymous and provides no facilities to track who is sending data and who it's destined for. Tor operators cannot provide this information to law enforcement when illegal activity has taken place through a Tor exit node. Tor operators are, in most cases, also not registered business entities. That is why when illegal activity takes place through Tor, the exit node operator is typically the first and only one investigated.

Q: How does the local police department know that Joe Schmoe at 123 Main Street is operating a Tor exit node?
A: They don't. There is no way to tell, aside from computer forensics, whether he was directly involved in illegal activities or not. That's why raids like this happen and will continue to happen. The Tor project warns you about, and you willingly accept the risk of, legal repercussions stemming from operating a Tor exit node.

tl;dr: This isn't news.

Restrict the exit policy? by 21mhz · 2012-11-30 05:51 · Score: 1

If I'd run a Tor exit node, it wouldn't be to anonymize paedophiles, but to help people in oppressive countries avoid persecution and censorship. So can one define a selective exit policy only allowing, for example, IP addresses of mass media websites known to be blocked in China?

--
My exception safety is -fno-exceptions.

Re:Restrict the exit policy? by Revotron · 2012-11-30 06:04 · Score: 1

That's an excellent idea! Implementing those features in Tor would make operating an exit node a lot less nerve-racking for the average nerd. You should suggest an IP Whitelist feature to the Tor team with that exact justification.

What backup plan? by Paracelcus · 2012-11-30 05:51 · Score: 1

"What backup plan, if any, should the average nerd have for something like this?"

Encrypted backups to SDXC 1TB card(s) as they are very small, put them in small plastic waterproof/airtight containers and hide them in out of the way public places.

And as an aside do this sort of thing on an offshore COLO and communicate using a netbook running a read only distro like DSL.

--
I killed da wabbit -Elmer Fudd

Re:What backup plan? by DMUTPeregrine · 2012-11-30 12:23 · Score: 1

You missed the step of "Register a corporation, register that as an ISP with the relevant regulator, and use THAT to run the exit node." Then comply with all laws relevant for running an ISP. Keep your personal and corporate assets legally separate. It may even be possible to register the corporation as a charity dedicated to running the exit node, thereby allowing one to write off the expenses of running it. Consult a tax lawyer before you try that though.

--
Not a sentence!

Godwin by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-30 05:57 · Score: 0

n/t

Re:Godwin by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-30 06:54 · Score: 0

n/t??? what is that, some sort of Hitler code?

Easy Solution by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-30 06:09 · Score: 0

How about this: don't do anything illegal or do anything that facilitates the illegal activity of others on the internet. Is that such a difficult concept to grasp?

Ah, child pron by ThatsNotPudding · 2012-11-30 06:16 · Score: 2

The perfect, unquestionable reason to justify the right-wing death squad execution of reputation, privacy, anonymity, innocence before proven guilt...

And as all us compliant soccer moms know, at least 30% of every populace are child pron producers and consumers!

I'm surprised Orwell didn't write more about such a powerful tool.

Re:Ah, child pron by tbird81 · 2012-11-30 10:42 · Score: 1

The perfect, unquestionable reason to justify the right-wing death squad execution of reputation, privacy, anonymity, innocence before proven guilt...
That stuff is actually left-wing. Right-wingers would want less government involvement with our personal computers and internet use. Lefties tend to want the government to decide what private citizens can and can't do, and enjoy making laws to restrict personal freedoms.
Re:Ah, child pron by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-30 18:38 · Score: 0

You've got this all wrong. It's *authoritarians* who want to decide what private citizens can and can't do; left-right alignment has nothing to do with it.
And yes, there are authoritarians on the left as well as the right.

Here's a lawyer's opinion by nbauman · 2012-11-30 06:19 · Score: 1

http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=446

Re:Video confrence analogy by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-30 06:20 · Score: 0

If your in a group video conference with several people, and that data is being sent by way of a P2P network to each individual person; and one person has playing in the background a video of child pornography. Is each person who relayed the date guilty of distributing child pornography.

My cynical guess by gatfirls · 2012-11-30 06:29 · Score: 2

Because they want to hide their own activities.

Re:Never.. New Law Passed! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-30 06:29 · Score: 0

I think it was last year of this, that it is now illegal in the U.S to us TOR as an exit-node.

Fix the BAD LAW - jesus by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-30 06:35 · Score: 0

I got an idea, how about we fix the law so exit nodes aren't raided!

Motherfuckers that need to be raided are the ones doing the raids.

child porn must be re legalized by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-30 06:49 · Score: 1

http://falkvinge.net/2012/09/07/three-reasons-child-porn-must-be-re-legalized-in-the-coming-decade/

that will not do what you want it to do... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-30 06:50 · Score: 0

comparing someone else to a nazi will not make your pro-slavery stance appear reasonable by comparison. quite the opposite; it will instead show that you are a total fascist who is willing to reach to no ends in order to try to smear the people he hates the most.

This has happend in Germany in 2007, too by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-30 07:22 · Score: 0

Hello a friend of mine had the same problem. A post in a police forum to kill a man was the cause for beeing arrested at Sunday night at 12.00 PM.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13739_3-9779225-46.html
hipti

That's only one country by davidwr · 2012-11-30 07:36 · Score: 1

OK, so if the EFF is right, it's safe for Americans to run TOR exit nodes.

What good does this do people in other countries who want to run TOR exit nodes?

--
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.

