[tor-talk] William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if you can.

[Eugen Leitl]

- Forwarded message from Chris  -

From: Chris 
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2012 08:04:02 -0500
To: NANOG list 
Subject: William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if you
can.

I'm not William and a friend pasted a link on IRC to me. I'm going to
send him a few bucks because I know how it feels to get blindsided by
the police on one random day and your world is turned upside down.

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

>From the URL:

Yes, it happened to me now as well - Yesterday i got raided for
someone sharing child pornography over one of my Tor exits.
I'm good so far, not in jail, but all my computers and hardware have
been confiscated.
(20 computers, 100TB+ storage, My Tablets/Consoles/Phones)

If convicted i could face up to 6 years in jail, of course i do not
want that and i also want to try to set a legal base for running Tor
exit nodes in Austria or even the EU.

Sadly we have nothing like the EFF here that could help me in this
case by legal assistance, so i'm on my own and require a good lawyer.
Thus i'm accepting donations for my legal expenses which i expect to
be around 5000-1 EUR.

If you can i would appreciate if you could donate a bit (every amount
helps, even the smallest) either by PayPal (any currency is ok):
https://paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=2Q4LZNBBD7EH4

Or by Bank Transfer (EUR only please):

Holder: William Weber
Bank: EasyBank AG (Vienna, Austria)
Account: 20011351213
Bank sort number: 14200
IBAN: AT031420020011351213
BIC: EASYATW1

I will try to pay them back when i'm out of this (or even before) but
i can obviously not guarantee this, please keep this in mind.
This money will only be used for legal expenses related to this case.

If you have any questions or want to donate by another way
(MoneyBookers, Webmoney, Bitcoin, Liberty Reserve, Neteller) feel free
to send me a mail (will...@william.si) or a PM, or contact me in LET
IRC.

Thanks!
William




--
--C

"The dumber people think you are, the more surprised they're going to
be when you kill them." - Sir William Clayton

- End forwarded message -
-- 
Eugen* Leitl http://leitl.org";>leitl http://leitl.org
__
ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE
___
tor-talk mailing list
tor-talk@lists.torproject.org
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk

Re: [tor-talk] William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if you can.

[David Carlson]

Has anyone checked to see whether this is another scam? If not, send me some 
too.





From: Eugen Leitl 
To: tor-talk@lists.torproject.org
Sent: Thu, November 29, 2012 7:59:12 AM
Subject: [tor-talk] William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help 
if you can.

- Forwarded message from Chris  -

From: Chris 
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2012 08:04:02 -0500
To: NANOG list 
Subject: William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if you
can.

I'm not William and a friend pasted a link on IRC to me. I'm going to
send him a few bucks because I know how it feels to get blindsided by
the police on one random day and your world is turned upside down.

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


>From the URL:

Yes, it happened to me now as well - Yesterday i got raided for
someone sharing child pornography over one of my Tor exits.
I'm good so far, not in jail, but all my computers and hardware have
been confiscated.
(20 computers, 100TB+ storage, My Tablets/Consoles/Phones)

If convicted i could face up to 6 years in jail, of course i do not
want that and i also want to try to set a legal base for running Tor
exit nodes in Austria or even the EU.

Sadly we have nothing like the EFF here that could help me in this
case by legal assistance, so i'm on my own and require a good lawyer.
Thus i'm accepting donations for my legal expenses which i expect to
be around 5000-1 EUR.

If you can i would appreciate if you could donate a bit (every amount
helps, even the smallest) either by PayPal (any currency is ok):
https://paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=2Q4LZNBBD7EH4

Or by Bank Transfer (EUR only please):

Holder: William Weber
Bank: EasyBank AG (Vienna, Austria)
Account: 20011351213
Bank sort number: 14200
IBAN: AT031420020011351213
BIC: EASYATW1

I will try to pay them back when i'm out of this (or even before) but
i can obviously not guarantee this, please keep this in mind.
This money will only be used for legal expenses related to this case.

If you have any questions or want to donate by another way
(MoneyBookers, Webmoney, Bitcoin, Liberty Reserve, Neteller) feel free
to send me a mail (will...@william.si) or a PM, or contact me in LET
IRC.

Thanks!
William




--
--C

"The dumber people think you are, the more surprised they're going to
be when you kill them." - Sir William Clayton

- End forwarded message -
-- 
Eugen* Leitl leitl'>http://leitl.org";>leitl http://leitl.org
__
ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE
___
tor-talk mailing list
tor-talk@lists.torproject.org
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk
___
tor-talk mailing list
tor-talk@lists.torproject.org
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk

Re: [tor-talk] William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if you can.

[morphium]

Hi,

I think it isn't scam, because William has contacted the
torservers.net team, too (in german, not asking for money, but for a
recommendation for a lawyer in .at).

Best regards
morphium

2012/11/29 David Carlson :
> Has anyone checked to see whether this is another scam? If not, send me some
> too.
>
>
>
>
> 
> From: Eugen Leitl 
> To: tor-talk@lists.torproject.org
> Sent: Thu, November 29, 2012 7:59:12 AM
> Subject: [tor-talk] William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please 
> help
> if you can.
>
> - Forwarded message from Chris  -
>
> From: Chris 
> Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2012 08:04:02 -0500
> To: NANOG list 
> Subject: William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if you
> can.
>
> I'm not William and a friend pasted a link on IRC to me. I'm going to
> send him a few bucks because I know how it feels to get blindsided by
> the police on one random day and your world is turned upside down.
>
> Source:
> http://www.lowendtalk.com/discussion/6283/raided-for-running-a-tor-exit-accepting-donations-for-legal-expenses
>
>
> >From the URL:
>
> Yes, it happened to me now as well - Yesterday i got raided for
> someone sharing child pornography over one of my Tor exits.
> I'm good so far, not in jail, but all my computers and hardware have
> been confiscated.
> (20 computers, 100TB+ storage, My Tablets/Consoles/Phones)
>
> If convicted i could face up to 6 years in jail, of course i do not
> want that and i also want to try to set a legal base for running Tor
> exit nodes in Austria or even the EU.
>
> Sadly we have nothing like the EFF here that could help me in this
> case by legal assistance, so i'm on my own and require a good lawyer.
> Thus i'm accepting donations for my legal expenses which i expect to
> be around 5000-1 EUR.
>
> If you can i would appreciate if you could donate a bit (every amount
> helps, even the smallest) either by PayPal (any currency is ok):
> https://paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=2Q4LZNBBD7EH4
>
> Or by Bank Transfer (EUR only please):
>
> Holder: William Weber
> Bank: EasyBank AG (Vienna, Austria)
> Account: 20011351213
> Bank sort number: 14200
> IBAN: AT031420020011351213
> BIC: EASYATW1
>
> I will try to pay them back when i'm out of this (or even before) but
> i can obviously not guarantee this, please keep this in mind.
> This money will only be used for legal expenses related to this case.
>
> If you have any questions or want to donate by another way
> (MoneyBookers, Webmoney, Bitcoin, Liberty Reserve, Neteller) feel free
> to send me a mail (will...@william.si) or a PM, or contact me in LET
> IRC.
>
> Thanks!
> William
>
>
>
>
> --
> --C
>
> "The dumber people think you are, the more surprised they're going to
> be when you kill them." - Sir William Clayton
>
> - End forwarded message -
> --
> Eugen* Leitl leitl'>http://leitl.org";>leitl http://leitl.org
> __
> ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org
> 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE
> ___
> tor-talk mailing list
> tor-talk@lists.torproject.org
> https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk
> ___
> tor-talk mailing list
> tor-talk@lists.torproject.org
> https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk



-- 
morphium - morph...@jabber.ccc.de - 113332157
http://identi.ca/morphium - http://twitter.com/morphium86
___
tor-talk mailing list
tor-talk@lists.torproject.org
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk

Re: [tor-talk] William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if you can.

[Flo]

Just give us a few hours, we are working on some articles, proof, etc

David Carlson schrieb:

Has anyone checked to see whether this is another scam? If not, send me some
too.





From: Eugen Leitl
To: tor-talk@lists.torproject.org
Sent: Thu, November 29, 2012 7:59:12 AM
Subject: [tor-talk] William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help
if you can.

- Forwarded message from Chris  -

From: Chris
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2012 08:04:02 -0500
To: NANOG list
Subject: William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if you
 can.

I'm not William and a friend pasted a link on IRC to me. I'm going to
send him a few bucks because I know how it feels to get blindsided by
the police on one random day and your world is turned upside down.

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



From the URL:


Yes, it happened to me now as well - Yesterday i got raided for
someone sharing child pornography over one of my Tor exits.
I'm good so far, not in jail, but all my computers and hardware have
been confiscated.
(20 computers, 100TB+ storage, My Tablets/Consoles/Phones)

If convicted i could face up to 6 years in jail, of course i do not
want that and i also want to try to set a legal base for running Tor
exit nodes in Austria or even the EU.

Sadly we have nothing like the EFF here that could help me in this
case by legal assistance, so i'm on my own and require a good lawyer.
Thus i'm accepting donations for my legal expenses which i expect to
be around 5000-1 EUR.

If you can i would appreciate if you could donate a bit (every amount
helps, even the smallest) either by PayPal (any currency is ok):
https://paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=2Q4LZNBBD7EH4

Or by Bank Transfer (EUR only please):

Holder: William Weber
Bank: EasyBank AG (Vienna, Austria)
Account: 20011351213
Bank sort number: 14200
IBAN: AT031420020011351213
BIC: EASYATW1

I will try to pay them back when i'm out of this (or even before) but
i can obviously not guarantee this, please keep this in mind.
This money will only be used for legal expenses related to this case.

If you have any questions or want to donate by another way
(MoneyBookers, Webmoney, Bitcoin, Liberty Reserve, Neteller) feel free
to send me a mail (will...@william.si) or a PM, or contact me in LET
IRC.

Thanks!
William




--
--C

"The dumber people think you are, the more surprised they're going to
be when you kill them." - Sir William Clayton

- End forwarded message -

___
tor-talk mailing list
tor-talk@lists.torproject.org
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk

Re: [tor-talk] William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if you can.

[SiNA Rabbani]

perhaps we can ask William for his exit node fingerprint or IP to verify?
I'd like to make a donation if I can confirm the message.
On Nov 29, 2012 6:40 AM, "David Carlson"  wrote:

> Has anyone checked to see whether this is another scam? If not, send me
> some
> too.
>
>
>
>
> 
> From: Eugen Leitl 
> To: tor-talk@lists.torproject.org
> Sent: Thu, November 29, 2012 7:59:12 AM
> Subject: [tor-talk] William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please
> help
> if you can.
>
> - Forwarded message from Chris  -
>
> From: Chris 
> Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2012 08:04:02 -0500
> To: NANOG list 
> Subject: William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if you
> can.
>
> I'm not William and a friend pasted a link on IRC to me. I'm going to
> send him a few bucks because I know how it feels to get blindsided by
> the police on one random day and your world is turned upside down.
>
> Source:
>
> http://www.lowendtalk.com/discussion/6283/raided-for-running-a-tor-exit-accepting-donations-for-legal-expenses
>
>
> >From the URL:
>
> Yes, it happened to me now as well - Yesterday i got raided for
> someone sharing child pornography over one of my Tor exits.
> I'm good so far, not in jail, but all my computers and hardware have
> been confiscated.
> (20 computers, 100TB+ storage, My Tablets/Consoles/Phones)
>
> If convicted i could face up to 6 years in jail, of course i do not
> want that and i also want to try to set a legal base for running Tor
> exit nodes in Austria or even the EU.
>
> Sadly we have nothing like the EFF here that could help me in this
> case by legal assistance, so i'm on my own and require a good lawyer.
> Thus i'm accepting donations for my legal expenses which i expect to
> be around 5000-1 EUR.
>
> If you can i would appreciate if you could donate a bit (every amount
> helps, even the smallest) either by PayPal (any currency is ok):
>
> https://paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=2Q4LZNBBD7EH4
>
> Or by Bank Transfer (EUR only please):
>
> Holder: William Weber
> Bank: EasyBank AG (Vienna, Austria)
> Account: 20011351213
> Bank sort number: 14200
> IBAN: AT031420020011351213
> BIC: EASYATW1
>
> I will try to pay them back when i'm out of this (or even before) but
> i can obviously not guarantee this, please keep this in mind.
> This money will only be used for legal expenses related to this case.
>
> If you have any questions or want to donate by another way
> (MoneyBookers, Webmoney, Bitcoin, Liberty Reserve, Neteller) feel free
> to send me a mail (will...@william.si) or a PM, or contact me in LET
> IRC.
>
> Thanks!
> William
>
>
>
>
> --
> --C
>
> "The dumber people think you are, the more surprised they're going to
> be when you kill them." - Sir William Clayton
>
> - End forwarded message -
> --
> Eugen* Leitl leitl'>http://leitl.org";>leitl http://leitl.org
> __
> ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org
> 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE
> ___
> tor-talk mailing list
> tor-talk@lists.torproject.org
> https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk
> ___
> tor-talk mailing list
> tor-talk@lists.torproject.org
> https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk
>
___
tor-talk mailing list
tor-talk@lists.torproject.org
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk

Re: [tor-talk] William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if you can.

