320
Man Found Guilty of Child Porn, Because He Ran a Tor Exit Node (lowendbox.com)
submitted 3 years ago by [M, B] to c/technology@lemmy.world
58 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Man Found Guilty of Child Porn, Because He Ran a Tor Exit Node::undefined

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[+] -32 points 3 years ago (23 children)

This is why I won't do anything of the sort. With the increasingly authoritarian state that Amurica is turning into, I will tread very carefully. Including using VPN. I don't know much about Tor and perhaps I should learn more but my understanding is the traffic is largely plain text and not encrypted. Please correct me if I am wrong.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 23 child comments
    •
  • [–] 80 points 3 years ago (14 children)

    It’s encrypted, encrypted many times over, it’s completely anonymous… as long as you’re staying inside the network. An exit node connects to the regular internet and that’s what’s going to start showing up on logs. This was completely secure for the people actually dealing in cp.

    I can’t believe this stuck, it’s the equivalent of arresting a business owner because someone distributed cp while connected to their Wi-Fi.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
    •
  • [–] 24 points 3 years ago* (5 children)

    CP laws (in the US and probably other places) fall under a doctrine called strict liability, which basically means that you're guilty regardless of intent or even knowledge of an offense.

    It's fucked.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [+] -13 points 3 years ago (3 children)

    There isn't a crime worse than hurting children. Does that mean we should allow law enforcement infinity leeway to punish these crimes and persue the offenders? I hate to ever give law enforcement any leeway as abuse is so common, but if someone is hurting children I don't care how you stop it.

    Is hosting a tor exit nods with the knowledge that doing so might help pedophiles hurting children? That feels like too many layers to me. Too esoteric.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 8 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    I hate to ever give law enforcement any leeway as abuse is so common, but if someone is hurting children I don't care how you stop it.

    Is this satire? Because that's exactly the excuse government has been giving for hundreds of years, to take your freedoms away.

    It's never about the children. The Catholic church operating with near total immunity, after all these millennia of abuse, is proof of that.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago

    Every person and business that has any wifi or server on the internet "might help pedophiles hurting children". Amazon S3? Could hypothetically be used in CP (actually almost definitely is used for CP by somebody).

    Your email address? Could be used by somebody malicious for CP. Which means if you think it's that important to stop pedophiles hurting children, you should shut it down.

    And in fact, Lemmy is decentralized and can absolutely be used (let's be honest, somebody probably already is somewhere) to distribute CP. We should be openly opposing Lemmy now, right?

    ...boiling down to the real problem. There are so many uses for Tor that have nothing to do with CP and so few Tor users that deal in CP. Privacy is a valuable thing and we should not be murdering privacy for all people in hope it might stop 1 or 2% of child predators.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 17 points 3 years ago

    It's quite possible he had either a public defender or a poor attorney. I am friends with an attorney who works with the poor, indigent, and people otherwise unable to fight for themselves. I help him out for free when he has questions related to technology and IT. I really need to read up on Tor because there might come a time when I'll need to assist my friend in a similar matter. It's quite chilling that the state could potentially punish a business owner for providing a free service like WiFi. I have another friend who runs a the neighborhood sports bar and she offers WiFi to her customers. I think I need to implement some content filtration for her so as to prevent her from potentially getting blamed for a crime she did not commit.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 9 points 3 years ago* (4 children)

    Which has probably happened. It's (shady uses, not necessarily this use) one of the reasons there was a big push to get consumers to put a password on their wifi back in the day.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 11 points 3 years ago (3 children)
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 3 years ago (2 children)

    Yep. Routers used to come wide open out of the box, you had to actively secure them. They come with reasonable initial security now probably because of things like that.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 9 points 3 years ago

    In this context (running a tor exit node) none of that would matter. You can't choose to run an exit node and then try to feign innocence or ignorance. It's why I have deep respect for anyone willing to run an exit node because you're taking on MASSIVE risk for absolutely no reward.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 15 points 3 years ago (5 children)

    The high majority of websites are HTTPS, which means that the contents of requests are end to end encrypted. Technically if it's just HTTP, it's plaintext, but basically no sites operate outside of HTTPS anymore.

    All that stuff about everything you do being in the clear is outdated, and basically just VPN propaganda. The only parts of typical web browsing that aren't encrypted are DNS resolutions, but DoH and encrypted DNS are starting to be a thing. In which case, your ISP/gov will know you're accessing your bank's site, but not what you're doing on there because everything else is encrypted.

    Tl;Dr: Everything being plaintext is really outdated and is basically VPN propaganda. The majority of network traffic for most users is end to end encrypted already.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 9 points 3 years ago (4 children)

    That is not completely true. Often the payload is encrypted but not the metadata. It is the metadata that usually is the cause of privacy issues.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 3 years ago (3 children)

    I think you might misunderstand what metadata is. The type of metadata you might be referring to are simply tracking methods employed on webpages by the likes of Facebook, Google, and other advertisers. But those are encrypted as well, they're not open to view by anyone in the middle because they also utilize HTTPS. The vulnerability they pose is the potential for that data to be given up, or subpoenaed on the database end. There is no magic unencrypted data sent when dealing with accessing a website except, as mentioned, possibly the DNS query, which can be easily encrypted via DoH.

    Except, VPNs and Tor aren't even magic bullets for privacy. The moment you log into a service, you lose your veil of privacy if your activities can be reasonably linked. To really remain private, you would need to use Tor Browser, likely over a VPN, preferably on a live booted system like Tails, and forego any usage of JavaScript or account logins. Doing anything different exposes you to tracking methods. Which removes you from using the majority of the Internet.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 8 points 3 years ago (2 children)

    The Server Name Identification (SNI) standard means that the hostname may not be encrypted if you're using TLS. Also, whether you're using SNI or not, the TCP and IP headers are never encrypted. (If they were, your packets would not be routable.)

    https://stackoverflow.com/questions/187655/are-https-headers-encrypted#187679

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •