Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Raided For Running a Tor Exit Node

Posted by Soulskill on from the internet-over-tor-is-a-series-of-tubers dept.

An anonymous reader writes "A Tor Exit node owner is being prosecuted in Austria. As part of the prosecution, all of his electronics have been held by the authorities, including over 20 computers, his cell phone and hard disks. 'During interview with police later on Wednesday, Weber said there was a "more friendly environment" once investigators understood the Polish server that transmitted the illegal images was used by Tor participants rather than by Weber himself. But he said he still faces the possibility of serious criminal penalties and the possibility of a precedent that Tor operators can be held liable if he's convicted.' This brings up the question: What backup plan, if any, should the average nerd have for something like this?"

8 of 325 comments (clear)

  1. Backup Plan by Sigvatr · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Lots of money.

  2. ISPs as well? by grahamm · · 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.

    1. Re:ISPs as well? by tilante · · 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.

    2. Re:ISPs as well? by Intropy · · 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.

  3. Plausible Deniability by Maximum+Prophet · · 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)
  4. Wondered From Day One by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

  5. Re:Be prepared for the concequences by Applekid · · 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
  6. Re:With that logic by Dishwasha · · 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.