court trial against me - the outcome
Good morning,
I've been operating a Tor node (NetWorkXXIII) for quite some years now
(although it was down for several months as it was facing repeated DDoS
attacks earlier this year).
In June the local police informed me about preliminary proceedings against
me by asking me (by mail) to "visit" them. The letter mentioned computer
fraud (actually it was "Computerbetrug in Tateinheit mit Faelschung
beweiserheblicher Daten gemaess Paragrafen 263a, 269, 52 StGB"), but since I
hadn't done anything I followed the general advice in such situations: You
have the right to remain silent. Use it. So I decided not to go to the
police - if you haven't done anything and you don't even have a clue what
they are talking about, it usually can only get worse. Apart from that, the
day they wanted me to come I was not even in town.
In early September I received a penalty order ("Strafbefehl") - from the
court. A judge found me guilty of having ordered a gift voucher (value: 51
EUR) on amazon.de, providing address details of a living person (but not
myself obviously), and using a Web.de email address registered specifically
for this purpose. I was sentenced to pay a fine of 500 EUR.
Because I hadn't ordered the voucher, I appealed ("form- und fristgerechter
Einspruch") to that penalty order, which led - according to German laws - to
an actual trial. This trial was held today.
While the penalty order listed four witnesses (the person whose address
details had been used, a police officer in a cow town near that person's
home hometown, a local police officer, and an employee of amazon.de), the
summoning ("Ladung") to the actual trial didn't list any witnesses at all. I
had been a lay assessor ("Schoeffe") for four years in Germany (but in a
different part of the country), so I knew that this usually would be a good
sign as the judge(s) during the actual trial wouldn't have much more than
the defendant's testimony (and of course the records) to rely on.
Well, it turned out to be the exact opposite of what I had expected. They
had absolutely no doubts that I was at least somehow guilty. I explained in
great detail what Tor is and what it is used for, and the judge asked me:
"Is this illegal?" Wow - shouldn't she know?! I replied "No, of course not.
Otherwise I wouldn't do it."
The judge and the public prosecutor realized soon that I probably wasn't the
originator of the transaction in question. But instead of realizing the
faults of the police and the public prosecutor's department (German laws say
that they have to investigate *all* aspects of a crime and not just find
someone that seems to be somehow guilty at first sight), they tried to
construct a case of aiding and abetting ("Beihilfe") - they insisted that I
most probably set up my node in order to help people committing crimes. Or
at least I accepted that people would commit crimes using my Tor node. I
asked "What about a postal service that delivers i.e. a bomb or a blackmail
letter? Do they help people committing crimes as well?" They said that these
two things could not be compared as a postal service offers transportation
services whereas I offer anonymization services.
To make a long story short: The judge as well as the public prosecutor
refused to accept that I didn't do anything criminal, that I didn't and
still don't want to help anyone committing a crime (at least not more than
i.e. does), and that they should have investigated
the issue further beforehand.
They offered me to dismiss the actual court trial according to paragraph 153
StPO which is not the same as an acquittal (no "Freispruch") which I
eventually accepted. It means, however, that I won't have to pay for the
trial. They also repeatedly said that this time I got off with just a slap
on the wrist - next time it wouldn't be that cheap.
Yeah, and that's it. I am completely disappointed by the way this court
trial was held. I don't know if this is how they usually do it here in
Southern Germany. When I was a lay assessor, we always treated the
defendants with some kind of respect - not only but especially if there was
no actual evidence that they had committed a crime. But the public
prosecutor as well as the judge both repeatedly showed me their disrespect -
because I didn't confess anything, because I was not thankful for their
offer, because I still operate this criminal thing they obviously had no
clue about.
Okay, signing off for now.
Bye, K&K,
T-Zee
--
|Mirko Thiesen "We're with you all the way, mostly"|
|[EMAIL PROTECTED]| http://www.kyb.mpg.de/ |
|MPI for Biological Cybernetics| Phone: +49-7071-601-638|
|Spemannstr. 38, D-72076 Tuebingen | FAX: +49-7071-601-616|
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
Re: court trial against me - the outcome
Hi Mirko, that sounds... disastrous. I'm facing the same thing at the moment, a quite similar case - although my lawyer currently tries to fight off an actual case at court, pointing out all the other incidents I suffered of earlier. This stinks. "Beihilfe" my a**. BTW, I'm currently reading http://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/0,1518,517232,00.html That's stinks too... Good luck for the future. Cheers, Alex. -- "I am tired of all this sort of thing called science here... We have spent millions in that sort of thing for the last few years, and it is time it should be stopped." -- Simon Cameron, U.S. Senator, on the Smithsonian Institution, 1901. .
Re: court trial against me - the outcome
Am Mittwoch, 14. November 2007 schrieb Mirko Thiesen: > Good morning, > > node. I asked "What about a postal service that delivers i.e. a > bomb or a blackmail letter? Do they help people committing crimes > as well?" They said that these two things could not be compared as > a postal service offers transportation services whereas I offer > anonymization services. Hm, so I send a letter with a faked sender's address - what's that? How many letters get sent daily, which have been anonymized? I get letters with no sender's address at all - on the envelope. You never really know from where a letter came, even less now with the letter centers in Germany (stamped in a center which covers a wide region). So, I don't know what's different there compared to tor??? > They offered me to dismiss the actual court trial according to > paragraph 153 StPO which is not the same as an acquittal (no > "Freispruch") which I eventually accepted. It means, however, that > I won't have to pay for the trial. They also repeatedly said that > this time I got off with just a slap on the wrist - next time it > wouldn't be that cheap. There is currently a very strong attempt in Germany to criminalize the Internet. People try to let it appear as the playground for terrorists etc. The result will be that Politicians have an easy way to pass laws that allow to monitor and control nternet traffic. Maybe things would have ended differently if you had answered the first letter, because the police investigating the case just need to know what the reason is for things to happen. If you don't explain it, it's most unlikely they will know it by themselves. Martin -- Dr. Martin Senftleben, Ph.D. (S.V.U.) http://www.drmartinus.de/ http://www.daskirchenjahr.de/ signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: court trial against me - the outcome
Il 14/11/2007 15:22, Mirko Thiesen ha scritto: > In June the local police informed me about preliminary proceedings against > me by asking me (by mail) to "visit" them. The letter mentioned computer > fraud (actually it was "Computerbetrug in Tateinheit mit Faelschung > beweiserheblicher Daten gemaess Paragrafen 263a, 269, 52 StGB"), There is a similar "Invitation Card" in Italy, except that they do not mention the crime which is investigated. It is delivered if you may be of interest to the investigation, but you are not formally charged of a crime. The oucome of the talk at the police office is a signed declaration, which the judge in charge of preliminar investigation will use to further or close the case. You have no obligations to respond. > but since I > hadn't done anything I followed the general advice in such situations: You > have the right to remain silent. Use it. So I decided not to go to the > police - if you haven't done anything and you don't even have a clue what > they are talking about, it usually can only get worse. Apart from that, the > day they wanted me to come I was not even in town. I am not a lawyer, but in Italy it would be a good idea to go and explain what Tor is to the police: this signed declaration would be read by judge, who may write your name off even before starting the suit. Remember, this is not legal advice. Jan
RE: court trial against me - the outcome
> Hm, so I send a letter with a faked sender's address - what's that? > How many letters get sent daily, which have been anonymized? I get > letters with no sender's address at all - on the envelope. You never > really know from where a letter came, even less now with the letter > centers in Germany (stamped in a center which covers a wide region). > So, I don't know what's different there compared to tor??? Well, they failed to understand the problem - and the actual crime commited. Saying that I helped a criminal by running a Tor node is like saying Deutsche Telekom helps criminals by providing telephone lines to them. It's like saying that American Airlines and United Airlines helped attacking the World Trade Center - after all *they* provided the aircrafts and thus the weapons which were used in order to attack the WTC. The latter example shows how stupid and braindead this argumentation is. Seriously, the actual crime was ordering something on amazon.de and entering someone else's address details. The crime was not using an anonymization or any kind of proxy at all. If the person who actually placed the order had not used Tor, the police could have possibly tracked them down. But would they have accused the actual criminal's ISP of aiding and abetting then? I don't think so. Frell, of course not! Bye, K&K, T-Zee -- |Mirko Thiesen "We're with you all the way, mostly"| |[EMAIL PROTECTED]| http://www.kyb.mpg.de/ | |MPI for Biological Cybernetics| Phone: +49-7071-601-638| |Spemannstr. 38, D-72076 Tuebingen | FAX: +49-7071-601-616| smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
Re: court trial against me - the outcome
Kafka and the Internet . . . perhaps you might turn this into an interactive
novella
On Nov 14, 2007 9:22 AM, Mirko Thiesen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Good morning,
>
> I've been operating a Tor node (NetWorkXXIII) for quite some years now
> (although it was down for several months as it was facing repeated DDoS
> attacks earlier this year).