Re:That's only one country by DMUTPeregrine · 2012-11-30 11:57 · Score: 2

It's safe for Americans to run TOR exit nodes with regards to copyrighted content being transmitted over them. The DMCA doesn't govern child pornography liability.

--
Not a sentence!

Is there any defense against this? by Requiem18th · 2012-11-30 07:51 · Score: 1

I mean, like corporations do it.

When a corporations is found guilty of selling military secrets to foreign countries, defrauding the IRS for millions, poisoning countless innocent people and kicking a puppy, the worst the get is a slap on the wrist... and maybe millionaire fines.

But you never hear of the houses of CEOs getting raided and all their personal computers and phones getting abducted because of it. Well except Kim Dotcom but we know due process doesn't apply to him. What about us? Can't we do something like that? Can't I use a corporation, or a non-profit to shield myself from ridiculous rides like this?

I mean, I understand that a government doesn't like when citizens use Tor, but why taking all his stuff? It's not like his phone was the exit node. And even if it was the case, what's the legal justification to allow them to search his phone or consoles or whatever without any evidence for it?

--
But... the future refused to change.

Re:In anarchy this BS will not happen by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-30 08:17 · Score: 0

Mods like that above are reason people get what they deserved.

You have chosen free beer over freedom. Now stick with your decision.

Give donations for his legal costs - here by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-30 08:24 · Score: 0

http://www.lowendtalk.com/discussion/6283/raided-for-running-a-tor-exit-accepting-donations-for-legal-expenses

yup - if you can't stand the pressure, don't do it by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-30 08:31 · Score: 0

Anyone running a "Tor exit node" is inviting this to happen. Either man up and do it, or don't.

To seriously address your question by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-30 09:16 · Score: 0

I would at the *very least* have a separate Internet connection for a Tor exit node. I.E. if you have a cable modem, then sign up for DSL if available in your area and dedicate that exclusively to Tor. It would be better if you can create a small corporation that is solely for this purpose, and get the DSL account under that business name, and do nothing else but use that connection for Tor. I believe this would go far to protect you, as any authorities could sniff that traffic and see that it has only been used for Tor and not for anything else.

Backup Plan? by nurb432 · 2012-11-30 10:06 · Score: 1

Is this a joke?

Well, in case it isn't:
1 - Be sure you are 101% clean .. not even an over due book laying around in your house. The feds will turn your house upside down and they WILL find it...
2 - Be sure your extended family is 101% clean, as they will be raided next if your raid turns up nothing.
3 - Expect to lose everything you have for months, if not years. Including your reputation, your job, your family and any finances you had... Get an attorney on retainer, might help you retain freedom during the proceedings..
4 - After the smoke clears, it was still your PC and account that allowed the a crime to be committed, so you are still liable, and most likely will go to jail. Enjoy your stay.

While its a great moral idea, in practical terms it just isn't worth the risk to run any sort of exit node for any 'dark' network.

--
---- Booth was a patriot ----

hide in mom's basement by HPHatecraft · 2012-11-30 10:15 · Score: 1

curiously absent from list of "serious" contingency plans.

Tor can't work legally by fa2k · 2012-11-30 11:03 · Score: 1

The logical conclusion of allowing Tor is that anyone can communicate with anyone completely freely, including spreading slander, copyrighted material, terrorist planning, etc. No government is prepared to do that, so Tor exit nodes can't be legal (it seems easier to target exit nodes over relays and users). I hope people will change their mind as our society evolves, as I believe that bits can't hurt people (malicious code and commands can, but that's a separate problem)

If I were running a Tor exit node... by schizoid4 · 2012-11-30 18:21 · Score: 1

I would name it something like

--anon-proxy-abuse-complaints-see-www.somewebpage.com--.mydomain.com

www.somewebpage.com would explain what Tor is and how to block it, and provide contact info. The cops might raid me anyway, but at least they wouldn't show up thinking I'm the pedophile/drug dealer/terrorist they're looking for.

Backup plan? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-01 01:28 · Score: 0

What backup plan, if any, should the average nerd have for something like this?

Well I'd start by getting used to having your anus forcefully stretched. Martial arts would be a good idea as well. Maybe you won't end up in Federal Pound-Me-In-The-Ass Prison, but I wouldn't bank on it.

If you can stay out of jail, and assuming you don't have court orders barring you from online activity, then your best bet is to have a variety of encrypted backup in a variety of different locations around the planet. Having a secret bank account opened up under a fake identity wouldn't hurt either, rent a storage unit some place which allows you to put your own combination lock on the door and keep your backup gear there.

And yes, I'm assuming you're not actually a pervert, but that's not really relevant to getting ass-raped by reality.

run an exit node. by Ceriel+Nosforit · 2012-12-01 02:46 · Score: 1

Obviously both at the same time is better. =)

See you on the barricades!

--
All rites reversed 2010

Tor Exit Nodes + Google Groups = Disaster by Parker51 · 2012-12-01 10:14 · Score: 1

Massive newsgroup floods by obviously mentally ill individuals.

Is this somehow unexpected? by Vrtigo1 · 2012-12-04 02:24 · Score: 1

So you run a Tor node and you have BT, child porn or nigerian spam traffic coming out of it. Did you really think law enforcement is just going to let you off the hook when you throw your hands up and say it's because you run a Tor node?

Slashdot Mirror

Raided For Running a Tor Exit Node

325 comments