Slashdot Mirror
Austrian Tor Exit Node Operator Found Guilty As an Accomplice
An anonymous reader writes with this excerpt from TechDirt: Three years ago we wrote about how Austrian police had seized computers from someone running a Tor exit node. This kind of thing happens from time to time, but it appears that folks in Austria have taken it up a notch by... effectively now making it illegal to run a Tor exit node. According to the report, which was confirmed by the accused, the court found that running the node violated 12 of the Austrian penal code, which effectively says:"Not only the immediate perpetrator commits a criminal action, but also anyone who appoints someone to carry it out, or anyone who otherwise contributes to the completion of said criminal action." In other words, it's a form of accomplice liability for criminality. It's pretty standard to name criminal accomplices liable for "aiding and abetting" the activities of others, but it's a massive and incredibly dangerous stretch to argue that merely running a Tor exit node makes you an accomplice that "contributes to the completion" of a crime. Under this sort of thinking, Volkswagen would be liable if someone drove a VW as the getaway car in a bank robbery. It's a very, very broad interpretation of accomplice liability, in a situation where it clearly does not make sense.
for giving birth to evil people. Arrest them all!
We're moving, slowly but surely, towards making your IP address the equivalent of your social security number in the US.
Is the ISP an accomplice too? And the operating system vendor?
Did the editors do this, or is it in TFA?
A bullet may have your name on it, but artillery is addressed to " Whom It May concern"
They contributed at least as much. And, a few backbone providers. This guy was just a single hop, they contribute many.
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
It'll come down to an opinion as to whether or not the use of Tor implies an intent to allow others to break the law. While an anonymizer service itself can be used for both legal and illegal purposes, if the court later finds that its use is far more illegitimate than it is legitimate, then that will dictate how they rule on the matter.
That's the biggest difference compared to the car analogy, in that the demonstrated legitimate use of cars far, far outweighs the illegitimate use of cars. Using cars is the norm. Using Tor is not the norm, and so then it becomes a matter of scrutinizing what it does, who uses it, and for what purposes.
Same issues held true for networks like Napster and MegaUpload, and holds true for bit torrent.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
In the post-911 world, police departments all over the world are moving into Orwellian territory. They spot someone that they "know" is doing a crime, and they go searching for a law to hammer them.
With laws that don't sunset, and legislative organizations (worldwide) passing more rules and regulations and laws as fast as they can write them down, the state is moving to consolidate it's power. Once, a congressman from the United States said of his constituents, "There are no law-abiding citizens, there are only citizens who haven't yet broken a law."
Wait for it. The police are choosing to persecute (sic) whomever they want to, and due process seems to be fading into the sunset.
Don't take life too seriously; it isn't permanent.
Under this sort of thinking, Volkswagen would be liable if someone drove a VW as the getaway car in a bank robbery.
No. Under this sort of thinking, the owner of a Volkswagen would be liable if someone drove their VW as the getaway car in a bank robbery. And indeed, in some countries you can be held [partially] liable for misuse of your vehicle even if all you did was leave the keys in the car, especially if you have even a passing relationship with the perpetrators.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
You can spin up your own Tor exit node in Austria here: http://lowendbox.com/tag/austria/
Or, if you prefer, you can just donate to people that are running nodes here: https://www.torproject.org/docs/faq#RelayDonations
"Under this sort of thinking, Volkswagen would be liable if someone drove a VW as the getaway car in a bank robbery"
That may be the case, but probably only if VW knowingly pursued bank robbers as customers (e.g.; in their ads they said something to the effect of "Perfect as a get-away vehicle!")
I'd bet the courts/prosecutor said something to the effect "As the 'administrator' of a TOR exit node, It's not unreasonable for the operator to expect illicit or illegal activity to take place, as the intent of TOR is anonymity", or something along those lines...
Or, in other words, guilty until proven innocent.
I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
More like arresting a taxi driver for transporting a bank robber when the taxi driver didn't know he was a bank robber.
1. Apparently a final ruling has not been reached. While a court has found the operator guilty it's not clear if that will ultimately hold.
2. None of TFA provide any details of what the ruling was based on, beyond the TOT node being used for illegal activity by someone else. Without more details, it is impossible to conclude that merely running a TOR node is illegal; the only conclusion from TFA is someone was prosecuted for running one. A relationship between the operator and the user committing fraud, or if the operator new the user was using the node of illegal purposes, is vastly different than merely running a node where a user is using it for illegal activities. The former is much more reasonable to prosecute than the latter.