>
> In June the local police informed me about preliminary proceedings against
> me by asking me (by mail) to "visit" them. The letter mentioned computer
> fraud (actually it was "Computerbetrug in Tateinheit mit Faelschung
> beweiserheblicher Daten gemaess Paragrafen 263a, 269, 52 StGB"), but since
> I
> hadn't done anything I followed the general advice in such situations: You
> have the right to remain silent. Use it. So I decided not to go to the
> police - if you haven't done anything and you don't even have a clue what
> they are talking about, it usually can only get worse. Apart from that,
> the
> day they wanted me to come I was not even in town.
>
> In early September I received a penalty order ("Strafbefehl") - from the
> court. A judge found me guilty of having ordered a gift voucher (value: 51
> EUR) on amazon.de, providing address details of a living person (but not
> myself obviously), and using a Web.de email address registered
> specifically
> for this purpose. I was sentenced to pay a fine of 500 EUR.
>
> Because I hadn't ordered the voucher, I appealed ("form- und
> fristgerechter
> Einspruch") to that penalty order, which led - according to German laws -
> to
> an actual trial. This trial was held today.
>
> While the penalty order listed four witnesses (the person whose address
> details had been used, a police officer in a cow town near that person's
> home hometown, a local police officer, and an employee of amazon.de), the
> summoning ("Ladung") to the actual trial didn't list any witnesses at all.
> I
> had been a lay assessor ("Schoeffe") for four years in Germany (but in a
> different part of the country), so I knew that this usually would be a
> good
> sign as the judge(s) during the actual trial wouldn't have much more than
> the defendant's testimony (and of course the records) to rely on.
>
> Well, it turned out to be the exact opposite of what I had expected. They
> had absolutely no doubts that I was at least somehow guilty. I explained
> in
> great detail what Tor is and what it is used for, and the judge asked me:
> "Is this illegal?" Wow - shouldn't she know?! I replied "No, of course
> not.
> Otherwise I wouldn't do it."
>
> The judge and the public prosecutor realized soon that I probably wasn't
> the
> originator of the transaction in question. But instead of realizing the
> faults of the police and the public prosecutor's department (German laws
> say
> that they have to investigate *all* aspects of a crime and not just find
> someone that seems to be somehow guilty at first sight), they tried to
> construct a case of aiding and abetting ("Beihilfe") - they insisted that
> I
> most probably set up my node in order to help people committing crimes.
> Or
> at least I accepted that people would commit crimes using my Tor node. I
> asked "What about a postal service that delivers i.e. a bomb or a
> blackmail
> letter? Do they help people committing crimes as well?" They said that
> these
> two things could not be compared as a postal service offers transportation
> services whereas I offer anonymization services.
>
> To make a long story short: The judge as well as the public prosecutor
> refused to accept that I didn't do anything criminal, that I didn't and
> still don't want to help anyone committing a crime (at least not more than
> i.e. telco/ISP/postal service here> does), and that they should have
> investigated
> the issue further beforehand.
>
> They offered me to dismiss the actual court trial according to paragraph
> 153
> StPO which is not the same as an acquittal (no "Freispruch") which I
> eventually accepted. It means, however, that I won't have to pay for the
> trial. They also repeatedly said that this time I got off with just a slap
> on the wrist - next time it wouldn't be that cheap.
>
> Yeah, and that's it. I am completely disappointed by the way this court
> trial was held. I don't know if this is how they usually do it here in
> Southern Germany. When I was a lay assessor, we always treated the
> defendants with some kind of respect - not only but especially if there
> was
> no actual evidence that they had committed a crime. But the public
> prosecutor as well as the judge both repeatedly showed me their disrespect
> -
> because I didn't confess anything, because I was not thankful for their
> offer, because I still operate this criminal thing they obviously had no
> clue about.
>
> Okay, signing off for now.
>
> Bye, K&K,
> T-Zee
> --
> |Mirko Thiesen "We're with you all the way, mostly"|
> |[EMAIL PROTECTED]| http://www.kyb.mpg.de/ |
> |MPI for Biological Cybernetics| Phone: +49-707
Re: court trial against me - the outcome
Thanks for continuing to fight for tor in Germany. You have all of our support. Is there anything people outside Germany can do to help? An injury to one is an injury to all, Comrade Ringo Kamen On Nov 14, 2007 10:43 AM, Mirko Thiesen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hm, so I send a letter with a faked sender's address - what's that? > > How many letters get sent daily, which have been anonymized? I get > > letters with no sender's address at all - on the envelope. You never > > really know from where a letter came, even less now with the letter > > centers in Germany (stamped in a center which covers a wide region). > > So, I don't know what's different there compared to tor??? > > Well, they failed to understand the problem - and the actual crime commited. > Saying that I helped a criminal by running a Tor node is like saying > Deutsche Telekom helps criminals by providing telephone lines to them. It's > like saying that American Airlines and United Airlines helped attacking the > World Trade Center - after all *they* provided the aircrafts and thus the > weapons which were used in order to attack the WTC. The latter example shows > how stupid and braindead this argumentation is. > > Seriously, the actual crime was ordering something on amazon.de and entering > someone else's address details. The crime was not using an anonymization or > any kind of proxy at all. If the person who actually placed the order had > not used Tor, the police could have possibly tracked them down. But would > they have accused the actual criminal's ISP of aiding and abetting then? I > don't think so. Frell, of course not! > > > Bye, K&K, > T-Zee > -- > |Mirko Thiesen "We're with you all the way, mostly"| > |[EMAIL PROTECTED]| http://www.kyb.mpg.de/ | > |MPI for Biological Cybernetics| Phone: +49-7071-601-638| > |Spemannstr. 38, D-72076 Tuebingen | FAX: +49-7071-601-616| >
Re: court trial against me - the outcome
On Wed, Nov 14, 2007 at 03:22:29PM +0100, Mirko Thiesen wrote:
> In June the local police informed me about preliminary proceedings
> against me by asking me (by mail) to "visit" them. (...) but since I
> hadn't done anything I followed the general advice in such
> situations: You have the right to remain silent. Use it.
> In early September I received a penalty order ("Strafbefehl") - from
> the court. A judge found me guilty of (...). I was sentenced to pay
> a fine of 500 EUR.
A judge found you guilty without hearing from you, nor summoning you
to a trial? That sounds like a ... dangerous procedure. Well, I
suppose you could see it as equivalent to an offer by the public
ministry to settle. Maybe. I'm not sure.
> They offered me to dismiss the actual court trial according to
> paragraph 153 StPO which is not the same as an acquittal (no
> "Freispruch") which I eventually accepted.
My German is not that fresh anymore, but it seems to say that if your
guilt is low and they don't find any interest for society at large to
prosecute you, they can choose not to prosecute. Is that what that
paragraph says?
--
Lionel
Re: court trial against me - the outcome
On Wednesday 14 November 2007 15:22, Mirko Thiesen wrote: > Good morning, Guten Abend, I have also received such a letter some time ago but I went to the police and explained. Of course you have to take care what you say and do not say too much. The police tried to frighten me that "normally" they come to check my flat and this is nothing nice and I should stop TOR. I asked him if he is still well. To check my flat because of a 100€ case where someone claims to have logs with my IP address which are plain text files and can be modified by any idiot is a little too much. He said: well we do it in Bavaria (Bayern) like this. So I asked about "Verhältnissmässigkeit der Mittel" (like you do not shoot somebody down because he said something wrong against you) but there was no answer. After a while I have received a letter that the case was stopped. This country needs an revolution! Grüsse und Kopf hoch!