[andrew]

On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 02:59:00PM +0100, eu...@leitl.org wrote 2.6K bytes in 
75 lines about:
: Subject: William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if you
:   can.

Thanks for forwarding this Eugen. For the record, we have
https://blog.torproject.org/category/tags/tor-legal-support-directory.
The CCC or torservers are fine places to start. I've also directly
emailed William to offer help.

William will likely need an official letter from Tor stating his IP
address and exit relay was or was not an exit relay at the time in
question (which will be listed on the warrant). And he may need me to
formally describe Tor for either a lawyer, judge, or the police.

These are all steps we at Tor have taken before to help relay opers
support their cases.

-- 
Andrew
http://tpo.is/contact
pgp 0x6B4D6475
___
tor-talk mailing list
tor-talk@lists.torproject.org
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk

Re: [tor-talk] William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if you can.

[Eugen Leitl]

- Forwarded message from Barry Shein  -

From: Barry Shein 
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2012 11:17:27 -0500
To: NANOG list 
Subject: Re: William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if
you can.
X-Mailer: VM 7.07 under Emacs 21.2.2


Back in the early days of the public internet we didn't require any id
to create an account, just that you found a way to pay us. We had
anonymous accts some of whom dropped by personally to pay their bill,
some said hello but I usually didn't know their names and that's how
they wanted it, I'd answer "hello ", whatever their login was
if I recognized them. Some mailed in something, a mail order, even
currency tho that was rare but it did happen, or had someone else drop
by to pay in cash (that is, no idea if they were local.)

LEO occasionally served a warrant for information, usually child porn
biz (more than just accessing child porn, selling it) tho I don't
remember any anonymous accts being involved.

I never expected to be held accountable for anyone's behavior unless I
was knowingly involved somehow (just the usual caveat.) LEO never
showed any particular interest in the fact that we were ok with
anonymous accounts. If I was made aware of illegal activities we'd
shut them off, didn't really happen much, maybe some credible
"hacking" complaint on occasion.

It's funny, it's all illusion like show business. It's not hard to set
up anonymous service, crap, just drop in at any wi-fi hotspot, many
just ask you to click that you accept their T&Cs and you're on. Would
they raid them, I was just using one at a major hospital this week
that was just like that, if someone used that for child porn etc? But
I guess stick your nose out and say you're specifically offering anon
accts and watch out I guess.

-- 
-Barry Shein

The World  | b...@theworld.com   | http://www.TheWorld.com
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 800-THE-WRLD| Dial-Up: US, PR, Canada
Software Tool & Die| Public Access Internet | SINCE 1989 *oo*

- End forwarded message -
-- 
Eugen* Leitl http://leitl.org";>leitl http://leitl.org
__
ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE
___
tor-talk mailing list
tor-talk@lists.torproject.org
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk

Re: [tor-talk] William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if you can.

[Eugen Leitl]

- Forwarded message from Emily Ozols  -

From: Emily Ozols 
Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2012 01:14:08 +1100
To: na...@nanog.org
Subject: Re: William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if
you can.

Hi,

I gotta ask and I'm sure someone would if I didn't, but how do we know
this guy is legit?
He's jumped up on a forum saying, "Hey, police raided me, help. gib
mone plz" and failed to provide and reason as to how he's real and not
just making it up.

Maybe if there's a way to know this guy is legit, I'll help out if
possible, but until then I'm just going to watch others with caution
and I suggest others do as well.

On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 12:04 AM, Chris  wrote:
> I'm not William and a friend pasted a link on IRC to me. I'm going to
> send him a few bucks because I know how it feels to get blindsided by
> the police on one random day and your world is turned upside down.
>
> Source: 
> http://www.lowendtalk.com/discussion/6283/raided-for-running-a-tor-exit-accepting-donations-for-legal-expenses
>
> From the URL:
>
> Yes, it happened to me now as well - Yesterday i got raided for
> someone sharing child pornography over one of my Tor exits.
> I'm good so far, not in jail, but all my computers and hardware have
> been confiscated.
> (20 computers, 100TB+ storage, My Tablets/Consoles/Phones)
>
> If convicted i could face up to 6 years in jail, of course i do not
> want that and i also want to try to set a legal base for running Tor
> exit nodes in Austria or even the EU.
>
> Sadly we have nothing like the EFF here that could help me in this
> case by legal assistance, so i'm on my own and require a good lawyer.
> Thus i'm accepting donations for my legal expenses which i expect to
> be around 5000-1 EUR.
>
> If you can i would appreciate if you could donate a bit (every amount
> helps, even the smallest) either by PayPal (any currency is ok):
> https://paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=2Q4LZNBBD7EH4
>
> Or by Bank Transfer (EUR only please):
>
> Holder: William Weber
> Bank: EasyBank AG (Vienna, Austria)
> Account: 20011351213
> Bank sort number: 14200
> IBAN: AT031420020011351213
> BIC: EASYATW1
>
> I will try to pay them back when i'm out of this (or even before) but
> i can obviously not guarantee this, please keep this in mind.
> This money will only be used for legal expenses related to this case.
>
> If you have any questions or want to donate by another way
> (MoneyBookers, Webmoney, Bitcoin, Liberty Reserve, Neteller) feel free
> to send me a mail (will...@william.si) or a PM, or contact me in LET
> IRC.
>
> Thanks!
> William
>
>
>
>
> --
> --C
>
> "The dumber people think you are, the more surprised they're going to
> be when you kill them." - Sir William Clayton
>



-- 
~Em

- End forwarded message -
-- 
Eugen* Leitl http://leitl.org";>leitl http://leitl.org
__
ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE
___
tor-talk mailing list
tor-talk@lists.torproject.org
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk

Re: [tor-talk] William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if you can.

[Eugen Leitl]

- Forwarded message from Tom Beecher  -

From: Tom Beecher 
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2012 14:18:49 -0500
To: na...@nanog.org
Subject: Re: William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if
you can.
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1;
rv:16.0) Gecko/20121026 Thunderbird/16.0.2

Assuming it's true, it was bound to happen. Running anything , TOR or  
otherwise, that allows strangers to do whatever they want is just folly.

People will spend time and money securing their home wireless so their  
neighbor can't steal their internet, but willingly allow strangers from  
anywhere in the world to use their connections no strings attached. It's  
hilarious.

On 11/29/2012 8:04 AM, Chris wrote:
> I'm not William and a friend pasted a link on IRC to me. I'm going to
> send him a few bucks because I know how it feels to get blindsided by
> the police on one random day and your world is turned upside down.
>
> Source: 
> http://www.lowendtalk.com/discussion/6283/raided-for-running-a-tor-exit-accepting-donations-for-legal-expenses
>
>  From the URL:
>
> Yes, it happened to me now as well - Yesterday i got raided for
> someone sharing child pornography over one of my Tor exits.
> I'm good so far, not in jail, but all my computers and hardware have
> been confiscated.
> (20 computers, 100TB+ storage, My Tablets/Consoles/Phones)
>
> If convicted i could face up to 6 years in jail, of course i do not
> want that and i also want to try to set a legal base for running Tor
> exit nodes in Austria or even the EU.
>
> Sadly we have nothing like the EFF here that could help me in this
> case by legal assistance, so i'm on my own and require a good lawyer.
> Thus i'm accepting donations for my legal expenses which i expect to
> be around 5000-1 EUR.
>
> If you can i would appreciate if you could donate a bit (every amount
> helps, even the smallest) either by PayPal (any currency is ok):
> https://paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=2Q4LZNBBD7EH4
>
> Or by Bank Transfer (EUR only please):
>
> Holder: William Weber
> Bank: EasyBank AG (Vienna, Austria)
> Account: 20011351213
> Bank sort number: 14200
> IBAN: AT031420020011351213
> BIC: EASYATW1
>
> I will try to pay them back when i'm out of this (or even before) but
> i can obviously not guarantee this, please keep this in mind.
> This money will only be used for legal expenses related to this case.
>
> If you have any questions or want to donate by another way
> (MoneyBookers, Webmoney, Bitcoin, Liberty Reserve, Neteller) feel free
> to send me a mail (will...@william.si) or a PM, or contact me in LET
> IRC.
>
> Thanks!
> William
>
>
>
>
> --
> --C
>
> "The dumber people think you are, the more surprised they're going to
> be when you kill them." - Sir William Clayton
>


- End forwarded message -
-- 
Eugen* Leitl http://leitl.org";>leitl http://leitl.org
__
ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE
___
tor-talk mailing list
tor-talk@lists.torproject.org
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk

Re: [tor-talk] William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if you can.

[Eugen Leitl]

- Forwarded message from "Naslund, Steve"  -

From: "Naslund, Steve" 
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2012 13:19:19 -0600
To: na...@nanog.org
Subject: RE: William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if
you can.

I think the best analogy I would use in defense is something like the
pre-paid cellular phones that are sold.  That is about the only
anonymous communications service I can think of off the top of my head.
Problem is that most people are not licensed carriers and may not be
able to hide behind that protection.  

I can see an argument both ways with the feds saying that you are
running a service for the express service of concealing the identity of
a person allowing them to avoid law enforcement (among other uses).  On
the other hand, the makers of guns do not get charged with murder even
though their tool enabled a criminal.  Could go either way but the
problem is that in any case it will be expensive to defend so win or
lose, you lose.  I guess you can't run a Tor exit unless you have a
legal defense fund set up.  I understand the legit uses of Tor but
wonder what the actual percentage of good vs. evil use really is.

Steven Naslund

-Original Message-
From: Barry Shein [mailto:b...@world.std.com] 
Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2012 10:17 AM
To: NANOG list
Subject: Re: William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help
if you can.


Back in the early days of the public internet we didn't require any id
to create an account, just that you found a way to pay us. We had
anonymous accts some of whom dropped by personally to pay their bill,
some said hello but I usually didn't know their names and that's how
they wanted it, I'd answer "hello ", whatever their login was
if I recognized them. Some mailed in something, a mail order, even
currency tho that was rare but it did happen, or had someone else drop
by to pay in cash (that is, no idea if they were local.)

LEO occasionally served a warrant for information, usually child porn
biz (more than just accessing child porn, selling it) tho I don't
remember any anonymous accts being involved.

I never expected to be held accountable for anyone's behavior unless I
was knowingly involved somehow (just the usual caveat.) LEO never showed
any particular interest in the fact that we were ok with anonymous
accounts. If I was made aware of illegal activities we'd shut them off,
didn't really happen much, maybe some credible "hacking" complaint on
occasion.

It's funny, it's all illusion like show business. It's not hard to set
up anonymous service, crap, just drop in at any wi-fi hotspot, many just
ask you to click that you accept their T&Cs and you're on. Would they
raid them, I was just using one at a major hospital this week that was
just like that, if someone used that for child porn etc? But I guess
stick your nose out and say you're specifically offering anon accts and
watch out I guess.

-- 
-Barry Shein

The World  | b...@theworld.com   |
http://www.TheWorld.com
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 800-THE-WRLD| Dial-Up: US, PR,
Canada
Software Tool & Die| Public Access Internet | SINCE 1989
*oo*


- End forwarded message -
-- 
Eugen* Leitl http://leitl.org";>leitl http://leitl.org
__
ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE
___
tor-talk mailing list
tor-talk@lists.torproject.org
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk

Re: [tor-talk] William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if you can.

[Asad Haider]

William will be posting a statement soon which will explain everything
that's happened and give a detailed account of events, along with evidence
including pictures showing the aftermath of the raid in his apartment, as
well as copies of the warrant and inventory of seized items.

He runs a large ISP in Austria and is a well respected member of the
community, a lot of us have already sent in donations.

His blog is https://rdns.im/ and I'm guessing the statement will be posted
on there, I'll send everyone a link once it's finished being written.