3. As others point out, in keeping with /. traditions, the car analogy is bogus.
I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
Let's hope lots of kidnap victims will now sue the phone company and the post office because they aided the kidnapper by allowing and delivering anonymous phone calls and ransom notes.
So is the gist of this that anything which prevents the government from spying on you is now illegal?
Have we come that far already?
Sad, the world used to be such a nice place, but governments have become so demanding in their surveillance that anything which they can't defeat is now illegal.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
Why is everyone acting surprised when some government does this?
You give government the power to "fix things" or "take care of you", and THIS is what such governments are going to do.
The government that gives you health care is going to control how big a soda you can buy.
The government that gives you internet service is going to control the traffic you send across it.
The government that wants to protect you is going to monitor every damn thing you do.
We need a system that blends in better with regular traffic.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Since, after all, the ISP carried the traffic that facilitated the crime..
Prima: I need to do some dodgy shit.
Secunda: I am going to offer a resource for people to do dodgy shit.
Prima: I am going to use your resource to do dodgy shit.
Secunda: OK, please carry on using it.
Prima: I need to be anonymous
Secunda: I offer masks. Masks make you anonymous.
Prima: I am going to use your resource (thinking only to self: to do dodgy shit.)
Secunda: I'm glad someone appreciates my fine craftsmanship.
If a bankrobber robs a bank while wearing a mask purchased from a store, is that mask store held liable? Usually only if the bank robber explicitly said "I'm going to use this mask to do dodgy shit".
users of the tor network don't notify exit node maintainers what they plan to do with the exit nodes they transfer data from. At best, an exit node maintainer might be able to firewall off certain sites, but that's cumbersome and doesn't prevent 99% of evil use cases.
Ultimately you are responsible for the traffic that exits your PC. Sure, if you are infected with a virus, you have a potential 'out' but if you *allow* it, then not so much.
The "VW" analogy in the story line, is ludicrous. If you want to use a car analogy; its like letting your friends store gym bags in your trunk while you drive cross country. You didnt ask what was in the bags, but know there could be drugs..
---- Booth was a patriot ----
The car analogy is so flawed it really should be removed from the story for this significant reason: cars are designed to move people and stuff. They can be used to commit crimes, but that is not their intended use.
Tor on the other hand, is explicitly designed to allow people to remain anonymous, to prevent detection. While honest people most certainly use Tor, so do criminals and it is because of Tor's intended purpose that the police are justifying their actions.
Before anyone flames me, I am not justifying what is taking place. I am only giving a much better explanation than that ridiculous car analogy for why this is taking place.
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
Kind of ironic that you chose to post that comment anonymously, exactly the kind of thing TOR is designed to allow for.
-AndrewBuck
No that is not the logic being applied. You are ignoring certain factors in the sake of making a very silly argument. A car manufacturer is not an accomplice because someone used one of their cars to commit a crime, because the design and typical use of a car is for legitimate purposes. If however, the car manufacturer provided features designed specifically to aid criminals, or features which happenstance had more common criminal uses than legitimate, then they would be an accomplice be cause the knowingly continued to provide these features without taking corrective action. It seems wrong that I am a criminal because I provide some product/service, and happenstance without my foresight it is used for criminal purposes. One would be expected to take responsible action to make amends to the product/service to eliminate or track this usage. For example, ISPs providing a physical link are capable of identifying the source of criminal activity.
So the distinction is when you provide a product/service that is known to have primary illegal usages. You can make arguments for Tor on a non-legal basis such as freedom, right to anonymity, anti regime, anti oppressive government arguments. However, from the standpoint of law, there is a certain distinction on what makes someone an accomplice.
Actually, more like leaving the keys in the ignition AND putting up a notice "feel free to borrow my car, don't tell me what you do with and I won't ask." Some people would consider that a kind gesture and only use it for a quick trip to the store when they're out of bread and it's raining, and they'd otherwise have to ride their bike, but someone could also choose use it to drive drunk, without a license, and run over a toddler. I'm not saying you are directly responsible for other's actions, but in all honesty, you can be absolutely certain that some percentage of people WILL use it for something illegal sooner or later (and very likely something they would not do using a car that can be traced back to them). Sticking your fingers in your ears and saying "na na na na" doesn't really change that.