Re: court trial against me - the outcome
On Wednesday 14 November 2007 20:47:50 you wrote: > > This country needs an revolution! > Maybe! ;) In the meantime, solidarity among Tor operators would go a long way. If that case had been for 100,000 euro you might now find yourself with a date in court. Who would you turn to in such a situation? We need to create a body that we can all turn to, and only we as a group can create it. Would you be willing to contribute time to creating such an organization? Do you have any contacts who could advise on how to establish it? If so, let me know. And apologies in advance for contacting you directly if it is unwelcome. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
RE: court trial against me - the outcome
> A judge found you guilty without hearing from you, nor summoning you > to a trial? That sounds like a ... dangerous procedure. Well, I This is a common procedure here for smaller offenses. AFAIK it is often used if people appeal to fines resulting of speed tickets and the like. > suppose you could see it as equivalent to an offer by the public > ministry to settle. Maybe. I'm not sure. The most important purpose of this procedure is that "they" don't want to hold a real trial and thus save money. It's usually just not worthwile to do the whole trial dance if the outcome is a fee of let's say 100 EUR or maybe a warning only. > > They offered me to dismiss the actual court trial according to > > paragraph 153 StPO which is not the same as an acquittal (no > > "Freispruch") which I eventually accepted. > > My German is not that fresh anymore, but it seems to say that if your > guilt is low and they don't find any interest for society at large to > prosecute you, they can choose not to prosecute. Is that what that > paragraph says? Yes, this is what the paragraph says. Unfortunately it implies that I am indeed somehow guilty. I wouldn't have accepted it if the judge and the public prosecutor hadn't made clear that otherwise they would have tried really hard to construct this aiding and abetting thing. :-( Bye, K&K, T-Zee -- |Mirko Thiesen "We're with you all the way, mostly"| |[EMAIL PROTECTED]| http://www.kyb.mpg.de/ | |MPI for Biological Cybernetics| Phone: +49-7071-601-638| |Spemannstr. 38, D-72076 Tuebingen | FAX: +49-7071-601-616| smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
Re: court trial against me - the outcome
Am Donnerstag, 15. November 2007 schrieb Mirko Thiesen: > > A judge found you guilty without hearing from you, nor summoning > > you to a trial? That sounds like a ... dangerous procedure. Well, > > I > > This is a common procedure here for smaller offenses. AFAIK it is > often used if people appeal to fines resulting of speed tickets and > the like. Happened to me also here in Germany. I was assumed to be guilty before investigations started, and after investigators (police) had found out that I had nothing to do with the crime I was charged with, I got a notice that investigations were stopped. That's all. Now my files rests in the shelves for 10 years, and I doubt that they will not have an effect if again some doubt comes up about my doings... Martin -- Dr. Martin Senftleben, Ph.D. (S.V.U.) http://www.drmartinus.de/ http://www.daskirchenjahr.de/ signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: court trial against me - the outcome
There is already a thread about this organization/fund. I am watching it carefully because I am interested. It looks for like like we need a legal costs insurance (Rechtschutzversicherung) for tor admins. Gruesse Robert On Wednesday 14 November 2007 22:16, Robert Hogan wrote: > On Wednesday 14 November 2007 20:47:50 you wrote: > > This country needs an revolution! > > Maybe! ;) > > In the meantime, solidarity among Tor operators would go a long way. If > that case had been for 100,000 euro you might now find yourself with a date > in court. Who would you turn to in such a situation? > > We need to create a body that we can all turn to, and only we as a group > can create it. Would you be willing to contribute time to creating such an > organization? Do you have any contacts who could advise on how to establish > it? > > If so, let me know. And apologies in advance for contacting you directly if > it is unwelcome.
Re: court trial against me - the outcome
I actually know of such a company that is interested in supplying tor legal insurance in DE. Is anyone interested? Steve linux wrote: > There is already a thread about this organization/fund. > I am watching it carefully because I am interested. > > It looks for like like we need a legal costs insurance > (Rechtschutzversicherung) for tor admins. > > Gruesse > Robert > > > On Wednesday 14 November 2007 22:16, Robert Hogan wrote: >> On Wednesday 14 November 2007 20:47:50 you wrote: >>> This country needs an revolution! >> Maybe! ;) >> >> In the meantime, solidarity among Tor operators would go a long way. If >> that case had been for 100,000 euro you might now find yourself with a date >> in court. Who would you turn to in such a situation? >> >> We need to create a body that we can all turn to, and only we as a group >> can create it. Would you be willing to contribute time to creating such an >> organization? Do you have any contacts who could advise on how to establish >> it? >> >> If so, let me know. And apologies in advance for contacting you directly if >> it is unwelcome. >
Re: court trial against me - the outcome
Arrakis schrieb: > I actually know of such a company that is interested in supplying tor > legal insurance in DE. Is anyone interested? Yes, I am. Greets -- BlueStar88 PGPID: 0x36150C86 PGPFP: E9AE 667C 4A2E 3F46 9B69 9BB2 FC63 8933 3615 0C86 signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: court trial against me - the outcome
don't keep the knowledge for yourself :) On Thursday 15 November 2007 22:54, Arrakis wrote: > I actually know of such a company that is interested in supplying tor > legal insurance in DE. Is anyone interested? > > Steve >
Re: court trial against me - the outcome
"Mirko Thiesen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > They offered me to dismiss the actual court trial according to > > > paragraph 153 StPO which is not the same as an acquittal (no > > > "Freispruch") which I eventually accepted. > > > > My German is not that fresh anymore, but it seems to say that if your > > guilt is low and they don't find any interest for society at large to > > prosecute you, they can choose not to prosecute. Is that what that > > paragraph says? > > Yes, this is what the paragraph says. Unfortunately it implies that I am > indeed somehow guilty. I don't think so. The first part of the paragraph talks about the guilt of the offender, the second part about dismissing the case with the approval of the accused. The accused doesn't have to be the offender and as being accused for itself doesn't imply any guilt I don't see why dismissing the case according of § 153 StPO would imply any guilt either. Fabian signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: court trial against me - the outcome
I am sincerely concerned about the following issue:
"address and identity used are from the cow town next door"
Please explain for us the failures of your tor implementation to
properly mix and distribute the content, and why (moreso how) such an
event occured?
I will assume at this point that an IP identification, (each session
should be on seperate nodes by design), would be compared to a
database of exploitables and thus select a local proximity target.
In all, this is completely assinine. Under no circumstances except an
idiot implementation that has all nodes in the same room, could this
be possible.
Please explain further how your machine was the sole liability, the
mail.box was set up using the exact same node, and how the responding
ip (which i recall is NOT reported?) was gleaned from the amazon
registration process.
These coincidences, unless you were entered locally with a very small
mixer, are not plausible unless there is a very explicit route / exit
node, external proxy which forwarded "illegitimate packets" or
otherwise.
please show us a technical diagram (flowchart) of how this process
occured, and what is known about the use of the gift card / final
address.
-Wilfred
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Nov 14, 2007 9:22 AM, Mirko Thiesen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Good morning,
>
> I've been operating a Tor node (NetWorkXXIII) for quite some years now
> (although it was down for several months as it was facing repeated DDoS
> attacks earlier this year).
>
> In June the local police informed me about preliminary proceedings against
> me by asking me (by mail) to "visit" them. The letter mentioned computer
> fraud (actually it was "Computerbetrug in Tateinheit mit Faelschung
> beweiserheblicher Daten gemaess Paragrafen 263a, 269, 52 StGB"), but since I
> hadn't done anything I followed the general advice in such situations: You
> have the right to remain silent. Use it. So I decided not to go to the
> police - if you haven't done anything and you don't even have a clue what
> they are talking about, it usually can only get worse. Apart from that, the
> day they wanted me to come I was not even in town.
>
> In early September I received a penalty order ("Strafbefehl") - from the
> court. A judge found me guilty of having ordered a gift voucher (value: 51
> EUR) on amazon.de, providing address details of a living person (but not
> myself obviously), and using a Web.de email address registered specifically
> for this purpose. I was sentenced to pay a fine of 500 EUR.
>
> Because I hadn't ordered the voucher, I appealed ("form- und fristgerechter
> Einspruch") to that penalty order, which led - according to German laws - to
> an actual trial. This trial was held today.