On 29 November 2012 19:22, Eugen Leitl  wrote:

> - Forwarded message from Emily Ozols  -
>
> From: Emily Ozols 
> Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2012 01:14:08 +1100
> To: na...@nanog.org
> Subject: Re: William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if
> you can.
>
> Hi,
>
> I gotta ask and I'm sure someone would if I didn't, but how do we know
> this guy is legit?
> He's jumped up on a forum saying, "Hey, police raided me, help. gib
> mone plz" and failed to provide and reason as to how he's real and not
> just making it up.
>
> Maybe if there's a way to know this guy is legit, I'll help out if
> possible, but until then I'm just going to watch others with caution
> and I suggest others do as well.
>
> On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 12:04 AM, Chris  wrote:
> > I'm not William and a friend pasted a link on IRC to me. I'm going to
> > send him a few bucks because I know how it feels to get blindsided by
> > the police on one random day and your world is turned upside down.
> >
> > Source:
> http://www.lowendtalk.com/discussion/6283/raided-for-running-a-tor-exit-accepting-donations-for-legal-expenses
> >
> > From the URL:
> >
> > Yes, it happened to me now as well - Yesterday i got raided for
> > someone sharing child pornography over one of my Tor exits.
> > I'm good so far, not in jail, but all my computers and hardware have
> > been confiscated.
> > (20 computers, 100TB+ storage, My Tablets/Consoles/Phones)
> >
> > If convicted i could face up to 6 years in jail, of course i do not
> > want that and i also want to try to set a legal base for running Tor
> > exit nodes in Austria or even the EU.
> >
> > Sadly we have nothing like the EFF here that could help me in this
> > case by legal assistance, so i'm on my own and require a good lawyer.
> > Thus i'm accepting donations for my legal expenses which i expect to
> > be around 5000-1 EUR.
> >
> > If you can i would appreciate if you could donate a bit (every amount
> > helps, even the smallest) either by PayPal (any currency is ok):
> >
> https://paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=2Q4LZNBBD7EH4
> >
> > Or by Bank Transfer (EUR only please):
> >
> > Holder: William Weber
> > Bank: EasyBank AG (Vienna, Austria)
> > Account: 20011351213
> > Bank sort number: 14200
> > IBAN: AT031420020011351213
> > BIC: EASYATW1
> >
> > I will try to pay them back when i'm out of this (or even before) but
> > i can obviously not guarantee this, please keep this in mind.
> > This money will only be used for legal expenses related to this case.
> >
> > If you have any questions or want to donate by another way
> > (MoneyBookers, Webmoney, Bitcoin, Liberty Reserve, Neteller) feel free
> > to send me a mail (will...@william.si) or a PM, or contact me in LET
> > IRC.
> >
> > Thanks!
> > William
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > --C
> >
> > "The dumber people think you are, the more surprised they're going to
> > be when you kill them." - Sir William Clayton
> >
>
>
>
> --
> ~Em
>
> - End forwarded message -
> --
> Eugen* Leitl http://leitl.org";>leitl http://leitl.org
> __
> ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org
> 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE
> ___
> tor-talk mailing list
> tor-talk@lists.torproject.org
> https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk
>
___
tor-talk mailing list
tor-talk@lists.torproject.org
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk

Re: [tor-talk] William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if you can.

[Eugen Leitl]

- Forwarded message from Scott Berkman  -

From: Scott Berkman 
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2012 14:34:33 -0500
To: "'Naslund, Steve'" , na...@nanog.org
Subject: RE: William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if
you can.
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0

Not sure if there is a legal precedent for this, but logically the
difference is that there are no robots that I know of that can automatically
receive and parse postal mail, then re-address and forward it.  For a human
to forward a letter takes a conscious manual action, even if they choose not
to look inside.

Having a Tor node for no specific purpose, having a hacked server/pc that is
then compromised for some nefarious purpose, etc. are not necessarily
purposeful actions that one could be held accountable for without other
proof.  I'd think the LEA would have to establish motive, like in any other
crime, to make that jump.  Perhaps in this case they believe they have, and
that would end up in the courts, where you'd have to hope the Judge and or
Jury sees that difference.

Don't see this as very different either from when an agency confiscates a
whole rack of shared servers because one user was suspected of some bad
action, and we all know that does happen.

-Scott 

-Original Message-
From: Naslund, Steve [mailto:snasl...@medline.com] 
Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2012 2:07 PM
To: na...@nanog.org
Subject: RE: William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if
you can.

How would this be legally different than receiving the illegal content in an
envelope and anonymously forwarding the envelope via the post office?  I am
pretty sure you are still liable since you were the sender.  I realize that
there are special postal regulations but I think that agreeing to forward
anything for anyone sight unseen is pretty risky and I think you will have a
hard time pulling of the "service provider" defense if you are not selling
services and are not licensed as a carrier.

Steven Naslund

-Original Message-
From: Patrick W. Gilmore [mailto:patr...@ianai.net]
Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2012 10:45 AM
To: NANOG list
Subject: Re: William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if
you can.

On Nov 29, 2012, at 11:17 , Barry Shein  wrote:

> Back in the early days of the public internet we didn't require any 
> id to create an account, just that you found a way to pay us. We had 
> anonymous accts some of whom dropped by personally to pay their bill, 
> some said hello but I usually didn't know their names and that's how 
> they wanted it, I'd answer "hello ", whatever their login was

> if I recognized them. Some mailed in something, a mail order, even 
> currency tho that was rare but it did happen, or had someone else drop

> by to pay in cash (that is, no idea if they were local.)
> 
> LEO occasionally served a warrant for information, usually child porn 
> biz (more than just accessing child porn, selling it) tho I don't 
> remember any anonymous accts being involved.

"Mere conduit" defense.  (Please do not anyone mention "common carrier
status" or the like, ISPs are _not_ common carriers.)


> I never expected to be held accountable for anyone's behavior unless I

> was knowingly involved somehow (just the usual caveat.) LEO never 
> showed any particular interest in the fact that we were ok with 
> anonymous accounts. If I was made aware of illegal activities we'd 
> shut them off, didn't really happen much, maybe some credible 
> "hacking" complaint on occasion.

How do you "shut off" a Tor "account"?


> It's funny, it's all illusion like show business. It's not hard to set

> up anonymous service, crap, just drop in at any wi-fi hotspot, many 
> just ask you to click that you accept their T&Cs and you're on. Would 
> they raid them, I was just using one at a major hospital this week 
> that was just like that, if someone used that for child porn etc? But 
> I guess stick your nose out and say you're specifically offering anon 
> accts and watch out I guess.

Do you think if the police found out child pr0n was being served from a
starbux they wouldn't confiscate the equipment from that store?

--
TTFN,
patrick





- End forwarded message -
-- 
Eugen* Leitl http://leitl.org";>leitl http://leitl.org
__
ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE
___
tor-talk mailing list
tor-talk@lists.torproject.org
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk

Re: [tor-talk] William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if you can.

[Eugen Leitl]

- Forwarded message from elijah wright  -

From: elijah wright 
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2012 13:38:51 -0600
To: Eugen Leitl 
Cc: na...@nanog.org
Subject: Re: William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if
you can.

We had a guy (aka potential customer) inquire the other day about hosting a
Tor exit on our infrastructure the other day;  he disappeared fairly
quickly when he figured out that we weren't just going to give him an
endless supply of unmetered 10G bandwidth.  I was looking forward to
billing him.  :-)

I'm not sure that armchair lawyering, here, actually helps anyone.  Also,
spel-chek, sequitur.

best,

--e



On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 1:22 PM, Eugen Leitl  wrote:

> On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 01:14:08AM +1100, Emily Ozols wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I gotta ask and I'm sure someone would if I didn't, but how do we know
> > this guy is legit?
> > He's jumped up on a forum saying, "Hey, police raided me, help. gib
> > mone plz" and failed to provide and reason as to how he's real and not
> > just making it up.
> >
> > Maybe if there's a way to know this guy is legit, I'll help out if
> > possible, but until then I'm just going to watch others with caution
> > and I suggest others do as well.
>
> This matter is being investigated by the Tor developers.
> It looks legitimate, so far.
>
> > On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 12:04 AM, Chris  wrote:
> > > I'm not William and a friend pasted a link on IRC to me. I'm going to
> > > send him a few bucks because I know how it feels to get blindsided by
> > > the police on one random day and your world is turned upside down.
> > >
> > > Source:
> http://www.lowendtalk.com/discussion/6283/raided-for-running-a-tor-exit-accepting-donations-for-legal-expenses
> > >
> > > From the URL:
> > >
> > > Yes, it happened to me now as well - Yesterday i got raided for
> > > someone sharing child pornography over one of my Tor exits.
> > > I'm good so far, not in jail, but all my computers and hardware have
> > > been confiscated.
> > > (20 computers, 100TB+ storage, My Tablets/Consoles/Phones)
> > >
> > > If convicted i could face up to 6 years in jail, of course i do not
> > > want that and i also want to try to set a legal base for running Tor
> > > exit nodes in Austria or even the EU.
> > >
> > > Sadly we have nothing like the EFF here that could help me in this
> > > case by legal assistance, so i'm on my own and require a good lawyer.
> > > Thus i'm accepting donations for my legal expenses which i expect to
> > > be around 5000-1 EUR.
> > >
> > > If you can i would appreciate if you could donate a bit (every amount
> > > helps, even the smallest) either by PayPal (any currency is ok):
> > >
> https://paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=2Q4LZNBBD7EH4
> > >
> > > Or by Bank Transfer (EUR only please):
> > >
> > > Holder: William Weber
> > > Bank: EasyBank AG (Vienna, Austria)
> > > Account: 20011351213
> > > Bank sort number: 14200
> > > IBAN: AT031420020011351213
> > > BIC: EASYATW1
> > >
> > > I will try to pay them back when i'm out of this (or even before) but
> > > i can obviously not guarantee this, please keep this in mind.
> > > This money will only be used for legal expenses related to this case.
> > >
> > > If you have any questions or want to donate by another way
> > > (MoneyBookers, Webmoney, Bitcoin, Liberty Reserve, Neteller) feel free
> > > to send me a mail (will...@william.si) or a PM, or contact me in LET
> > > IRC.
> > >
> > > Thanks!
> > > William
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > --C
> > >
> > > "The dumber people think you are, the more surprised they're going to
> > > be when you kill them." - Sir William Clayton
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > ~Em
> --
> Eugen* Leitl http://leitl.org";>leitl http://leitl.org
> __
> ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org
> 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE
>
>

- End forwarded message -
-- 
Eugen* Leitl http://leitl.org";>leitl http://leitl.org
__
ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE
___
tor-talk mailing list
tor-talk@lists.torproject.org
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk

Re: [tor-talk] William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if you can.

[SiNA Rabbani]

Running an exit node from home DSL or Cable is bad idea. One must look
for a Tor friendly ISP and have balls made of steel!

--SiNA

On 11/29/2012 11:31 AM, Eugen Leitl wrote:
> People will spend time and money securing their home wireless so their  
> neighbor can't steal their internet, but willingly allow strangers from  
> anywhere in the world to use their connections no strings attached. It's  
> hilarious.


-- 
“Be the change you want to see in the world.” Gandhi

OTR: i...@jabber.ccc.de
a5dae15f45a37e9768f6deae7b54807fc4942ec9
___
tor-talk mailing list
tor-talk@lists.torproject.org
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk

Re: [tor-talk] William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if you can.

[Asad Haider]

I've been given the fingerprints for the tor nodes ran by William to help
verify the story.

ZhangPoland1 (id: FA48 6415 B86D 28CD 047D 10F7 6768 E4E8 8A18 2F71)
ZhangUkraine1 (id: FBFB C419 3459 C73D 001F 3303 8CCD 6EE8 CFEC 27F7)
ZhangDomination (id: 58FF 4431 2066 3861 23B2 8491 4028 DA60 3C14 E690)
ZhangAustria1 (id: E595 B870 8A62 D95D 9CDF 2672 705E 9696 AFA2 6559)
ZhangCzechrep1 (id: A162 20B3 736C 1849 2418 AA83 9BF6 4525 589B B9F9)
ZhangCzechrep2 (id: EDC4 87DE 5D50 A98F 1F94 8685 082F DF43 939F 5C48)
ZhangCzechrep3 (id: 3593 401F 195E 1866 D2B1 B6EF 4EFD 18B6 CCAA 4BDC)

On 29 November 2012 19:22, Eugen Leitl  wrote:

> - Forwarded message from Emily Ozols  -
>
> From: Emily Ozols 
> Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2012 01:14:08 +1100
> To: na...@nanog.org
> Subject: Re: William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if
> you can.
>
> Hi,
>
> I gotta ask and I'm sure someone would if I didn't, but how do we know
> this guy is legit?
> He's jumped up on a forum saying, "Hey, police raided me, help. gib
> mone plz" and failed to provide and reason as to how he's real and not
> just making it up.
>
> Maybe if there's a way to know this guy is legit, I'll help out if
> possible, but until then I'm just going to watch others with caution
> and I suggest others do as well.
>
> On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 12:04 AM, Chris  wrote:
> > I'm not William and a friend pasted a link on IRC to me. I'm going to
> > send him a few bucks because I know how it feels to get blindsided by
> > the police on one random day and your world is turned upside down.
> >
> > Source:
> http://www.lowendtalk.com/discussion/6283/raided-for-running-a-tor-exit-accepting-donations-for-legal-expenses
> >
> > From the URL:
> >
> > Yes, it happened to me now as well - Yesterday i got raided for
> > someone sharing child pornography over one of my Tor exits.
> > I'm good so far, not in jail, but all my computers and hardware have
> > been confiscated.
> > (20 computers, 100TB+ storage, My Tablets/Consoles/Phones)
> >
> > If convicted i could face up to 6 years in jail, of course i do not
> > want that and i also want to try to set a legal base for running Tor
> > exit nodes in Austria or even the EU.
> >
> > Sadly we have nothing like the EFF here that could help me in this
> > case by legal assistance, so i'm on my own and require a good lawyer.
> > Thus i'm accepting donations for my legal expenses which i expect to
> > be around 5000-1 EUR.
> >
> > If you can i would appreciate if you could donate a bit (every amount
> > helps, even the smallest) either by PayPal (any currency is ok):
> >
> https://paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=2Q4LZNBBD7EH4
> >
> > Or by Bank Transfer (EUR only please):
> >
> > Holder: William Weber
> > Bank: EasyBank AG (Vienna, Austria)
> > Account: 20011351213
> > Bank sort number: 14200
> > IBAN: AT031420020011351213
> > BIC: EASYATW1
> >
> > I will try to pay them back when i'm out of this (or even before) but
> > i can obviously not guarantee this, please keep this in mind.
> > This money will only be used for legal expenses related to this case.
> >
> > If you have any questions or want to donate by another way
> > (MoneyBookers, Webmoney, Bitcoin, Liberty Reserve, Neteller) feel free
> > to send me a mail (will...@william.si) or a PM, or contact me in LET
> > IRC.
> >
> > Thanks!
> > William
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > --C
> >
> > "The dumber people think you are, the more surprised they're going to
> > be when you kill them." - Sir William Clayton
> >
>
>
>
> --
> ~Em
>
> - End forwarded message -
> --
> Eugen* Leitl http://leitl.org";>leitl http://leitl.org
> __
> ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org
> 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE
> ___
> tor-talk mailing list
> tor-talk@lists.torproject.org
> https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk
>
___
tor-talk mailing list
tor-talk@lists.torproject.org
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk

Re: [tor-talk] William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if you can.

[Jon]

On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 1:43 PM, SiNA Rabbani  wrote:

> Running an exit node from home DSL or Cable is bad idea. One must look
> for a Tor friendly ISP and have balls made of steel!
>
> --SiNA
>
>
That may be so in some jurisdictions, but not in all. If my memory services
me correct, that might be very true in Germany , possible in Austria and
other Europe jurisdictions.  However, I do not believe it is that way in
the United States and I am sure there are other jurisdictions that most
likely are not that way. Just imo

Jon
___
tor-talk mailing list
tor-talk@lists.torproject.org
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk

Re: [tor-talk] William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if you can.

[Julian Yon]

On Thu, 29 Nov 2012 11:43:03 -0800
SiNA Rabbani  wrote:

> Running an exit node from home DSL or Cable is bad idea. One must look
> for a Tor friendly ISP and have balls made of steel!

That's not universally true. Here in the UK I'd say it's risky, which
is why I run with a fairly restricted exit policy. This is an option
all operators have. In my case, depleted uranium testicles wouldn't
make me knowingly subject my kids to that risk - I'm less worried
about myself. Here, as in many jurisdictions, the problem is not that
running a Tor exit is illegal, but more that there's no protection from
the police using it as an excuse to wield their power. The inside of a
cell is bad enough when you don't have a painful disability. And I'm
still pissed off that they broke my iPhone (I couldn't afford to
replace it, but I prefer Android now anyway). [NB. I've not personally
had a Tor related incident yet, and I hope to keep it that way]

I hope that this William is safe and able to get some decent legal
advice :(


Julian

-- 
3072D/F3A66B3A Julian Yon (2012 General Use) 


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
tor-talk mailing list
tor-talk@lists.torproject.org
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk

Re: [tor-talk] William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if you can.

[Julian Yon]

This story has now hit Ars Technica:
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/11/tor-operator-charged-for-child-porn-transmitted-over-his-servers/


Julian

-- 
3072D/F3A66B3A Julian Yon (2012 General Use) 


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
tor-talk mailing list
tor-talk@lists.torproject.org
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk

Re: [tor-talk] William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if you can.

[Asad Haider]

You can find the full interview and more information at
http://raided4tor.cryto.net/

On 29 November 2012 22:44, Julian Yon  wrote:

> This story has now hit Ars Technica:
>
> http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/11/tor-operator-charged-for-child-porn-transmitted-over-his-servers/
>
>
> Julian
>
> --
> 3072D/F3A66B3A Julian Yon (2012 General Use) 
>
> ___
> tor-talk mailing list
> tor-talk@lists.torproject.org
> https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk
>
>
___
tor-talk mailing list
tor-talk@lists.torproject.org
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk

Re: [tor-talk] William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if you can.

[Eugen Leitl]

- Forwarded message from Jay Ashworth  -

From: Jay Ashworth 
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2012 14:42:11 -0500 (EST)
To: NANOG 
Subject: Re: William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if
you can.
X-Mailer: Zimbra 6.0.9_GA_2686 (ZimbraWebClient - FF3.0 (Linux)/6.0.9_GA_2686)

- Original Message -
> From: "Patrick W. Gilmore" 

> "Mere conduit" defense. (Please do not anyone mention "common carrier
> status" or the like, ISPs are _not_ common carriers.)

> Do you think if the police found out child pr0n was being served from
> a starbux they wouldn't confiscate the equipment from that store?

Well, pursuant to the "mere conduit" defense, I believe (IANAL) a defensible
case could be made that the (people operating) Tor nodes are not "servers" as
that term is generally understood in the industry, in the same way that web
browser/caches are not "copies" as IP law understands *that* term.

Cheers,
-- jra
-- 
Jay R. Ashworth  Baylink   j...@baylink.com
Designer The Things I Think   RFC 2100
Ashworth & Associates http://baylink.pitas.com 2000 Land Rover DII
St Petersburg FL USA   #natog  +1 727 647 1274

- End forwarded message -
-- 
Eugen* Leitl http://leitl.org";>leitl http://leitl.org
__
ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE
___
tor-talk mailing list
tor-talk@lists.torproject.org
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk

Re: [tor-talk] William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if you can.

[Eugen Leitl]

- Forwarded message from Jay Ashworth  -

From: Jay Ashworth 
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2012 14:44:16 -0500 (EST)
To: NANOG 
Subject: Re: William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if
you can.
X-Mailer: Zimbra 6.0.9_GA_2686 (ZimbraWebClient - FF3.0 (Linux)/6.0.9_GA_2686)

- Original Message -
> From: "Patrick W. Gilmore" 

> > I think if they took the cash registers too the Starbucks lawyer would
> > be in court an hour later with a motion to quash in one hand and an
> > offer of full cooperation in the other.
> 
> And if the sky were orange
> 
> Any other non-sequitors? :)

> P.S. I can come up with some examples where the cash registers would
> be fair game, such as when the manager was charging the hosting
> provider extra to sit in the corner and host the 'bad content'. But it
> is still a non-sequitor w/r/t this thread.

The hell it is: cops sieze things which are not only not related to a crime, 
but cannot *possibly be* relevant to that crime *all the effing time*, Patrick.

You know this, I'm sure.

Cheers,
-- jra
-- 
Jay R. Ashworth  Baylink   j...@baylink.com
Designer The Things I Think   RFC 2100
Ashworth & Associates http://baylink.pitas.com 2000 Land Rover DII
St Petersburg FL USA   #natog  +1 727 647 1274

- End forwarded message -
-- 
Eugen* Leitl http://leitl.org";>leitl http://leitl.org
__
ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE
___
tor-talk mailing list
tor-talk@lists.torproject.org
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk

Re: [tor-talk] William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if you can.

[Eugen Leitl]

- Forwarded message from George Herbert  -

From: George Herbert 
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2012 11:50:57 -0800
To: Tom Beecher , NANOG 
Subject: Re: William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if
you can.

On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 11:18 AM, Tom Beecher  wrote:
> Assuming it's true, it was bound to happen. Running anything , TOR or
> otherwise, that allows strangers to do whatever they want is just folly.

Such as, say, an Internet Service Provider business?

...

-- 
-george william herbert
george.herb...@gmail.com

- End forwarded message -
-- 
Eugen* Leitl http://leitl.org";>leitl http://leitl.org
__
ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE
___
tor-talk mailing list
tor-talk@lists.torproject.org
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk

Re: [tor-talk] William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if you can.

[Eugen Leitl]

- Forwarded message from Tom Beecher  -

From: Tom Beecher 
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2012 14:58:25 -0500
To: George Herbert 
Cc: NANOG 
Subject: Re: William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if
you can.
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1;
rv:16.0) Gecko/20121026 Thunderbird/16.0.2

Not really comparable.

Speaking from a US point of view, ISPs has strong legal protections  
isolating them from culpability for the actions of their customers. I know 
internationally things are different, but here in the US the ISP doesn't 
get dinged, except in certain cases where they are legally required to 
remove access to material and don't.

End users have no such protections that I'm aware of that cover them  
similarly.

On 11/29/2012 2:50 PM, George Herbert wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 11:18 AM, Tom Beecher  wrote:
>> Assuming it's true, it was bound to happen. Running anything , TOR or
>> otherwise, that allows strangers to do whatever they want is just folly.
> Such as, say, an Internet Service Provider business?
>
> ...
>


- End forwarded message -
-- 
Eugen* Leitl http://leitl.org";>leitl http://leitl.org
__
ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE
___
tor-talk mailing list
tor-talk@lists.torproject.org
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk

Re: [tor-talk] William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if you can.

[Eugen Leitl]

- Forwarded message from "Naslund, Steve"  -

From: "Naslund, Steve" 
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2012 14:00:50 -0600
To: NANOG 
Subject: RE: William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if
you can.

I think service providers are afforded special protections because the
law recognizes their utility and the inability of the service provider
to be responsible for the actions of all of their customers.  The major
problem is that not every individual has the same protections.  A lot of
ISPs are actually also CLECs or LECs that are protected as licensed
telecom carriers.

ISPs also do not "allow strangers to do whatever they want"  ISPs have
responsibilities to act on DCMA notices and CALEA requests from law
enforcement.  These are things that Tor exit nodes are not capable of
doing.  If you were an ISP and could not respond to CALEA requests, you
will find yourself out of business in a big hurry.

Steven Naslund

-Original Message-
From: George Herbert [mailto:george.herb...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2012 1:51 PM
To: Tom Beecher; NANOG
Subject: Re: William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help
if you can.

On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 11:18 AM, Tom Beecher 
wrote:
> Assuming it's true, it was bound to happen. Running anything , TOR or 
> otherwise, that allows strangers to do whatever they want is just
folly.

Such as, say, an Internet Service Provider business?

...

--
-george william herbert
george.herb...@gmail.com


- End forwarded message -
-- 
Eugen* Leitl http://leitl.org";>leitl http://leitl.org
__
ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE
___
tor-talk mailing list
tor-talk@lists.torproject.org
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk

Re: [tor-talk] William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if you can.

[Eugen Leitl]

- Forwarded message from George Herbert  -

From: George Herbert 
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2012 12:06:28 -0800
To: Tom Beecher 
Cc: NANOG 
Subject: Re: William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if
you can.

On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 11:58 AM, Tom Beecher  wrote:
> Not really comparable.
>
> Speaking from a US point of view, ISPs has strong legal protections
> isolating them from culpability for the actions of their customers. I know
> internationally things are different, but here in the US the ISP doesn't get
> dinged, except in certain cases where they are legally required to remove
> access to material and don't.
>
> End users have no such protections that I'm aware of that cover them
> similarly.
>
>
> On 11/29/2012 2:50 PM, George Herbert wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 11:18 AM, Tom Beecher 
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Assuming it's true, it was bound to happen. Running anything , TOR or
>>> otherwise, that allows strangers to do whatever they want is just folly.
>>
>> Such as, say, an Internet Service Provider business?

There are plenty of ISPs with no or little customer contracts; anyone
running open access wireless.  Plenty of "open access" sites with free
accounts.

And any but the largest ISPs are "end users" of upstream bandwidth.

The analogy of a small free access ISP and a Tor exit node is legally
defensible.  I know of five, six, seven that I can think of off the
top of my head that are run by people I know, one of whom has started
and/or been architect or operations lead for 5 or more commercial
ISPs.

Even more, ISP like protections are extended in the US to many "end
user" sites such as blogging sites, Wikis, etc; where the site is
"publishing" content but not creating it or exerting control over it,
etc.

This is US specific, and the case of a user in Austria is entirely
unrelated to US law, but I don't know that this type of response would
hold up in US court for these reasons.  I am going to ping my internet
law contacts in the US and see what they think, as IANAL.


-- 
-george william herbert
george.herb...@gmail.com

- End forwarded message -
-- 
Eugen* Leitl http://leitl.org";>leitl http://leitl.org
__
ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE
___
tor-talk mailing list
tor-talk@lists.torproject.org
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk

Re: [tor-talk] William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if you can.

[Eugen Leitl]

- Forwarded message from George Herbert  -

From: George Herbert 
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2012 12:14:10 -0800
To: "Naslund, Steve" 
Cc: NANOG 
Subject: Re: William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if
you can.

On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 12:00 PM, Naslund, Steve  wrote:
> ISPs also do not "allow strangers to do whatever they want"  ISPs have
> responsibilities to act on DCMA notices and CALEA requests from law
> enforcement.  These are things that Tor exit nodes are not capable of
> doing.  If you were an ISP and could not respond to CALEA requests, you
> will find yourself out of business in a big hurry.