It's actually a really tricky concept to nail down as there are certain actions that are absolutely assisting in the commission of a crime (for example loaning your car to a specific person when you have knowledge or at least strong reason to believe that they're going to use it to commit a crime) and others that are fully innocent (for example, manufacturing and selling cars to the public).
while this situation seems closer to the innocent side, it's definitely at least a shade of grey. You know what kinds of things (a very significant percentage of) people use the service for, and you choose to allow your resources to be used for those purposes because either: A. You believe that offering honest people anonymity and privacy is more important, or B. You disagree with the laws they will be violating and/or support and condone their behavior. Having various courts in various countries make rulings one way or the other is actually a good thing because it will help to eventually achieve a consensus about what is/should be legal vs illegal in democratic countries, instead of each person having to guess how far they can go before getting smacked down.
And, yes, making a request to your computer in your ownership+control is the same as making a request to you.
Besides what others said: No, because a person isn't instantly informed that such a thing took place. Under certain circumstances, they may never even find out.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Hardware manufacturers are clearly to blame for enabling this man to commit crimes. Transmission line owners are at fault for supplying him with power to commit crimes. ISPs gave him direct access to the internet, allowing him to perform these acts. I say lock them all up.
The government that gives you anonymizing routers so you can subvert your oppressive government. And then develops attacks on said anonymizing networks. WHAAAAA???!!
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
If history has taught us anything at all it has taught us that Austria has a tendency to be way over the edge of reasoning in its legal practices. The reason the car analogy is correct is that in fact the average car will at some point be used to commit a crime. For example driving a bit drunk is a crime. Forgetting to make a timely renewal on the cars insurance is also a criminal act. Speeding is a crime as well. Therefore the average car is sold with the seller knowingly being an accomplice to the crimes. A more sane interpretation would require the party to know clearly what crime would be committed as well as a rather precise accounting of what the seller knew, time, place, etc. in advance of the crime.
Does this make every link, switch, and router on the route an accomplice? Why not?
Postal mail - the original pirate transport mechanism!
they need to be shut down, stat!
This has been a long time coming. Not to say is the right thing, but I think it was bound to happen. Freedom for the masses is a very dangerous thing for the stability of our society ... I mean ... for the billionaire multinational "elite" and their puppet "democratic" governments. I'll consider him a martyr for the evolution of human society (sorry Fritz!). :-(
For things to get better, they sometimes have to get worse
When my Karma level reaches 0 I feel in piece with the Universe
Well, it shouldn't. In any truly free country, the potential for abuse shouldn't mean whatever it is should get banned.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Tor was created to hide activity from evil governments. Perforce it hides everything from all governments. A free people have to decide if they really want that or not. If all other nations were free democracies with strong constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press (right to duplicate and distribute) then I'd say let's talk.
This decision one way or another should be done consciously through legislation rather than via reinterpretation of old laws by unelected officials looking for another notch in their belt.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
Most of the world uses something called Civil Law as opposed to your Common Law that you inherited from UK.
Which is why in most of the world precedents don't carry as much weight as they do in Common Law legal systems like yours, where the rationale for the decision makes each sentence a binding precedent in other courts.
And that is why this single decision DOES NOT "effectively now make it illegal to run a Tor exit node" in Austria.
NOR would "Volkswagen be liable if someone drove a VW as the getaway car in a bank robbery".
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
ONLY if the cab driver has a stated/posted policy of "I'll pick up anyone, anywhere and not ask any questions." So he doesn't pay attention
Actually, that sounds like a lot of cab drivers...
Isn't this more like if almost all the employees at McDonald's were also dealing drugs out the back door? Pretty sure all the franchise owners would at least be investigated/harassed out of business in that case. Not saying it's right, but it makes way more sense than the car thing.
You are applying technical logic, not political logic. This law will never be used to prosecute a major ISP. It is obvious to every enforcer that the ISPs are providing a very generic service with which the vast majority of common uses are perfectly legitimate. TOR, however, is only legitimate in theory, with (in their opinions) the vast majority of common uses being illegal. Therefore, it is quite obvious that the operator of an exit node is an accomplice, whereas the ISP is not.
I would not be surprised, however, if they did extend this to include anyone who has any involvement in TOR (so long as it is direct hosting or coding, not merely providing internet connectivity).
The wording of the law will give them the logical wiggle-room they need to do this, and they simply won't apply it to ISPs because that is obviously not within the spirit of the law.
...to know that us Americans are not the only ones who are batshit crazy.
They provide 80% of the Tor Project's funds.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T...
VLC Remote for iPhone and Android
common carriers are also accomplices to all on-line crimes then.
The govt teached the person at school,
The telco helped too,
The power company,
The food shop
Hey Austria, you helped Hitler, isnt that illegal.
Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
I didn't claim that he was immune from being tracked down, I am well aware of the issues of IP level anonymity vs slashdot just choosing not to display a name which is what the AC parent did. I know the distinction because I run a Tor relay (not an exit node just a relay) and I use Tor myself.
My point was merely that he chose to remain anonymous (at least as well as he was easily able to) while criticising a tool used by others to actully do the same thing.
Whether Tor is used by "bad guys" is beside the point. A report came out today that the NSA's Xkeyscore program flags Tor users and counts them as 'extremists' merely for going to the Tor website, asking for a bridge ip, or searching for tails or reading a particular linux users forum. This puts me on their list of extremists and I am happy to be there. My Tor relay is called "Fuck the NSA" and I am not the only one running a relay called that. Anonymous communication is important and I am not afraid to use my real identity (have a look at my username) to say so.
Lastly, just to be clear, I am not saying that no one should post anonymously; I have defended the AC posting option on this site for exactly the reasons you list. I am merely pointing out the cowardice and hypocrisy of posting anonymously to criticise a tool to actually provide that very ability to people who need it; people whose lives depend on it. Remember that everyone who says Tor should be banned because the bad guys might use it is just choosing to kill one group of people instead of another. Tor saves lives every day in opressive regimes, so banning it does not just make the kiddie fiddlers get hurt, it would also hurt these innocent people. There are better ways to stop the bad guys than making anonymous communication impossible, and anyone who tells you otherwise is a facist. Period.
-AndrewBuck
You're a worthless authoritarian scumbag. The mere fact that abuse is possible or even common doesn't mean a technology should be suppressed. Services that allow you to gain some degree of anonymity with no questions asked are very important, regardless of how they might be misused. I'd rather allow many 'Bad People' to go free than arrest someone who provides such a service. Anyone who says otherwise should, again, move to North Korea.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Whether or not it should actually constitute a crime is a larger a more complex question
It's not complex at all. The answer is simply, "No."
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Why are there so many authoritarian morons defending this garbage? Am I even on Slashdot, a site supposedly for nerds, anymore?
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
My impression of Tor is that it's used by people at political risk and people who do illegal activity- mostly drugs and child porn.
What's the degree of criminal activity over your average ISP? The degree of criminal activity could arguably show intent to aid and abbet.
Sure- a VW could be used in a robbery, but it's clear that they are not sold as a brand to help robberies.
Sure- a random ISP could be used to abet criminal activity, but it's clear they are not intentionally aiding any crimes. (you could argue You Tube intends to allow massive copyright violation-- the only reason I can't see they haven't been busted is that they are a large corporation).
But with Tor, you know when you put up a node that illegal activity will be conducted over it. People are not using Tor to post on Facebook.
In fact- it's child porn which is leading the charge to pierce Tor's anonymity. Just google "how common is child porn on Tor" and you can see articles about law enforcement agencies in multiple countries breaking into Tore as a result of child porn.
Indeed- that's what they found this person guilty of-- "Ferrying Child Porn".
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2...
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
Neither the summary, nor the linked article, nor the article linked to in the linked article give the crucial information: What exactly did the court decide?
Quite obviously if I use Tor for criminal activity, and my best buddy sets up a Tor exit node exclusively for me to support my criminal activity, then he will be convicted for running that exit node. Not just in Austria, but everywhere.
And equally obviously, someone who operates a Tor exit node, which is without his knowledge and without his agreement used by a criminal for criminal activity, that operator _should not_ be convicted, neither in Austria nor elsewhere.
What all these articles don't say is what exactly the Tor operator has done. And without that we can't judge what happened.
If you repair a car that is then used in a robbery, you shouldn't be accused of being an accomplice. Except if you knew it was going to be used in a robbery. For example, if you repeatedly fixed a car that was used to drive into shop windows, and even fix steel plates to the front of the car.
Arrest the connecting Internet infrastructure, as clearly this applies under those rules. And good luck with that.... achtung!
(( shaking my head )) This is the sort of thing that will bury net neutrality, especially if it spread elsewhere.
If Tor is NOT illegal, then they shouldn't have busted him. If it IS illegal, then why isn't it on the frikken books? Or is it now acceptable to make just any old thing illegal on a whim?
Then the US government needs to be sued as well as inventors of the technology behind the Tor network. Dumb court decision, it is like shooting the messenger.
Aussies..
Guten Tag, mate.
"City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......