>
> While the penalty order listed four witnesses (the person whose address
> details had been used, a police officer in a cow town near that person's
> home hometown, a local police officer, and an employee of amazon.de), the
> summoning ("Ladung") to the actual trial didn't list any witnesses at all. I
> had been a lay assessor ("Schoeffe") for four years in Germany (but in a
> different part of the country), so I knew that this usually would be a good
> sign as the judge(s) during the actual trial wouldn't have much more than
> the defendant's testimony (and of course the records) to rely on.
>
> Well, it turned out to be the exact opposite of what I had expected. They
> had absolutely no doubts that I was at least somehow guilty. I explained in
> great detail what Tor is and what it is used for, and the judge asked me:
> "Is this illegal?" Wow - shouldn't she know?! I replied "No, of course not.
> Otherwise I wouldn't do it."
>
> The judge and the public prosecutor realized soon that I probably wasn't the
> originator of the transaction in question. But instead of realizing the
> faults of the police and the public prosecutor's department (German laws say
> that they have to investigate *all* aspects of a crime and not just find
> someone that seems to be somehow guilty at first sight), they tried to
> construct a case of aiding and abetting ("Beihilfe") - they insisted that I
> most probably set up my node in order to help people committing crimes. Or
> at least I accepted that people would commit crimes using my Tor node. I
> asked "What about a postal service that delivers i.e. a bomb or a blackmail
> letter? Do they help people committing crimes as well?" They said that these
> two things could not be compared as a postal service offers transportation
> services whereas I offer anonymization services.
>
> To make a long story short: The judge as well as the public prosecutor
> refused to accept that I didn't do anything criminal, that I didn't and
> still don't want to help anyone committing a crime (at least not more than
> i.e. telco/ISP/postal service here> does), and that they should have investigated
> the issue further beforehand.
>
> They offered me to dismiss the actual court trial according to paragraph 153
> StP
Re: court trial against me - the outcome
On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 12:26:07 -0500 "Wilfred L. Guerin"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> top-posted, so as to make it more difficult
to understand what he was referring to:
>I am sincerely concerned about the following issue:
>
>"address and identity used are from the cow town next door"
>
>Please explain for us the failures of your tor implementation to
>properly mix and distribute the content, and why (moreso how) such an
>event occured?
I thought Mirko made it perfectly clear. He has been running an
exit server. Some credit card fraud artist did his/her thing via that
exit node, providing stolen identity information to amazon.de, which
logged the IP address of the exit node. The exit node operator, Mirko,
was then accused of committing the fraud. The court was uninterested in,
and/or incapable of comprehending, explanations of why Mirko was as
innocent as his ISP.
>
>I will assume at this point that an IP identification, (each session
>should be on seperate nodes by design), would be compared to a
>database of exploitables and thus select a local proximity target.
>
>In all, this is completely assinine. Under no circumstances except an
>idiot implementation that has all nodes in the same room, could this
>be possible.
>
What the hell are you writing about? Just go back and reread
Mirko's description of what happened. You might also read some tor
documentation before spouting off like that.
>Please explain further how your machine was the sole liability, the
>mail.box was set up using the exact same node, and how the responding
>ip (which i recall is NOT reported?) was gleaned from the amazon
>registration process.
As reiterated above, the source IP address from which amazon.de
and the prosecution claim that the fraudulent transaction originated
was, in fact, not the true source, but rather Mirko's exit server's
IP address. (Note that it is an IP address, not an "ip".)
>
>These coincidences, unless you were entered locally with a very small
>mixer, are not plausible unless there is a very explicit route / exit
>node, external proxy which forwarded "illegitimate packets" or
>otherwise.
Define "mixer". In terms of computer software, "mixer" to me means
a program that allows one to control volumes of audio inputs and outputs.
>
>please show us a technical diagram (flowchart) of how this process
>occured, and what is known about the use of the gift card / final
>address.
>
>-Wilfred
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>
>On Nov 14, 2007 9:22 AM, Mirko Thiesen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Good morning,
>>
>> I've been operating a Tor node (NetWorkXXIII) for quite some years now
>> (although it was down for several months as it was facing repeated DDoS
>> attacks earlier this year).
>>
>> In June the local police informed me about preliminary proceedings against
>> me by asking me (by mail) to "visit" them. The letter mentioned computer
>> fraud (actually it was "Computerbetrug in Tateinheit mit Faelschung
>> beweiserheblicher Daten gemaess Paragrafen 263a, 269, 52 StGB"), but since I
>> hadn't done anything I followed the general advice in such situations: You
>> have the right to remain silent. Use it. So I decided not to go to the
>> police - if you haven't done anything and you don't even have a clue what
>> they are talking about, it usually can only get worse. Apart from that, the
>> day they wanted me to come I was not even in town.
>>
>> In early September I received a penalty order ("Strafbefehl") - from the
>> court. A judge found me guilty of having ordered a gift voucher (value: 51
>> EUR) on amazon.de, providing address details of a living person (but not
>> myself obviously), and using a Web.de email address registered specifically
>> for this purpose. I was sentenced to pay a fine of 500 EUR.
>>
>> Because I hadn't ordered the voucher, I appealed ("form- und fristgerechter
>> Einspruch") to that penalty order, which led - according to German laws - to
>> an actual trial. This trial was held today.
>>
>> While the penalty order listed four witnesses (the person whose address
>> details had been used, a police officer in a cow town near that person's
>> home hometown, a local police officer, and an employee of amazon.de), the
>> summoning ("Ladung") to the actual trial didn't list any witnesses at all. I
>> had been a lay assessor ("Schoeffe") for four years in Germany (but in a
>> different part of the country), so I knew that this usually would be a good
>> sign as the judge(s) during the actual trial wouldn't have much more than
>> the defendant's testimony (and of course the records) to rely on.
>>
>> Well, it turned out to be the exact opposite of what I had expected. They
>> had absolutely no doubts that I was at least somehow guilty. I explained in
>> great detail what Tor is and what it is used for, and the judge asked me:
>> "Is this illegal?" Wow - shouldn't she know?! I replied "No, of course not.
>> Otherwise I wouldn't do it."
>>
>> The judge and the public prosecutor real
Re: court trial against me - the outcome
Wilfred L. Guerin wrote: > I am sincerely concerned about the following issue: > > "address and identity used are from the cow town next door" > > Please explain for us the failures of your tor implementation to > properly mix and distribute the content, and why (moreso how) such an > event occured? Are you sure you read Mirko's mail? The *entire* mail? If so, I would advise you to go back and read it *again*. Slowly this time. Pay close attention to who did what. Sorry if I'm being rude, but your mail shows you have neither understood the original post, nor read the follow ups. You really should consider doing so before posting on a mailing list. Saves a lot of valuable time for the rest of the world. Now back to topic, please. This issue is far too serious to lose track of. Andrew
Re: court trial against me - the outcome
Original Message From: Arrakis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Apparently from: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: or-talk@freehaven.net Subject: Re: court trial against me - the outcome Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2007 15:54:55 -0600 > I actually know of such a company that is interested in supplying tor > legal insurance in DE. Is anyone interested? > > Steve > Yes, I am. Please send some info. regards hans
Re: court trial against me - the outcome
What would have happened if you had not accepted their plea agreement?
Used to be here in the USA they had to bring u personally to court to
try and convict you.
Now they are convicting "in abstencia" for many crimes.
Because the courts, judges and prosecutors are too incompetent or busy,
they just convict you whether they give you your rights or not. The
government does what they can get away with and increasingly this means
they do not follow their own laws; constitutionaly restraints. Of course
when you get IDIOTS like G.W. Bush in Office and have an IDIOT populace
that votes for him, you deserve what you get, :-).
I thought Europe was better, but I guess not. Here in the U.S., we
frequently have people in the courts and police who are too stupid to
hold jobs in the private sector.
I think you did the right thing by ignoring their invitation. Do
everything you can to make their jobs more difficult, resist as far as
you are able.
On Wed, 14 Nov 2007 15:22:29 +0100, "Mirko Thiesen"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Good morning,
>
> I've been operating a Tor node (NetWorkXXIII) for quite some years now
> (although it was down for several months as it was facing repeated DDoS
> attacks earlier this year).
>
> In June the local police informed me about preliminary proceedings
> against
> me by asking me (by mail) to "visit" them. The letter mentioned computer
> fraud (actually it was "Computerbetrug in Tateinheit mit Faelschung
> beweiserheblicher Daten gemaess Paragrafen 263a, 269, 52 StGB"), but
> since I
> hadn't done anything I followed the general advice in such situations:
> You
> have the right to remain silent. Use it. So I decided not to go to the
> police - if you haven't done anything and you don't even have a clue what
> they are talking about, it usually can only get worse. Apart from that,
> the
> day they wanted me to come I was not even in town.
>
> In early September I received a penalty order ("Strafbefehl") - from the
> court. A judge found me guilty of having ordered a gift voucher (value:
> 51
> EUR) on amazon.de, providing address details of a living person (but not
> myself obviously), and using a Web.de email address registered
> specifically
> for this purpose. I was sentenced to pay a fine of 500 EUR.
>
> Because I hadn't ordered the voucher, I appealed ("form- und
> fristgerechter
> Einspruch") to that penalty order, which led - according to German laws -
> to
> an actual trial. This trial was held today.
>
> While the penalty order listed four witnesses (the person whose address
> details had been used, a police officer in a cow town near that person's
> home hometown, a local police officer, and an employee of amazon.de), the
> summoning ("Ladung") to the actual trial didn't list any witnesses at
> all. I
> had been a lay assessor ("Schoeffe") for four years in Germany (but in a
> different part of the country), so I knew that this usually would be a
> good
> sign as the judge(s) during the actual trial wouldn't have much more than
> the defendant's testimony (and of course the records) to rely on.
>
> Well, it turned out to be the exact opposite of what I had expected. They
> had absolutely no doubts that I was at least somehow guilty. I explained
> in
> great detail what Tor is and what it is used for, and the judge asked me:
> "Is this illegal?" Wow - shouldn't she know?! I replied "No, of course
> not.
> Otherwise I wouldn't do it."
>
> The judge and the public prosecutor realized soon that I probably wasn't
> the
> originator of the transaction in question. But instead of realizing the
> faults of the police and the public prosecutor's department (German laws
> say
> that they have to investigate *all* aspects of a crime and not just find
> someone that seems to be somehow guilty at first sight), they tried to
> construct a case of aiding and abetting ("Beihilfe") - they insisted that
> I
> most probably set up my node in order to help people committing crimes.
> Or
> at least I accepted that people would commit crimes using my Tor node. I
> asked "What about a postal service that delivers i.e. a bomb or a
> blackmail
> letter? Do they help people committing crimes as well?" They said that
> these
> two things could not be compared as a postal service offers
> transportation
> services whereas I offer anonymization services.
>
> To make a long story short: The judge as well as the public prosecutor
> refused to accept that I didn't do anything criminal, that I didn't and
> still don't want to help anyone committing a crime (at least not more
> than
> i.e. telco/ISP/postal service here> does), and that they should have
> investigated
> the issue further beforehand.
>
> They offered me to dismiss the actual court trial according to paragraph
> 153
> StPO which is not the same as an acquittal (no "Freispruch") which I
> eventually accepted. It means, however, that I won't have to pay for the
> trial. They also repeatedly said that this time I got off with just a
>
Re: court trial against me - the outcome
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Mark,
In absentia was always there, it just wasn't SOP like it is now. BTW,
are you familiar with jury nullification? It was a victim of the last
round of substance prohibition in the 20s and 30s. Essentially, jurors
have the (no longer honored) right to find a defendant 'not guilty' if
they feel that the law he is accused of breaking is BS. See
http://fija.org/ for more details.
~Andrew
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> What would have happened if you had not accepted their plea agreement?
>
> Used to be here in the USA they had to bring u personally to court to
> try and convict you.
> Now they are convicting "in abstencia" for many crimes.
>
> Because the courts, judges and prosecutors are too incompetent or busy,
> they just convict you whether they give you your rights or not. The
> government does what they can get away with and increasingly this means
> they do not follow their own laws; constitutionaly restraints. Of course
> when you get IDIOTS like G.W. Bush in Office and have an IDIOT populace
> that votes for him, you deserve what you get, :-).
>
> I thought Europe was better, but I guess not. Here in the U.S., we
> frequently have people in the courts and police who are too stupid to
> hold jobs in the private sector.
>
> I think you did the right thing by ignoring their invitation. Do
> everything you can to make their jobs more difficult, resist as far as
> you are able.
>
>
> On Wed, 14 Nov 2007 15:22:29 +0100, "Mirko Thiesen"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> Good morning,
>>
>> I've been operating a Tor node (NetWorkXXIII) for quite some years now
>> (although it was down for several months as it was facing repeated DDoS
>> attacks earlier this year).
>>
>> In June the local police informed me about preliminary proceedings
>> against
>> me by asking me (by mail) to "visit" them. The letter mentioned computer
>> fraud (actually it was "Computerbetrug in Tateinheit mit Faelschung
>> beweiserheblicher Daten gemaess Paragrafen 263a, 269, 52 StGB"), but
>> since I
>> hadn't done anything I followed the general advice in such situations:
>> You
>> have the right to remain silent. Use it. So I decided not to go to the
>> police - if you haven't done anything and you don't even have a clue what
>> they are talking about, it usually can only get worse. Apart from that,
>> the
>> day they wanted me to come I was not even in town.
>>
>> In early September I received a penalty order ("Strafbefehl") - from the
>> court. A judge found me guilty of having ordered a gift voucher (value:
>> 51
>> EUR) on amazon.de, providing address details of a living person (but not
>> myself obviously), and using a Web.de email address registered
>> specifically
>> for this purpose. I was sentenced to pay a fine of 500 EUR.
>>
>> Because I hadn't ordered the voucher, I appealed ("form- und
>> fristgerechter
>> Einspruch") to that penalty order, which led - according to German laws -
>> to
>> an actual trial. This trial was held today.
>>
>> While the penalty order listed four witnesses (the person whose address
>> details had been used, a police officer in a cow town near that person's
>> home hometown, a local police officer, and an employee of amazon.de), the
>> summoning ("Ladung") to the actual trial didn't list any witnesses at
>> all. I
>> had been a lay assessor ("Schoeffe") for four years in Germany (but in a
>> different part of the country), so I knew that this usually would be a
>> good
>> sign as the judge(s) during the actual trial wouldn't have much more than
>> the defendant's testimony (and of course the records) to rely on.
>>
>> Well, it turned out to be the exact opposite of what I had expected. They
>> had absolutely no doubts that I was at least somehow guilty. I explained
>> in
>> great detail what Tor is and what it is used for, and the judge asked me:
>> "Is this illegal?" Wow - shouldn't she know?! I replied "No, of course
>> not.
>> Otherwise I wouldn't do it."
>>
>> The judge and the public prosecutor realized soon that I probably wasn't
>> the
>> originator of the transaction in question. But instead of realizing the
>> faults of the police and the public prosecutor's department (German laws
>> say
>> that they have to investigate *all* aspects of a crime and not just find
>> someone that seems to be somehow guilty at first sight), they tried to
>> construct a case of aiding and abetting ("Beihilfe") - they insisted that
>> I
>> most probably set up my node in order to help people committing crimes.
>> Or
>> at least I accepted that people would commit crimes using my Tor node. I
>> asked "What about a postal service that delivers i.e. a bomb or a
>> blackmail
>> letter? Do they help people committing crimes as well?" They said that
>> these
>> two things could not be compared as a postal service offers
>> transportation
>> services whereas I offer anonymization services.
>>
>> To make a long story short: The judge as well as the public
Re: court trial against me - the outcome
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Andrew Del Vecchio wrote: > Mark, > In absentia was always there, it just wasn't SOP like it is now. BTW, > are you familiar with jury nullification? It was a victim of the last > round of substance prohibition in the 20s and 30s. Essentially, jurors > have the (no longer honored) right to find a defendant 'not guilty' if > they feel that the law he is accused of breaking is BS. See > http://fija.org/ for more details. > > ~Andrew (much snippage) It's a shame they don't have that right any more. Laws have a purpose IMO, but they should go only as far as is absolutely necessary. - -- F. Fox CompTIA A+, Net+, Security+ -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFHS2jLbgkxCAzYBCMRAlSOAJ4/jZkKq90Vf1N/4wkVA5ouDMK6hQCePLhA wiVmnptp8rO/kjp1IDdjPy4= =ItIV -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: court trial against me - the outcome
There is this old tenet that frogs in water that is gradually heated don't notice they are being boiled alive. This is what is happening to America. The changes are not coming quickly or severely enough for our apathetic, somewhat stupid populace to be alarmed enough to do something. Either that and/or we are too cowardly to act. It is a pity because America was founded on great principles, at least on paper. What a shame we are allowing a corrupt government and political system to rob us of our Constitution and our heritage. The internet is coming increasingly under attack. How much longer will it take before the dark forces that are stealing our rights away have total control over the internet, our use of it and our privacy? I see alot of web pages and rhetoric, but only a few are taking actions, which is understandable considering the heavy handedness of our present governments towards Citizens who go against the grain. To Andrew, I am familiar with jury nullification and believe in it as something that should be regularily implemented. The judges and prosecutors of course HATE this and will do just about anything they can to stop it's practice. Best course is to keep your mouth shut and practice nullification without they're even knowing it. Difficult to do when 11 + a judge and court personnel are pressuring you to vote their way. On Mon, 26 Nov 2007 16:46:03 -0800, "F. Fox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > Andrew Del Vecchio wrote: > > Mark, > > In absentia was always there, it just wasn't SOP like it is now. BTW, > > are you familiar with jury nullification? It was a victim of the last > > round of substance prohibition in the 20s and 30s. Essentially, jurors > > have the (no longer honored) right to find a defendant 'not guilty' if > > they feel that the law he is accused of breaking is BS. See > > http://fija.org/ for more details. > > > > ~Andrew > (much snippage) > > It's a shame they don't have that right any more. > > Laws have a purpose IMO, but they should go only as far as is absolutely > necessary. > > - -- > F. Fox > CompTIA A+, Net+, Security+ > -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux) > Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org > > iD8DBQFHS2jLbgkxCAzYBCMRAlSOAJ4/jZkKq90Vf1N/4wkVA5ouDMK6hQCePLhA > wiVmnptp8rO/kjp1IDdjPy4= > =ItIV > -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- http://www.fastmail.fm - mmm... Fastmail...
Re: court trial against me - the outcome
Hi Mark, everyone, On Nov 26, 2007 5:01 PM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > There is this old tenet that frogs in water that is gradually heated > don't notice they are being boiled alive. This is what is happening to > America. The changes are not coming quickly or severely enough for our > apathetic, somewhat stupid populace to be alarmed enough to do > something. Either that and/or we are too cowardly to act. It is a pity > because America was founded on great principles, at least on paper. What > a shame we are allowing a corrupt government and political system to rob > us of our Constitution and our heritage. The internet is coming > increasingly under attack. How much longer will it take before the dark > forces that are stealing our rights away have total control over the > internet, our use of it and our privacy? I see alot of web pages and > rhetoric, but only a few are taking actions, which is understandable > considering the heavy handedness of our present governments towards > Citizens who go against the grain. > As an US citizen and Tor user I fully agree with you Mark. I've been greatly saddened the past few years to see our constitutionally declared freedoms eroded away by a corrupt government. While there are plenty of us who are still alert and doing what we can, the vast bulk of of US population reminds me of the sheep in Orwell's "Animal Farm". Concerning Tor and the Internet,I think it's extremely important that we find and maintain secure, private means to communicate and make use of the Web. My hat is off to the developers of Tor and other software aimed to keep us free. -- Patrick <<< sick and tired of hearing "Safety Good, Freedom Bad, Safety...
Re: court trial against me - the outcome
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Two words: Ron Paul 8-) Patrick Hooker wrote: >> > As an US citizen and Tor user I fully agree with you Mark. I've been > greatly saddened the past few years to see our constitutionally > declared freedoms eroded away by a corrupt government. While there are > plenty of us who are still alert and doing what we can, the vast bulk > of of US population reminds me of the sheep in Orwell's "Animal Farm". > Concerning Tor and the Internet,I think it's extremely important that > we find and maintain secure, private means to communicate and make use > of the Web. My hat is off to the developers of Tor and other software > aimed to keep us free. - -- Tired of building crappy websites? Site Rubix makes professional web design easy, fast, and fun! Visit http://site-rubix.rapidnetmarketing.com/ -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFHS89cgwZR2XMkZmQRAtsbAKC7knPE3/3whydUxmIqDKh2JteQTgCgoqSW cCgKUpgBqsPXSsltO+ueEKU= =hqlI -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: court trial against me - the outcome
Patrick Hooker wrote: > Hi Mark, everyone, (much snippage) > While there are > plenty of us who are still alert and doing what we can, the vast bulk > of of US population reminds me of the sheep in Orwell's "Animal Farm". > Concerning Tor and the Internet,I think it's extremely important that > we find and maintain secure, private means to communicate and make use > of the Web. My hat is off to the developers of Tor and other software > aimed to keep us free. Hehe - interesting that I've used the "sheep" analogy before myself. It's the whole idea that most people are simply sheep, following blindly the guidance of a few (at least semi-) charismatic "shepherds." -- F. Fox Owner of node "kitsune" CompTIA A+, Net+, Security+
Re: court trial against me - the outcome
On Mon, 26 Nov 2007 16:46:03 -0800 "F. Fox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Andrew Del Vecchio wrote: >> Mark, >> In absentia was always there, it just wasn't SOP like it is now. BTW, >> are you familiar with jury nullification? It was a victim of the last >> round of substance prohibition in the 20s and 30s. Essentially, jurors >> have the (no longer honored) right to find a defendant 'not guilty' if >> they feel that the law he is accused of breaking is BS. See >> http://fija.org/ for more details. >> >> ~Andrew >(much snippage) > >It's a shame they don't have that right any more. Where did you get that idea? In all countries with juries modeled upon or descended from the English common law juries, nullification is still an option available to juries. Moreover, it is the *duty* of jurors to exercise it in appropriate situations. The U.S. is a special case of such countries in that an acquittal is final and unreviewable by any court. The "no double jeopardy" clause of Amendment VII to the Constitution for the United States of America was put there to prevent retrials of charges against persons for which those persons have been acquitted, an abuse that still goes on today in Canada and England. Nevertheless, jury nullification is a legitimate duty of jurors in standing between the state and the individual, in which the state must get the permission of a cross-section of the populace to administer punishments, to prevent abuses, even in countries where the state can keep retrying its victims with jury after jury until it finds a jury that will convict. The delays and expense involved can keep an innocent person alive at least that much longer and may eventually cause the state to give up its prosecution of the charge(s) against that individual. Colonial juries often protected colonists against the Crown's abuses, which lead to creation of courts of admiralty (known today as administrative law courts, now unconstitutional yet upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court), which did not use juries. I gather that such courts resemble the court that Mirko faced in Germany. I don't know enough about Germany's judicial system to know whether any trials there use juries of peers today, but it is noteworthy that the 1500-year-old English tradition of trial by peers was brought to England by the Saxons. If it no longer survives in Germany, then that is tragic. In any case, tor server operators in the U.K., the U.S. of A., Canada, and Australia need to be informed of their rights should they ever serve on juries. Although a prosecutor might eliminate them from a jury trying a case against another tor server operator, it is entirely possible that the prosecutor might not think to ask the potential jurors whether they knew about tor. It is also in the interests of tor server operators in these countries to help spread the information about jurors' rights throughout the general populations to increase the chances of getting at least one informed juror selected to serve as a juror in any particular trial of a tor server operator. > >Laws have a purpose IMO, but they should go only as far as is absolutely >necessary. > Naturally, the peoples of the various countries have their own views of the laws of their countries, and those views may agree or disagree with the views of prosecutors in those countries. Where juries of peers are trying the cases, juries have the power and the duty to correct the prosecutors. In the U.S., juries successfully undermined the Fugitive Slave Act, alcohol prohibition, and other abuses by refusing to convict, thereby refusing to confirm the actions of the Congresses that had passed those Acts. If this option is not available to the people of Germany, then they may wish to reconsider, and possibly revise, the current form of their judicial system. After all, governments only legitimately exist to serve the People. When and where they are not serving the People, they are obviously illegitimate. Scott Bennett, Comm. ASMELG, CFIAG ** * Internet: bennett at cs.niu.edu * ** * "A well regulated and disciplined militia, is at all times a good * * objection to the introduction of that bane of all free governments * * -- a standing army." * *-- Gov. John Hancock, New York Journal, 28 January 1790 * **