Sure, Tor exit nodes are 'capable of doing' those things if a report
is generated that someone's using it to source child porn or terrorist
communications or DMCA violations.  At the most extreme the owner can
shut down a node; they might also put egress filters in place pursuant
to notifications.

Plenty of small ISPs in one sense or another don't comply with CALEA
because they own systems not networks (open access sites, etc).  CALEA
goes to the network providers in those cases, as I understand it.

The Tor owner also might chose to fight it and leave it completely
open, but an ISP might chose to do that in response to certain notices
as well.

This presumes that law enforcement deems them the right place to go
investigating an incident, and notifies them.  But if they seem to be
aware of what Tor is in the US and be generally reasonable in
responding to issues with it, that I know of.


-- 
-george william herbert
george.herb...@gmail.com

- End forwarded message -
-- 
Eugen* Leitl http://leitl.org";>leitl http://leitl.org
__
ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE
___
tor-talk mailing list
tor-talk@lists.torproject.org
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk

Re: [tor-talk] William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if you can.

[Eugen Leitl]

- Forwarded message from "Naslund, Steve"  -

From: "Naslund, Steve" 
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2012 14:42:47 -0600
To: George Herbert 
Cc: NANOG 
Subject: RE: William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if
you can.

The entire point of Tor is to be untraceable back to the source.  Egress
filters can prevent future abuse but do not provide for tracing back to
the original source of offending conduct. They are not trying to stop
the flow of the data in this case, they want the source in jail.  If law
enforcement comes to you and asks you to show them the source or
destination on a case like the one in question, you cannot comply and if
law enforcement asks you to trap this data in the future you will also
have a problem complying because I think you cannot identify the
original source. 

You ARE providing a network if you are running a Tor exit node just the
same as someone who builds a MPLS VPN would be responsible for
responding to law enforcement requests for data inside the secure
network.  A licensed LEC and CLEC has very specific requirements in
terms of CALEA and DCMA.  It is not something they optionally comply
with. An ISP that does not respond to CALEA and DCMA can become liable
for events that happen after their non-response.  Their "safe harbor"
protection ends the moment they do not act in good faith to comply with
the law.  

Even a small ISP that does not own their own network can be subpoenaed
to provide logs, sniffer traces, and file dumps from any system they
own.  I know this for a fact and have provided this data under court
orders.  CALEA applies just as well to servers and data as it does to
the communication circuits themselves.  If you have a server on the
network, it has a communications circuit into it and you can be required
to provide access to that circuit.  You can also be required to tap
email accounts or data directories as well.  This data may not fall
strictly under CALEA but a court order can compel you to provide any
data you are in possession of.  That is why law enforcement can grab a
server or PC.  ISPs and carriers are often given the benefit of the
doubt and law enforcement accepts copies of data they want.  If they
view you as an adversary or have any inclination of hiding data, they
will seize the machine.  If they view a Tor exit node owner as an
accessory, they are not going to be nicey nice about it.

The main problem with Tor is that it purposefully attempts to make this
data obscure which could be construed as obstruction.  As far as US law
enforcement attitudes on Tor, those can and will change as the
government sees fit.  It is all a matter of the "greater good" in their
eyes and whether they think the fight is worthwhile.  You better believe
that as soon as it becomes a "national security threat" it is coming
down.

Steven Naslund





-Original Message-
From: George Herbert [mailto:george.herb...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2012 2:14 PM
To: Naslund, Steve
Cc: NANOG
Subject: Re: William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help
if you can.

On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 12:00 PM, Naslund, Steve 
wrote:
> ISPs also do not "allow strangers to do whatever they want"  ISPs have

> responsibilities to act on DCMA notices and CALEA requests from law 
> enforcement.  These are things that Tor exit nodes are not capable of 
> doing.  If you were an ISP and could not respond to CALEA requests, 
> you will find yourself out of business in a big hurry.

Sure, Tor exit nodes are 'capable of doing' those things if a report is
generated that someone's using it to source child porn or terrorist
communications or DMCA violations.  At the most extreme the owner can
shut down a node; they might also put egress filters in place pursuant
to notifications.

Plenty of small ISPs in one sense or another don't comply with CALEA
because they own systems not networks (open access sites, etc).  CALEA
goes to the network providers in those cases, as I understand it.

The Tor owner also might chose to fight it and leave it completely open,
but an ISP might chose to do that in response to certain notices as
well.

This presumes that law enforcement deems them the right place to go
investigating an incident, and notifies them.  But if they seem to be
aware of what Tor is in the US and be generally reasonable in responding
to issues with it, that I know of.


--
-george william herbert
george.herb...@gmail.com

- End forwarded message -
-- 
Eugen* Leitl http://leitl.org";>leitl http://leitl.org
__
ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE
___
tor-talk mailing list
tor-talk@lists.torproject.org
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk

Re: [tor-talk] William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if you can.

[Eugen Leitl]

- Forwarded message from "Naslund, Steve"  -

From: "Naslund, Steve" 
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2012 14:59:18 -0600
To: George Herbert 
Cc: NANOG 
Subject: RE: William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if
you can.

1. Running open access wireless does not make you legally an ISP and if
your open wireless is used to commit a crime you could be criminally
negligent if you did not take "reasonable care" in the eyes of the
court.

2. If I provide access to four or five friends, I am not an ISP and in
fact I am responsible if they use my connection to do something illegal
since I am the customer of record.  If you loan your car to an
unlicensed driver and he kills someone, you are on the hook.

3. I guarantee you that if your blogging site, wiki or whatever is
publishing content like child porn, you are going to jail.  There is no
"ISP like protections" for that.  If you do not take action as soon as
you know a crime is being committed, you are going to get nailed. 

The question in this case would be all about whether the Tor exit node
is viewed as a device specifically enabling a criminal or something that
was incidentally used to commit a crime.  For example, if I give you a
hammer and you break into someone's house with it, I am probably not
criminally negligent.  If I provided you with lock picking equipment and
you are not a locksmith, I might be criminally negligent.  This is not
so clear cut a case that there would not be a fight about it.

Steven Naslund



-Original Message-
From: George Herbert [mailto:george.herb...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2012 2:06 PM
To: Tom Beecher
Cc: NANOG
Subject: Re: William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help
if you can.

On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 11:58 AM, Tom Beecher 
wrote:
> Not really comparable.
>
> Speaking from a US point of view, ISPs has strong legal protections 
> isolating them from culpability for the actions of their customers. I 
> know internationally things are different, but here in the US the ISP 
> doesn't get dinged, except in certain cases where they are legally 
> required to remove access to material and don't.
>
> End users have no such protections that I'm aware of that cover them 
> similarly.
>
>
> On 11/29/2012 2:50 PM, George Herbert wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 11:18 AM, Tom Beecher 
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Assuming it's true, it was bound to happen. Running anything , TOR 
>>> or otherwise, that allows strangers to do whatever they want is just
folly.
>>
>> Such as, say, an Internet Service Provider business?

There are plenty of ISPs with no or little customer contracts; anyone
running open access wireless.  Plenty of "open access" sites with free
accounts.

And any but the largest ISPs are "end users" of upstream bandwidth.

The analogy of a small free access ISP and a Tor exit node is legally
defensible.  I know of five, six, seven that I can think of off the top
of my head that are run by people I know, one of whom has started and/or
been architect or operations lead for 5 or more commercial ISPs.

Even more, ISP like protections are extended in the US to many "end
user" sites such as blogging sites, Wikis, etc; where the site is
"publishing" content but not creating it or exerting control over it,
etc.

This is US specific, and the case of a user in Austria is entirely
unrelated to US law, but I don't know that this type of response would
hold up in US court for these reasons.  I am going to ping my internet
law contacts in the US and see what they think, as IANAL.


--
-george william herbert
george.herb...@gmail.com


- End forwarded message -
-- 
Eugen* Leitl http://leitl.org";>leitl http://leitl.org
__
ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE
___
tor-talk mailing list
tor-talk@lists.torproject.org
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk

Re: [tor-talk] William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if you can.

[Eugen Leitl]

- Forwarded message from George Herbert  -

From: George Herbert 
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2012 13:17:46 -0800
To: "Naslund, Steve" 
Cc: NANOG 
Subject: Re: William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if
you can.

The entire question here is whether CALEA's covered entities
definition and ISP "common carrier" (not exactly, but the commonly
used term for CDA protections available, see earlier discussion)
definitions overlap.

The answer is no.  It always has been no.  Plenty of publishers and
access providers do not fall under CALEA.  The FCC and law enforcement
are aware of that.  The conflation of the two in this conversation has
not been useful or educational.

What the future might hold is an open question, but for the time
being, CDA protections are available (at least theoretically, or
arguably) for a lot of people for whom CALEA clearly is not
applicable.

CDA protections are available whether you log commenters' IP addresses
on your blog, keep long lasting web acces logs, allow unrestricted
wireless access point access without logging, or what.  Responsibility
under it does not kick in unless you're aware of or notified of an
issue, with some exceptions.  Plenty of sites do not keep logs long
and some do not log.


-george

On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 12:59 PM, Naslund, Steve  wrote:
> 1. Running open access wireless does not make you legally an ISP and if
> your open wireless is used to commit a crime you could be criminally
> negligent if you did not take "reasonable care" in the eyes of the
> court.
>
> 2. If I provide access to four or five friends, I am not an ISP and in
> fact I am responsible if they use my connection to do something illegal
> since I am the customer of record.  If you loan your car to an
> unlicensed driver and he kills someone, you are on the hook.
>
> 3. I guarantee you that if your blogging site, wiki or whatever is
> publishing content like child porn, you are going to jail.  There is no
> "ISP like protections" for that.  If you do not take action as soon as
> you know a crime is being committed, you are going to get nailed.
>
> The question in this case would be all about whether the Tor exit node
> is viewed as a device specifically enabling a criminal or something that
> was incidentally used to commit a crime.  For example, if I give you a
> hammer and you break into someone's house with it, I am probably not
> criminally negligent.  If I provided you with lock picking equipment and
> you are not a locksmith, I might be criminally negligent.  This is not
> so clear cut a case that there would not be a fight about it.
>
> Steven Naslund
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: George Herbert [mailto:george.herb...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2012 2:06 PM
> To: Tom Beecher
> Cc: NANOG
> Subject: Re: William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help
> if you can.
>
> On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 11:58 AM, Tom Beecher 
> wrote:
>> Not really comparable.
>>
>> Speaking from a US point of view, ISPs has strong legal protections
>> isolating them from culpability for the actions of their customers. I
>> know internationally things are different, but here in the US the ISP
>> doesn't get dinged, except in certain cases where they are legally
>> required to remove access to material and don't.
>>
>> End users have no such protections that I'm aware of that cover them
>> similarly.
>>
>>
>> On 11/29/2012 2:50 PM, George Herbert wrote:
>>>
>>> On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 11:18 AM, Tom Beecher 
>>> wrote:

 Assuming it's true, it was bound to happen. Running anything , TOR
 or otherwise, that allows strangers to do whatever they want is just
> folly.
>>>
>>> Such as, say, an Internet Service Provider business?
>
> There are plenty of ISPs with no or little customer contracts; anyone
> running open access wireless.  Plenty of "open access" sites with free
> accounts.
>
> And any but the largest ISPs are "end users" of upstream bandwidth.
>
> The analogy of a small free access ISP and a Tor exit node is legally
> defensible.  I know of five, six, seven that I can think of off the top
> of my head that are run by people I know, one of whom has started and/or
> been architect or operations lead for 5 or more commercial ISPs.
>
> Even more, ISP like protections are extended in the US to many "end
> user" sites such as blogging sites, Wikis, etc; where the site is
> "publishing" content but not creating it or exerting control over it,
> etc.
>
> This is US specific, and the case of a user in Austria is entirely
> unrelated to US law, but I don't know that this type of response would
> hold up in US court for these reasons.  I am going to ping my internet
> law contacts in the US and see what they think, as IANAL.
>
>
> --
> -george william herbert
> george.herb...@gmail.com
>



-- 
-george william herbert
george.herb...@gmail.com

- End forwarded message -
-- 
Eugen* Leitl http://leitl.org";>leitl http://leitl.org
___

Re: [tor-talk] William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if?you can.

[Eugen Leitl]

- Forwarded message from Julian Yon  -

From: Julian Yon 
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2012 21:08:51 +
To: tor-talk@lists.torproject.org
Subject: Re: [tor-talk] William was raided for running a Tor exit node.
Please help if you can.
X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.8.1 (GTK+ 2.24.13; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)
Reply-To: tor-talk@lists.torproject.org

On Thu, 29 Nov 2012 11:43:03 -0800
SiNA Rabbani  wrote:

> Running an exit node from home DSL or Cable is bad idea. One must look
> for a Tor friendly ISP and have balls made of steel!

That's not universally true. Here in the UK I'd say it's risky, which
is why I run with a fairly restricted exit policy. This is an option
all operators have. In my case, depleted uranium testicles wouldn't
make me knowingly subject my kids to that risk - I'm less worried
about myself. Here, as in many jurisdictions, the problem is not that
running a Tor exit is illegal, but more that there's no protection from
the police using it as an excuse to wield their power. The inside of a
cell is bad enough when you don't have a painful disability. And I'm
still pissed off that they broke my iPhone (I couldn't afford to
replace it, but I prefer Android now anyway). [NB. I've not personally
had a Tor related incident yet, and I hope to keep it that way]

I hope that this William is safe and able to get some decent legal
advice :(


Julian

-- 
3072D/F3A66B3A Julian Yon (2012 General Use) 



___
tor-talk mailing list
tor-talk@lists.torproject.org
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk


- End forwarded message -
-- 
Eugen* Leitl http://leitl.org";>leitl http://leitl.org
__
ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE
___
tor-talk mailing list
tor-talk@lists.torproject.org
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk

Re: [tor-talk] William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if you can.

[Andreas Krey]

On Fri, 30 Nov 2012 08:24:42 +, Eugen Leitl wrote:
...
> On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 11:18 AM, Tom Beecher  wrote:
> > Assuming it's true, it was bound to happen. Running anything , TOR or
> > otherwise, that allows strangers to do whatever they want is just folly.
> 
> Such as, say, an Internet Service Provider business?

ISPs tend to know who their users are or at least who to pass the blame to.

Andreas

-- 
"Totally trivial. Famous last words."
From: Linus Torvalds 
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2010 07:29:21 -0800
___
tor-talk mailing list
tor-talk@lists.torproject.org
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk

Re: [tor-talk] William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if you can.

[Eugen Leitl]

- Forwarded message from "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" 
 -

From: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" 
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2012 18:07:48 -0500 (EST)
To: "Naslund, Steve" 
Cc: NANOG 
Subject: RE: William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if
you can.
User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (LRH 1167 2008-08-23)
Reply-To: froom...@law.tm

On Thu, 29 Nov 2012, Naslund, Steve wrote:

> 1. Running open access wireless does not make you legally an ISP and if
OK.

> your open wireless is used to commit a crime you could be criminally
> negligent if you did not take "reasonable care" in the eyes of the
> court.
>
I believe this is incorrect under US law.  Do you have any support,  
statutory or case law, for this claim?

> 2. If I provide access to four or five friends, I am not an ISP and in
> fact I am responsible if they use my connection to do something illegal
> since I am the customer of record.  If you loan your car to an
> unlicensed driver and he kills someone, you are on the hook.
>

The key word above is "unlicensed".  And the other key word -- not present  
-- is "knowingly".  But the analogy breaks down because you don't need a  
license to use the Internet.  Consequently, in most cases you will not  
know, and cannot reasonably be expected to know, about legal violations.   
If you let your buddy use your home wireless while he's staying with you 
for the weekend, and he commits, say, a fraud, or blackmails someone, you 
are not legally responsible for any of it unless you participated knowingly 
in some way.  Of course, that you didn't know may be hard and expensive and 
unpleasant to try to prove, but that's a different question.

> 3. I guarantee you that if your blogging site, wiki or whatever is
> publishing content like child porn, you are going to jail.  There is no

Child porn is an unusual strict liability crime.  If you publish or possess 
it, even unknowingly, you face real risks.  As a practical matter most  
prosecutors do not bring cases against innocent victims (e.g. someone on  
AOL who gets an evil popup unexpectedly).  In theory maybe they could, but  
I suspect they don't really want the test case.

> "ISP like protections" for that.  If you do not take action as soon as
> you know a crime is being committed, you are going to get nailed.
>
> The question in this case would be all about whether the Tor exit node
> is viewed as a device specifically enabling a criminal or something that

I do not think that would be the analysis under US law at all. The first  
question is mens rea.  We do not charge the car rental company with  
something if its car is used to rob a bank -- unless they knew in advance  
that was the plan.  Cars enable criminals too.

> was incidentally used to commit a crime.  For example, if I give you a
> hammer and you break into someone's house with it, I am probably not
> criminally negligent.  If I provided you with lock picking equipment and
> you are not a locksmith, I might be criminally negligent.  This is not

The term "criminally negligent" really has no role here.  Negligence is in  
most cases a civil not a criminal offense.  There are specific crimes.  
There is aiding and abetting.  There may be criminal negligence in  
unrelated cases where you have a duty to secure something or protect (or  
not harm) someone and fail to do so (e.g. you leave your car in a position  
to roll downhill and it hurts someone, or you are willfully blind to a  
danger to child for whom you should be caring, or you act with such  
inattention so as to kill someone).  But in the USA ***you have no legal  
duty to secure your wireless***.  None.  You can leave it open, just as  
you can leave your window open and let people enjoy what you are playing  
on your stereo (modulo public nuisance law, and copyright rules against  
some types of unlicensed public performance).  Thus there can be no  
negligence in leaving it open, at least absent specific knowledge that a  
person intends to do a specific thing.

> so clear cut a case that there would not be a fight about it.
>
> Steven Naslund


[...]

-- 
A. Michael Froomkin, http://www.law.tm Blog: http://www.discourse.net
Laurie Silvers & Mitchell Rubenstein Distinguished Professor of Law
Editor, Jotwell: The Journal of Things We Like (Lots),  jotwell.com
U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
+1 (305) 284-4285  |+1 (305) 284-6506 (fax)  |  froom...@law.tm
   -->It's warm here.<--

- End forwarded message -
-- 
Eugen* Leitl http://leitl.org";>leitl http://leitl.org
__
ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE
___
tor-talk mailing list
tor-talk@lists.torproject.org
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk

Re: [tor-talk] William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if you can.

[Eugen Leitl]

- Forwarded message from "Naslund, Steve"  -

From: "Naslund, Steve" 
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2012 17:39:21 -0600
To: NANOG 
Subject: RE: William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if
you can.

You are correct about most people not falling under CALEA.  That also
means that they do not have the "safe harbor" provisions provided to
facilities based providers (however an open wireless hotspot MIGHT just
make you a wireless facilities based provider).  You are not under an
obligation to provide data under CALEA but a court can order you collect
that data going forward, allow LE to tap a device, or just seize the
server to study it anytime they feel you may have evidence of a crime.
A court can seize almost anything from anyone as long as a judge thinks
it is a reasonable search and seizure.  If you provide someone with any
kind of tools or services (free or not) you are opening yourself up to a
liability.  If you are in physical possession of a server that contains
kiddie porn you are likely to go to jail.  I am not saying this Tor
server has data like that onboard (but I suppose there could be caches,
temp files, and such) but they are going to look until they understand
it.  You may very well be able to defend your right to a Tor server but
it is certainly going to cost you a lot of money and I am sure it is
going to be uncomfortable to explain why you want to have one to a judge
when LE explains all the evil uses for one.

When it comes to running an open access point, I think the legal issue
would be negligence.  Is it negligence for the 90 year old grandma to
have an open AP (probably not, just didn't know better)?  Is it
negligence for me to have an open AP (probably, I am a network
professional and know how to secure a network).

As a long time service provider I can tell you that a lot of CALEA
enforcement has to do with good faith more than the letter of the law.
If your policy is to delete logs after 30 days and the cops show up on
day 31, no big deal.  If they show up at day 5 and you say you dump your
logs at day 4, expect to get grilled.  They can tell real quick if you
are cooperating to the best of your ability.  In the early Internet
days, before the CALEA applied to ISPs I had to try to work with LE to
comply with court orders and often we explained the technology and
limitations of it to the FBI.  We were even involved in expert testimony
to explain how this "Internet Stuff" worked.  Often we did not have the
data they wanted but there were ways to get it for an ongoing
investigation.  Our policy was to not provide specific data without a
court order but we would begin collecting it as soon as a LE agent told
us they were going to try to obtain it.  It was just a professional
courtesy to them.  I know there is a big counter-culture, no big
brother, no regulation attitude toward a lot of Internet issues but I
have seen some sick cases involving emailed threats (later carried out)
and kids that made me give the law the benefit of the doubt in a lot of
cases.  There are lots of evil people out there and the Internet is a
big tool for them.

I have no statistics to back this up (and no one probably does) but with
my many years of experience in engineering ARPANET, MILNET, and the
Internet I would have to guess that most Tor servers are used for no
good much more than they are protecting anyone's privacy.  I am guessing
that a ton of the Tor traffic is likely to be BitTorrent that is just as
likely copyrighted material.  That does not mean that Tor or BitTorrent
is evil but as network professionals we all know (wink, wink) what that
kind of stuff is really mainly used for. That probably does not affect
your legal rights to have a Tor server but certainly affects my decision
to donate to your defense if you get in a legal case.

This is certainly an interesting discussion and I think there are not a
lot of concrete answers since this is on the edge of technology law.  I
do think history shows us that while the government lags behind, they
will eventually find a way to control this if it suits them and becomes
a source of pain for them.

Done with this subject, sorry for the long windedness 

Steven Naslund



-Original Message-
From: George Herbert [mailto:george.herb...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2012 2:53 PM
To: Naslund, Steve
Cc: NANOG
Subject: Re: William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help
if you can.

On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 12:42 PM, Naslund, Steve 
wrote:
> The entire point of Tor is to be untraceable back to the source.  
> Egress filters can prevent future abuse but do not provide for tracing

> back to the original source of offending conduct. They are not trying 
> to stop the flow of the data in this case, they want the source in 
> jail.  If law enforcement comes to you and asks you to show them the 
> source or destination on a case like the one in question, you cannot 
> comply and if law enforcement asks you to trap 

Re: [tor-talk] William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if you can.

[Eugen Leitl]

- Forwarded message from "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" 
 -

From: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" 
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2012 19:29:09 -0500 (EST)
To: Miles Fidelman 
Cc: NANOG 
Subject: Re: William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if
you can.
User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (LRH 1167 2008-08-23)
Reply-To: froom...@law.tm

Comments deep below.

On Thu, 29 Nov 2012, Miles Fidelman wrote:

> Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law wrote:
>>
>> >  2. If I provide access to four or five friends, I am not an ISP and in
>> >  fact I am responsible if they use my connection to do something illegal
>> >  since I am the customer of record.  If you loan your car to an
>> >  unlicensed driver and he kills someone, you are on the hook.
>> > 
>>
>>  The key word above is "unlicensed".  And the other key word -- not present
>>  -- is "knowingly".  But the analogy breaks down because you don't need a
>>  license to use the Internet.  Consequently, in most cases you will not
>>  know, and cannot reasonably be expected to know, about legal violations.
>>  If you let your buddy use your home wireless while he's staying with you
>>  for the weekend, and he commits, say, a fraud, or blackmails someone, you
>>  are not legally responsible for any of it unless you participated
>>  knowingly in some way.  Of course, that you didn't know may be hard and
>>  expensive and unpleasant to try to prove, but that's a different question.
>
> Ummm... you might be liable under your service agreement with your ISP.  
> Most of these have all kinds of restrictive clauses re. not letting 
> others use your connection, copyright infringement, assumption of 
> liability, yada, yada, yada.  We all violate these, all the time, but 
> there are times when that might catch up with someone.

OK, you might have *contract* liability to the ISP, but not to third  
parities in the main.  Contract damages < tort damages < criminal  
penalties, the latter being what we were talking about).

The only attempt I know of to make violation of those contract terms the  
predicate for criminal liability failed.  Google "Lori Drew".

>>
>>  The term "criminally negligent" really has no role here. Negligence is in
>>  most cases a civil not a criminal offense.  There are specific crimes.
>>  There is aiding and abetting.  There may be criminal negligence in
>>  unrelated cases where you have a duty to secure something or protect (or
>>  not harm) someone and fail to do so (e.g. you leave your car in a position
>>  to roll downhill and it hurts someone, or you are willfully blind to a
>>  danger to child for whom you should be caring, or you act with such
>>  inattention so as to kill someone).  But in the USA ***you have no legal
>>  duty to secure your wireless***.  None.  You can leave it open, just as
>>  you can leave your window open and let people enjoy what you are playing
>>  on your stereo (modulo public nuisance law, and copyright rules against
>>  some types of unlicensed public performance).  Thus there can be no
>>  negligence in leaving it open, at least absent specific knowledge that a
>>  person intends to do a specific thing.
>>
>
> You may have a civil liability to secure your wireless under the  
> terms-of-service agreement with your Internet provider.  Well, maybe not 
> to "secure your wireless" but to prevent unauthorized use of your 
> connection to the service provider - which could be accomplished in 
> other ways.

Normally that would just be a capacity or useage based billing issue in  
practice.  But sure, contract terms vary widely.  Note, though, the  
distinction between "having contracted to pay extra in some circumstances"  
(one type of 'civil liability') and risking being found in violation of  
the contract (another type, but usually one that results in termination of  
the service rather than an obligation to pay).


>
> Miles Fidelman

-- 
A. Michael Froomkin, http://www.law.tm Blog: http://www.discourse.net
Laurie Silvers & Mitchell Rubenstein Distinguished Professor of Law
Editor, Jotwell: The Journal of Things We Like (Lots),  jotwell.com
U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
+1 (305) 284-4285  |+1 (305) 284-6506 (fax)  |  froom...@law.tm
   -->It's warm here.<--

- End forwarded message -
-- 
Eugen* Leitl http://leitl.org";>leitl http://leitl.org
__
ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE
___
tor-talk mailing list
tor-talk@lists.torproject.org
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk

Re: [tor-talk] William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if you can.

[Eugen Leitl]

- Forwarded message from "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" 
 -

From: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" 
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2012 19:29:46 -0500 (EST)
To: "Naslund, Steve" 
Cc: NANOG 
Subject: RE: William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if
you can.
User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (LRH 1167 2008-08-23)
Reply-To: froom...@law.tm

On Thu, 29 Nov 2012, Naslund, Steve wrote:

[...]
>
> When it comes to running an open access point, I think the legal issue
> would be negligence.  Is it negligence for the 90 year old grandma to
> have an open AP (probably not, just didn't know better)?  Is it
> negligence for me to have an open AP (probably, I am a network
> professional and know how to secure a network).
>

In order for there to be a civil claim of negligence there must be, inter  
alia, a breach of duty.

What duty has been breached in your scenario?  None.

[...]
>
> This is certainly an interesting discussion and I think there are not a
> lot of concrete answers since this is on the edge of technology law.  I

Actually some of us have been teaching and writing about this stuff since  
the mid 1990s.  These issues are far from new; we went through them in the  
early anonymous remailer days.



-- 
A. Michael Froomkin, http://www.law.tm Blog: http://www.discourse.net
Laurie Silvers & Mitchell Rubenstein Distinguished Professor of Law
Editor, Jotwell: The Journal of Things We Like (Lots),  jotwell.com
U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
+1 (305) 284-4285  |+1 (305) 284-6506 (fax)  |  froom...@law.tm
   -->It's warm here.<--

- End forwarded message -
-- 
Eugen* Leitl http://leitl.org";>leitl http://leitl.org
__
ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE
___
tor-talk mailing list
tor-talk@lists.torproject.org
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk

Re: [tor-talk] William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if you can.

[Eugen Leitl]

- Forwarded message from Kyle Creyts  -

From: Kyle Creyts 
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2012 17:40:25 -0800
To: Jim Mercer 
Cc: na...@nanog.org
Subject: Re: William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if
you can.

On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 2:00 PM, Jim Mercer  wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 01:19:19PM -0600, Naslund, Steve wrote:
>> I think the best analogy I would use in defense is something like the
>> pre-paid cellular phones that are sold.  That is about the only
>> anonymous communications service I can think of off the top of my head.
>> Problem is that most people are not licensed carriers and may not be
>> able to hide behind that protection.
>
> if your phone is stolen and used by a drug dealer, i'm pretty sure the cops
> would not be after you for anything the dealer did.
>
> if you stand on the corner with a sign saying "free cell phone airtime,
> just ask me", they might take a different view on things.
>
> now, whether you are guilty of anything or not, by standing there with a sign
> you are certainly opening yourself to legal inquiry, delay and hassle.
>
> i wouldn't be surprised if the cops didn't accept your "i'm just letting
> people use my phone, i've got nothing to do with their activities" defence,
> at least not without poking about for a bit, which might include looking
> at your cellphone, your home phone, your bank records, and anything else
> they think (and a judge agrees) might need viewing to clear you.

A few questions this thread raises for me: you are a very trusting
person, and frequently let people borrow your things. A friend
frequently borrows your phone, which he explains is because he:

 a) frequently lets his phone die, or has run close to using too many minutes.

  You frequently allow him (and other people) to borrow your phone. At
some point, it becomes clear that his life has taken a turn for the
worse, and he has become involved in activities of which you do not
approve. You stop allowing him to use your phone. During a criminal
investigation of your friend's activities, it later becomes clear that
for some time he was using it for illegal activities.

  At what point did allowing him to use your phone become illegal, and
how should a responsible citizen rationally realize or identify this
point?

  How can one be reasonably sure that one knows another person well
enough to allow them to use one's equipment/resources? When do you
become responsible for the activity of someone else on your equipment?
Clearly "always" is not correct; similarly, "never" is also not
correct.


 b) (most analogous to the actual situation) has a [legitimate?]
reason for wanting to avoid the entity he calls having, being able to
predict, see, or otherwise link some information he wishes to give
them with some information he does not wish to give them (for example,
his phone number [1])

  Upon this pretense, which seems fairly reasonable, you allow him
access to your phone. In order to enable this pursuit (so that this
phone number cannot be attached to a pattern of activity), you also
allow others to use your phone for similar reasons. You consider such
activity correlation/tracking and data mining to be a violation of
privacy (explicitly with regard to data-mining and activity tracking
performed in pursuit of selling this data for profit).


Now arguably, in the second case, you are operating this "service"
with an explicitly altruistic intent. IF you are not informed about
the mechanics of this process, and you are unaware of the issues this
creates for law enforcement entities in identifying criminals, what
constitutes wrongdoing? If you are not aware of criminal uses of your
service which is entirely free and only intended for avoiding
data-miners, are you still accountable for the activities of those
using it? Why? At what point do you accept or acquire this
responsibility? How is this different from operating a party line
shared by an apartment building or phone bridge with external calling
ability?


I am curious about the impact of the nuances of each of these situations.

[1] he is paranoid, and doesn't like the pizza place associating his
address with his phone number, or perhaps he is calling someone who
collects marketing data and attempts to data-mine his activity, or
some other more legitimate, applicable and realistic take on
appropriate cases for desiring anonymity in such a transaction

>
> --
> Jim Mercer Reptilian Research  j...@reptiles.org+1 416 410-5633
> "He who dies with the most toys is nonetheless dead"
>



-- 
Kyle Creyts

Information Assurance Professional
BSidesDetroit Organizer

- End forwarded message -
-- 
Eugen* Leitl http://leitl.org";>leitl http://leitl.org
__
ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE
___
tor-talk mailing

Re: [tor-talk] William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if you can.

[Eugen Leitl]

- Forwarded message from Owen DeLong  -

From: Owen DeLong 
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2012 19:22:48 -0800
To: Tom Beecher 
Cc: NANOG 
Subject: Re: William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if
you can.
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1499)

Yes, but if you are operating a TOR node, it's not entirely clear to me that 
you are not actually an ISP (whether you
realize that or not).

You are, after all, providing a form of internet access to non-paying customers.

Owen

On Nov 29, 2012, at 11:58 , Tom Beecher  wrote:

> Not really comparable.
> 
> Speaking from a US point of view, ISPs has strong legal protections isolating 
> them from culpability for the actions of their customers. I know 
> internationally things are different, but here in the US the ISP doesn't get 
> dinged, except in certain cases where they are legally required to remove 
> access to material and don't.
> 
> End users have no such protections that I'm aware of that cover them 
> similarly.
> 
> On 11/29/2012 2:50 PM, George Herbert wrote:
>> On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 11:18 AM, Tom Beecher  wrote:
>>> Assuming it's true, it was bound to happen. Running anything , TOR or
>>> otherwise, that allows strangers to do whatever they want is just folly.
>> Such as, say, an Internet Service Provider business?
>> 
>> ...
>> 
> 


- End forwarded message -
-- 
Eugen* Leitl http://leitl.org";>leitl http://leitl.org
__
ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE
___
tor-talk mailing list
tor-talk@lists.torproject.org
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk

Re: [tor-talk] William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if you can.

[Webmaster]

Just thought I'd Add my 2c here. Limiting my response Only regarding 
home Wireless access in the US.   I was involved in a case with just 
this situation.


According to my lawyer there is no consensus on who is responsible for 
wifi.  Every State has different laws each one is just a vague.

In NY, if your wireless is secured (pw protected) you are ok.
In NH, you are responsible for all data that passes your wifi point 
secured or not.

In MA(my state)  there is no specific law...you just need a good lawyer  :)




On 11/30/2012 04:38 AM, Eugen Leitl wrote:

- Forwarded message from "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" 
 -

From: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" 
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2012 18:07:48 -0500 (EST)
To: "Naslund, Steve" 
Cc: NANOG 
Subject: RE: William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if
you can.
User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (LRH 1167 2008-08-23)
Reply-To: froom...@law.tm

On Thu, 29 Nov 2012, Naslund, Steve wrote:


1. Running open access wireless does not make you legally an ISP and if

OK.


your open wireless is used to commit a crime you could be criminally
negligent if you did not take "reasonable care" in the eyes of the
court.


I believe this is incorrect under US law.  Do you have any support,
statutory or case law, for this claim?


2. If I provide access to four or five friends, I am not an ISP and in
fact I am responsible if they use my connection to do something illegal
since I am the customer of record.  If you loan your car to an
unlicensed driver and he kills someone, you are on the hook.


The key word above is "unlicensed".  And the other key word -- not present
-- is "knowingly".  But the analogy breaks down because you don't need a
license to use the Internet.  Consequently, in most cases you will not
know, and cannot reasonably be expected to know, about legal violations.
If you let your buddy use your home wireless while he's staying with you
for the weekend, and he commits, say, a fraud, or blackmails someone, you
are not legally responsible for any of it unless you participated knowingly
in some way.  Of course, that you didn't know may be hard and expensive and
unpleasant to try to prove, but that's a different question.


3. I guarantee you that if your blogging site, wiki or whatever is
publishing content like child porn, you are going to jail.  There is no

Child porn is an unusual strict liability crime.  If you publish or possess
it, even unknowingly, you face real risks.  As a practical matter most
prosecutors do not bring cases against innocent victims (e.g. someone on
AOL who gets an evil popup unexpectedly).  In theory maybe they could, but
I suspect they don't really want the test case.


"ISP like protections" for that.  If you do not take action as soon as
you know a crime is being committed, you are going to get nailed.

The question in this case would be all about whether the Tor exit node
is viewed as a device specifically enabling a criminal or something that

I do not think that would be the analysis under US law at all. The first
question is mens rea.  We do not charge the car rental company with
something if its car is used to rob a bank -- unless they knew in advance
that was the plan.  Cars enable criminals too.


was incidentally used to commit a crime.  For example, if I give you a
hammer and you break into someone's house with it, I am probably not
criminally negligent.  If I provided you with lock picking equipment and
you are not a locksmith, I might be criminally negligent.  This is not

The term "criminally negligent" really has no role here.  Negligence is in
most cases a civil not a criminal offense.  There are specific crimes.
There is aiding and abetting.  There may be criminal negligence in
unrelated cases where you have a duty to secure something or protect (or
not harm) someone and fail to do so (e.g. you leave your car in a position
to roll downhill and it hurts someone, or you are willfully blind to a
danger to child for whom you should be caring, or you act with such
inattention so as to kill someone).  But in the USA ***you have no legal
duty to secure your wireless***.  None.  You can leave it open, just as
you can leave your window open and let people enjoy what you are playing
on your stereo (modulo public nuisance law, and copyright rules against
some types of unlicensed public performance).  Thus there can be no
negligence in leaving it open, at least absent specific knowledge that a
person intends to do a specific thing.


so clear cut a case that there would not be a fight about it.

Steven Naslund


[...]



___
tor-talk mailing list
tor-talk@lists.torproject.org
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk

Re: [tor-talk] William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if you can.

[Fabian Keil]

Julian Yon  wrote:

> This story has now hit Ars Technica:
> http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/11/tor-operator-charged-for-child-porn-transmitted-over-his-servers/

There doesn't seem to be any indication that he has been
charged with anything.

Usually raids happen to collect evidence that might lead to the
suspect being charged later on, but it can also lead to the case
being dropped by the public prosecution and that might even happen
without analysing the evidence.

At least in Germany my impression is that Tor-related raids
don't usually lead to Tor-related charges. I'm not aware of
any statistics about this, though.

Fabian


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
tor-talk mailing list
tor-talk@lists.torproject.org
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk

Re: [tor-talk] William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if you can.

[gijsje]

iirc in the Netherlands you're not responsible for illegal actions 
commited through your Wifi.


In fact if you're a household and illegal activities are made through 
your own internet by one of the household members the state has to prove 
wich member it was to prosecute. It is not possbile to just hold the 
account holder responsible.


I used to run a open wifi and the only thing I did, for my own sake, 
was block port 25. Otherwise virus infected computers would spam the 
world and I'd end up on a blacklist unable to send mail myself.




Webmaster schreef op 2012-11-30 11:36:

Just thought I'd Add my 2c here. Limiting my response Only regarding
home Wireless access in the US.   I was involved in a case with just
this situation.