Re: court trial against me - the outcome
I agree. But here is what one judge in Colorado did to a juror who told others about nullification: http://www.levellers.org/jrp/orig/jrp.natllawj.htm She was jailed for a period of time and after a lengthy defense, eventually release. The question maybe we should be asking is not "what are the rules" but "how are we going to take back our Country and Freedom"? I, for one, do not trust government employees, who are frequently the bottom of the barrel, imnsho, to decide what is legal and what is not legal. On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 19:22:46 -0600 (CST), "Scott Bennett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > On Mon, 26 Nov 2007 16:46:03 -0800 "F. Fox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > >Andrew Del Vecchio wrote: > >> Mark, > >>In absentia was always there, it just wasn't SOP like it is now. BTW, > >> are you familiar with jury nullification? It was a victim of the last > >> round of substance prohibition in the 20s and 30s. Essentially, jurors > >> have the (no longer honored) right to find a defendant 'not guilty' if > >> they feel that the law he is accused of breaking is BS. See > >> http://fija.org/ for more details. > >> > >> ~Andrew > >(much snippage) > > > >It's a shame they don't have that right any more. > > Where did you get that idea? In all countries with juries modeled > upon > or descended from the English common law juries, nullification is still > an > option available to juries. Moreover, it is the *duty* of jurors to > exercise > it in appropriate situations. The U.S. is a special case of such > countries > in that an acquittal is final and unreviewable by any court. The "no > double > jeopardy" clause of Amendment VII to the Constitution for the United > States > of America was put there to prevent retrials of charges against persons > for > which those persons have been acquitted, an abuse that still goes on > today > in Canada and England. Nevertheless, jury nullification is a legitimate > duty of jurors in standing between the state and the individual, in which > the state must get the permission of a cross-section of the populace to > administer punishments, to prevent abuses, even in countries where the > state > can keep retrying its victims with jury after jury until it finds a jury > that > will convict. The delays and expense involved can keep an innocent > person > alive at least that much longer and may eventually cause the state to > give up > its prosecution of the charge(s) against that individual. > Colonial juries often protected colonists against the Crown's > abuses, > which lead to creation of courts of admiralty (known today as > administrative > law courts, now unconstitutional yet upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court), > which > did not use juries. I gather that such courts resemble the court that > Mirko > faced in Germany. I don't know enough about Germany's judicial system to > know > whether any trials there use juries of peers today, but it is noteworthy > that > the 1500-year-old English tradition of trial by peers was brought to > England > by the Saxons. If it no longer survives in Germany, then that is tragic. > In any case, tor server operators in the U.K., the U.S. of A., > Canada, > and Australia need to be informed of their rights should they ever serve > on > juries. Although a prosecutor might eliminate them from a jury trying a > case > against another tor server operator, it is entirely possible that the > prosecutor might not think to ask the potential jurors whether they knew > about > tor. It is also in the interests of tor server operators in these > countries > to help spread the information about jurors' rights throughout the > general > populations to increase the chances of getting at least one informed > juror > selected to serve as a juror in any particular trial of a tor server > operator. > > > >Laws have a purpose IMO, but they should go only as far as is absolutely > >necessary. > > > Naturally, the peoples of the various countries have their own views > of > the laws of their countries, and those views may agree or disagree with > the > views of prosecutors in those countries. Where juries of peers are > trying > the cases, juries have the power and the duty to correct the prosecutors. > In the U.S., juries successfully undermined the Fugitive Slave Act, > alcohol > prohibition, and other abuses by refusing to convict, thereby refusing to > confirm the actions of the Congresses that had passed those Acts. If > this > option is not available to the people of Germany, then they may wish to > reconsider, and possibly revise, the current form of their judicial > system. > After all, governments only legitimately exist to serve the People. > When and where they are not serving the People, they are obviously > illegitimate. > > > Scott Bennett, Comm. ASMELG, CFIAG > ** > * Internet: benn
Re: court trial against me - the outcome
On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 13:10:43 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote >I agree. But here is what one judge in Colorado did to a juror who told Agree with what? Some context would help here. >others about nullification: >http://www.levellers.org/jrp/orig/jrp.natllawj.htm > >She was jailed for a period of time and after a lengthy defense, >eventually release. Laura Kriho was definitely victimized by both judge and prosecution. My recollection is that she was not jailed for more than a few hours at most, but that memory could be faulty. The judge took many months to get around to issuing a decision. Colorado law places a time limit upon judges for such decisions. If the time limit is exceeded, the law says the judge forfeits his/her salary for that quarter and must return the money to the state. AFAIK, Judge Nieto never returned the money and is probably guilty of defrauding the state of Colorado or some similar charge, but he will not likely ever be prosecuted or removed from office for his offenses. As tyranny advances, it becomes more painful for those who would resist it. If the tyrants are not corrected, then eventually their policies toward resisters become so draconian that a majority of the people finds the situation intolerable. What happens next after that is always a gamble. Like going to the dentist to get the cavities filled before they get so bad that they necessitate extracting the teeth, it is better to resist like Laura Kriho did when resisting is not life-threatening than to let the situation deteriorate to the point where the situation *becomes* life- threatening. > >The question maybe we should be asking is not "what are the rules" but >"how are we going to take back our Country and Freedom"? I, for one, do >not trust government employees, who are frequently the bottom of the >barrel, imnsho, to decide what is legal and what is not legal. > You will recall that the Founders left us four boxes to use in defense of our freedom, right? There are many countries wherein the People are denied all of those boxes, so we in the U.S. are among the fortunate. It is up to us to use those boxes as needed and as appropriate. Box #2 appears to have been circumvented at last by one branch of the War Party, and the other branch is undoubtedly beside itself with desperation to gain the use of the same technology. That still leaves us boxes #1 and #3 to use for now. tor is one technology that helps us to hang onto that first box. PGP is another. I hope that we don't have to open box #4, but it may well be that some individuals have already opened it once or twice in recent years. We do have the historical record of the Battle of Athens that occurred shortly after the end of World War II, so we know that it has happened on a larger scale within living memory as well, but that sort of thing really has to be the last resort. Use tor, and stay informed! [stepping down from box #1...] Scott Bennett, Comm. ASMELG, CFIAG ** * Internet: bennett at cs.niu.edu * ** * "A well regulated and disciplined militia, is at all times a good * * objection to the introduction of that bane of all free governments * * -- a standing army." * *-- Gov. John Hancock, New York Journal, 28 January 1790 * **
Re: court trial against me - the outcome
On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 19:05:00 -0600 (CST), "Scott Bennett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 13:10:43 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote > > >I agree. But here is what one judge in Colorado did to a juror who told Agree that jury nullification is a right and should be exercised. > > Agree with what? Some context would help here. > > >others about nullification: > >http://www.levellers.org/jrp/orig/jrp.natllawj.htm > > > >She was jailed for a period of time and after a lengthy defense, > >eventually release. > > Laura Kriho was definitely victimized by both judge and prosecution. > My recollection is that she was not jailed for more than a few hours at > most, but that memory could be faulty. The judge took many months to get > around to issuing a decision. Colorado law places a time limit upon > judges > for such decisions. If the time limit is exceeded, the law says the > judge > forfeits his/her salary for that quarter and must return the money to the > state. AFAIK, Judge Nieto never returned the money and is probably > guilty > of defrauding the state of Colorado or some similar charge, but he will > not likely ever be prosecuted or removed from office for his offenses. > As tyranny advances, it becomes more painful for those who would > resist it. If the tyrants are not corrected, then eventually their > policies > toward resisters become so draconian that a majority of the people finds > the situation intolerable. What happens next after that is always a > gamble. > Like going to the dentist to get the cavities filled before they get so > bad > that they necessitate extracting the teeth, it is better to resist like > Laura Kriho did when resisting is not life-threatening than to let the > situation deteriorate to the point where the situation *becomes* life- > threatening. > > > >The question maybe we should be asking is not "what are the rules" but > >"how are we going to take back our Country and Freedom"? I, for one, do > >not trust government employees, who are frequently the bottom of the > >barrel, imnsho, to decide what is legal and what is not legal. > > > You will recall that the Founders left us four boxes to use in > defense > of our freedom, right? There are many countries wherein the People are > denied all of those boxes, so we in the U.S. are among the fortunate. It > is up to us to use those boxes as needed and as appropriate. Box #2 > appears > to have been circumvented at last by one branch of the War Party, and the > other branch is undoubtedly beside itself with desperation to gain the > use > of the same technology. That still leaves us boxes #1 and #3 to use for > now. tor is one technology that helps us to hang onto that first box. > PGP > is another. > I hope that we don't have to open box #4, but it may well be that > some individuals have already opened it once or twice in recent years. > We > do have the historical record of the Battle of Athens that occurred > shortly > after the end of World War II, so we know that it has happened on a > larger > scale within living memory as well, but that sort of thing really has to > be > the last resort. Use tor, and stay informed! > [stepping down from box #1...] > > > Scott Bennett, Comm. ASMELG, CFIAG > ** > * Internet: bennett at cs.niu.edu * > ** > * "A well regulated and disciplined militia, is at all times a good * > * objection to the introduction of that bane of all free governments * > * -- a standing army." * > *-- Gov. John Hancock, New York Journal, 28 January 1790 * > ** -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- http://www.fastmail.fm - The professional email service
Why Are We Waiting for the Cavalry to Ride In? (was Re: court trial against me - the outcome)
On Wednesday 14 November 2007 14:22:29 Mirko Thiesen wrote: > I > asked "What about a postal service that delivers i.e. a bomb or a blackmail > letter? Do they help people committing crimes as well?" They said that > these two things could not be compared as a postal service offers > transportation services whereas I offer anonymization services. > First of all, well done and keep up the good work. Secondly, your case is proof, if proof were needed, that Tor is still a project without a rock-solid layman's analogy. Every Tor server operator that ends up explaining Tor to a non-technical or even just plain skeptical audience will encounter the same problem until the crack of doom unless we all put our heads together and document one. Here is my stab to get things rolling: "Why should Internet usage be anonymous? Because almost everything else in our life (e.g. TV, radio, the postal system, telephony, cash) has a great deal of anonymity built in. Imagine being asked to sign your name at the newsagents every time you buy a newspaper or being asked to fill out and sign a form detailing every radio program you listen to? What would your response be? Well, newspaper websites and internet radio broadcasters take your signature every time you use them. The information that establishes what you have listened to and what you have read on the internet is logged and stored centrally. So unlike the real world, the internet has no privacy built in. You are made to sign for everything. So unless you are proposing that we should sign a docket every time we read a newspaper article, unless you believe that paper money should be abolished because it allows people to purchase goods without creating a permanent record then you must believe that the same right to privacy we enjoy in a world with cash, radio, and television pertains in a world with cash, radio, television plus the internet. " Thirdly, Tor operators of the world need to unite. The Tor project is not our daddy. There is no Tor Project cavalry over the hill about to ride in with a coachload of free lawyers. We need to establish a fighting fund for exactly these sorts of cases. This fund needs to be managed by a compaign group in such a way that it doesn't undermine the anonymity of the network we all help provide. I believe informal ad-hoc donations won't cut it. There needs to be an organized body that can accumulate wisdom, develop public credibility and even distribute funds to cover basic legal costs or more. This could be organized along the following lines: * The organization would be on a subscription basis. X euro/dollars a year. * The organization would accept donations of all sorts. * The organization would be registered as a campaign group/NGO (or whatever is appropriate) in as many countries as possible. This will require a country representative in as many countries as possible. * Every subscribed member will be entitled to whatever the organization can afford within some reasonable minimum/maximum of protection. * Maybe the organization could negotiate and take out some sort of legal insurance on behalf of it's members? What sort of insurance would be appropriate? Is there such a thing? I don't think any of the above is pie-in-the-sky. Tor server operators aren't anonymous. They already communicate/collaborate with each other regularly on IRC and this mailing list. When a tor operator is 'hassled by the feds' they deserve a lot more than tea and sympathy on or-talk. They deserve the resources of an organized association that has funds, expertise and a bit of a clout to ride in and back them up. Maybe we can wait for George Soros to read about Tor for that to happen, or maybe we can get organized and start defending something we clearly all believe in. There are all-sorts operating tor servers on this list. Who can tell us what concrete steps we need to take to set up a Tor Operator NGO? What's the best way of incorporating/associating ourselves? What sort of insurance could such an organization arrange? How could we do all this without turning the network into some kind of cadre? Yours from the moral high ground, ;) Robert signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: Why Are We Waiting for the Cavalry to Ride In? (was Re: court trial against me - the outcome)
On Wed, Nov 14, 2007 at 07:55:12PM +, Robert Hogan wrote: > Secondly, your case is proof, if proof were needed, that Tor is still a > project without a rock-solid layman's analogy. Every Tor server operator that > ends up explaining Tor to a non-technical or even just plain skeptical > audience will encounter the same problem until the crack of doom unless we > all put our heads together and document one. Agreed. Part of the challenge here is that different analogies work for different people. Explaining why anonymity is useful for individuals in the US may not quite be the same as for individuals in Europe, and is probably quite different than for individuals in Guatemala. And explaining it for law enforcement is different from explaining it for road warrior executives is diferent from soldiers ... Some of the technically oriented folks don't like "dumbed down" analogies, because while they may do a great job at explaining some aspects of Tor, they mislead the reader about other aspects of Tor. On the flip side, we haven't found an analogy that is technically accurate and not misleading, yet can be given in a single sentence. We get half a million hits each day on the website; I bet we could do a lot better job at teaching our audience about privacy issues on the Internet than we do now. I've been pondering for a little while that maybe we should run a 'Tor analogy competition', akin to the GUI competition we ran a few years back. I have no idea who would judge it though. > Thirdly, Tor operators of the world need to unite. The Tor project is not our > daddy. There is no Tor Project cavalry over the hill about to ride in with a > coachload of free lawyers. We need to establish a fighting fund for exactly > these sorts of cases. This fund needs to be managed by a compaign group in > such a way that it doesn't undermine the anonymity of the network we all help > provide. I believe informal ad-hoc donations won't cut it. There needs to be > an organized body that can accumulate wisdom, develop public credibility and > even distribute funds to cover basic legal costs or more. I think you should divide the above suggestion into two pieces. I am all for creating an information center to teach people how to explain Tor, to hook them up with lawyers in their area, to give contact info for law enforcement in their area who have already seen a Tor talk, to explain some of what will hopefully one day be regarded as common sense (such as "if the police think you might be a criminal and ask you to explain to them how the Internet works, and you ignore them, they're probably to keep thinking you're a criminal"), and to actively build a local community of educatied lawyers, law enforcement, etc. There are quite a few lawyers in the US who would be happy to give advice (see Tor's legal FAQ), and we know some in Germany and other countries. For example, I send anybody with a legal question in Germany to Julius Mittenzwei, and hopefully he introduces them to useful people after that. It would be good to have more volunteers than just Julius that we can send people to. And it would be great to have more coordinators than just in the US and Germany -- there are other countries than these two, after all. But as I've found over the past few years, you really really need a coordinator inside each country who knows the right people and keeps track of local policies and laws. Somebody who knows all the coordinators, and who travels a lot and can keep up to speed on a lot of the issues, would be useful to help coordinate the coordinators. I'll continue to do what I can do to help, but I fear I'm wearing rather too many hats these days as it is. So yes, organizing better would be fabulous, along with then educating people more about the fact that people *are* organized. But collecting money and promising to fund the defense of anybody who gets in trouble? That brings in a host of complexities. No group of lawyers I've ever met promises to defend people before they've heard about the specifics of the case and the defendant. It simply wouldn't make sense for them to make a blanket promise only to find out later on that the defendant has some side hobby or past history that undermines the case. So I would argue that you already would have a huge challenge, and would do what most needs to be done, even if there aren't any funds being distributed. Hope that helps, --Roger