According to my lawyer there is no consensus on who is responsible
for wifi.  Every State has different laws each one is just a vague.
In NY, if your wireless is secured (pw protected) you are ok.
In NH, you are responsible for all data that passes your wifi point
secured or not.
In MA(my state)  there is no specific law...you just need a good 
lawyer  :)





On 11/30/2012 04:38 AM, Eugen Leitl wrote:
- Forwarded message from "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of 
Law"  -


From: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" 


Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2012 18:07:48 -0500 (EST)
To: "Naslund, Steve" 
Cc: NANOG 
Subject: RE: William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please 
help if

you can.
User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (LRH 1167 2008-08-23)
Reply-To: froom...@law.tm

On Thu, 29 Nov 2012, Naslund, Steve wrote:

1. Running open access wireless does not make you legally an ISP 
and if

OK.

your open wireless is used to commit a crime you could be 
criminally

negligent if you did not take "reasonable care" in the eyes of the
court.


I believe this is incorrect under US law.  Do you have any support,
statutory or case law, for this claim?

2. If I provide access to four or five friends, I am not an ISP and 
in
fact I am responsible if they use my connection to do something 
illegal

since I am the customer of record.  If you loan your car to an
unlicensed driver and he kills someone, you are on the hook.

The key word above is "unlicensed".  And the other key word -- not 
present
-- is "knowingly".  But the analogy breaks down because you don't 
need a
license to use the Internet.  Consequently, in most cases you will 
not
know, and cannot reasonably be expected to know, about legal 
violations.
If you let your buddy use your home wireless while he's staying with 
you
for the weekend, and he commits, say, a fraud, or blackmails 
someone, you
are not legally responsible for any of it unless you participated 
knowingly
in some way.  Of course, that you didn't know may be hard and 
expensive and

unpleasant to try to prove, but that's a different question.


3. I guarantee you that if your blogging site, wiki or whatever is
publishing content like child porn, you are going to jail.  There 
is no
Child porn is an unusual strict liability crime.  If you publish or 
possess
it, even unknowingly, you face real risks.  As a practical matter 
most
prosecutors do not bring cases against innocent victims (e.g. 
someone on
AOL who gets an evil popup unexpectedly).  In theory maybe they 
could, but

I suspect they don't really want the test case.

"ISP like protections" for that.  If you do not take action as soon 
as

you know a crime is being committed, you are going to get nailed.

The question in this case would be all about whether the Tor exit 
node
is viewed as a device specifically enabling a criminal or something 
that
I do not think that would be the analysis under US law at all. The 
first

question is mens rea.  We do not charge the car rental company with
something if its car is used to rob a bank -- unless they knew in 
advance

that was the plan.  Cars enable criminals too.

was incidentally used to commit a crime.  For example, if I give 
you a
hammer and you break into someone's house with it, I am probably 
not
criminally negligent.  If I provided you with lock picking 
equipment and
you are not a locksmith, I might be criminally negligent.  This is 
not
The term "criminally negligent" really has no role here.  Negligence 
is in
most cases a civil not a criminal offense.  There are specific 
crimes.

There is aiding and abetting.  There may be criminal negligence in
unrelated cases where you have a duty to secure something or protect 
(or
not harm) someone and fail to do so (e.g. you leave your car in a 
position
to roll downhill and it hurts someone, or you are willfully blind to 
a

danger to child for whom you should be caring, or you act with such
inattention so as to kill someone).  But in the USA ***you have no 
legal
duty to secure your wireless***.  None.  You can leave it open, just 
as
you can leave your window open and let people enjoy what you are 
playing
on your stereo (modulo public nuisance law, and copyright rules 
against

some types of unlicensed

Re: [tor-talk] William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if you can.

[Fabian Keil]

Asad Haider  wrote:

> You can find the full interview and more information at
> http://raided4tor.cryto.net/

| I was handed the interrogation transcript, which I agreed to sign
| after reading it. I was free to go, but again they failed to inform
| me of something of critical importance – that I was not allowed to
| leave the country without consent of police. I was informed of this
| by my boss later.

Somehow I doubt that that's actually up to the Austrian police to decide.

Fabian


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
tor-talk mailing list
tor-talk@lists.torproject.org
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk

Re: [tor-talk] William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if you can.

[Eugen Leitl]

- Forwarded message from Rich Kulawiec  -

From: Rich Kulawiec 
Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2012 07:58:53 -0500
To: na...@nanog.org
Subject: Re: William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if
you can.
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)

On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 08:04:02AM -0500, Chris quoted (William):
> Yes, it happened to me now as well - Yesterday i got raided for
> someone sharing child pornography over one of my Tor exits.

Question: what evidence has been published -- that is, placed somewhere
that we can all see it -- that substantiates the claim that child porn
traversed the node in question?

Followup question 1: if no such evidence has been produced, then
why should we believe that it exists?  Extraordinary claims require
extraordinary proof.

Followup question 2: if the goal is to identify and apprehend the
perpetrators of child porn (and that's a good goal) then why would
the police raid this operation?  Would it not make far more sense to
take advantage of the operator's knowledge and experience and quietly
ask for his/her cooperation *while leaving the node running*?

Followup question 3: what evidence in front of us allows us to clearly
discern that this is what it purports to be and not simply an attempt
to shut down a Tor node (and intimidate the operators of others)
by using a plausible excuse based on a universal hot-button issue?

---rsk

- End forwarded message -
-- 
Eugen* Leitl http://leitl.org";>leitl http://leitl.org
__
ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE
___
tor-talk mailing list
tor-talk@lists.torproject.org
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk

Re: [tor-talk] William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if you can.

[Barry Shein]

On November 30, 2012 at 08:18 joa...@aronius.se (Joakim Aronius) wrote:
 > 
 > I am all for being anonymous on the net but I seriously believe that we 
 > still need to enforce the law when it comes to serious felonies like child 
 > pr0n, organized crime etc, we can't give them a free pass just by using Tor. 
 > I dont think it should be illegal to operate a Tor exit node but what just 
 > happened could be a consequence of doing it.

Yeah, next they'll let just anyone walk down the sidewalk without
identifying themselves. And those are public sidewalks paid for by tax
dollars!

Or drop a few coins in a public telephone (I know, a little dated, but
they exist) w/o id and commit some crime!

I think some here need to reflect on what they're saying.

Sure, it'd be better to stop bad guys, but this has always been the
problem in a free society, you can't just put draconian rules on
everyone else because otherwise some bad guy might not be immediately
and easily identified.

This was the sort of reasoning they used in the Soviet Union to make
it very difficult to get access to a photocopy machine (ask someone
who lived there, it was practically like buying a firearm in the US.)

We're all (well most of us) glad that law enforcement does its job,
but even the US Constitution (3rd amendment) bothered to state:

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house,
without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a
manner to be prescribed by law.

It's only an analogy but I think it's clear, if we're protected from
being forced to provide food & shelter directly to soldiers presumably
defending our lives and country the principle as it pertains to being
required to do whatever law enforcement dreams up to catch bad guys is
pretty clear. As a principle -- Note: I am NOT making a legal point!

Ok, grab onto that "manner prescribed by law", but remember that it
said "in time of war". None of what we're discussing is relevant to
any war (except as politicians toss around the war on this or that.)

 > Of course they might not know abot Tor and believes that it is Mr Williams 
 > that is the bad guy. 
 > 
 > /J

Sure, but I assume he told them that :-)

-- 
-Barry Shein

The World  | b...@theworld.com   | http://www.TheWorld.com
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 800-THE-WRLD| Dial-Up: US, PR, Canada
Software Tool & Die| Public Access Internet | SINCE 1989 *oo*
___
tor-talk mailing list
tor-talk@lists.torproject.org
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk

Re: [tor-talk] William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if you can.

[Naslund, Steve]

>-Original Message-
>From: Rich Kulawiec [mailto:r...@gsp.org] 
>Sent: Friday, November 30, 2012 6:59 AM
>To: na...@nanog.org
>Subject: Re: William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please
help if you can.

> On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 08:04:02AM -0500, Chris quoted (William):
> Yes, it happened to me now as well - Yesterday i got raided for 
> someone sharing child pornography over one of my Tor exits.

> Question: what evidence has been published -- that is, placed
somewhere that we can all see it -- that substantiates the claim that
child porn 
> traversed the node in question?

The cops don't have to present evidence until there is a court case.
Since this guy was not arrested, they have apparently not decided to
charge him yet.  The apparently had some evidence to get the seizure
order.  They have to convince a judge, not the public.


> Followup question 1: if no such evidence has been produced, then why
should we believe that it exists?  Extraordinary claims require
extraordinary 
> proof.

Again, no evidence needed until a prosecution happens. Just enough for
the cops to convince a judge to allow the evidence seizure.

>Followup question 2: if the goal is to identify and apprehend the
perpetrators of child porn (and that's a good goal) then why would the
police raid >this operation?  Would it not make far more sense to take
advantage of the operator's knowledge and experience and quietly ask for
his/her cooperation >*while leaving the node running*?

Maybe the cops think he is a perpetrator.  It is not unthinkable that he
set up a network to hide his own activities.  Note that they seized his
HOME storage devices, not the Tor server.

>Followup question 3: what evidence in front of us allows us to clearly
discern that this is what it purports to be and not simply an attempt to
shut >down a Tor node (and intimidate the operators of others) by using
a plausible excuse based on a universal hot-button issue?

Since the individual indicates that the Tor node was already down and
the police did not seize it, what makes you think that it was the target
at all.  The individual only indicated that the police asked about the
IP address used by the Tor server during his questioning so it is
possible they did not know it was a Tor node and maybe thought it was at
his apartment.  I have yet to see anything indicating that he is not
allowed to bring his Tor node back online.  I am not assuming this is
only about the Tor node just because the cops asked him about it.  I am
a little concerned that this guy keeps a safe deposit box with a burner
phone and cash around.  Is he a CIA agent? :)

Why would I donate to his legal defense when he has not been charged
yet?  A little premature, no?


>---rsk


Steven Naslund
___
tor-talk mailing list
tor-talk@lists.torproject.org
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk

Re: [tor-talk] William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if you can.

[Naslund, Steve]

WAIT A SECOND HERE!?!?

I just read below that this guy runs a large ISP in Austria.  I thought
his Tor node was hosted with an external provider.  If he runs the ISP,
why would he not host his own server in house?  I suppose there are
reasons but I can't think of one, especially if you feel so strongly
about this being your right.  

He talks about moving it to another ISP in the article interviewing him.
How about moving it to the large ISP you run? 

If he runs a large ISP he must not be very good at it if he needs our
donations to help him defend himself from a crime he has not been
charged with yet.  Most of the guys I know that run large ISPs have
legal guys available to them.  They could also come up with 1EUR if
necessary.  

What is he going to do with this money if no charges are filed and they
give his gear back?  If he believes that he is innocent of any crime
then he should be confident they won't find anything to charge him with,
right?

> > If convicted i could face up to 6 years in jail, of course i do not 
> > want that and i also want to try to set a legal base for running Tor

> > exit nodes in Austria or even the EU.
> >

Six years in jail for what?  They didn't arrest you yet.  How do you
know what the charges are?  The cops must not be too worried about the
Tor node if they did not seize it.  They seem a lot more interested in
his personal storage devices.  He seems to have a lot of data at home,
not illegal (possibly) but I am wondering what it all might be.  The
cops have a lot of looking around ahead of them.  Seems awful worried
for a guy who claims to be innocent.  I am wondering why he seems so
sure he will be charged that he is building a legal defense fund before
being arrested.


> > Sadly we have nothing like the EFF here that could help me in this 
> > case by legal assistance, so i'm on my own and require a good
lawyer.
> > Thus i'm accepting donations for my legal expenses which i expect to

> > be around 5000-1 EUR.

So you know how much it costs to defend a case with unknown charges and
without knowing if you will be arrested yet?!?!?!

This whole thing sounds flakier with every new detail.

Steven Naslund

-Original Message-
From: Eugen Leitl [mailto:eu...@leitl.org] 
Sent: Friday, November 30, 2012 1:25 AM
To: NANOG list
Subject: Re: [tor-talk] William was raided for running a Tor exit node.
Please help if you can.

- Forwarded message from Asad Haider  -

From: Asad Haider 
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2012 19:37:24 +0000
To: tor-talk@lists.torproject.org
Subject: Re: [tor-talk] William was raided for running a Tor exit node.
Please help if you can.
Reply-To: tor-talk@lists.torproject.org

William will be posting a statement soon which will explain everything
that's happened and give a detailed account of events, along with
evidence including pictures showing the aftermath of the raid in his
apartment, as well as copies of the warrant and inventory of seized
items.

He runs a large ISP in Austria and is a well respected member of the
community, a lot of us have already sent in donations.

His blog is https://rdns.im/ and I'm guessing the statement will be
posted on there, I'll send everyone a link once it's finished being
written.

On 29 November 2012 19:22, Eugen Leitl  wrote:

> - Forwarded message from Emily Ozols  -
>
> From: Emily Ozols 
> Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2012 01:14:08 +1100
> To: na...@nanog.org
> Subject: Re: William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please
help if
> you can.
>
> Hi,
>
> I gotta ask and I'm sure someone would if I didn't, but how do we know

> this guy is legit?
> He's jumped up on a forum saying, "Hey, police raided me, help. gib 
> mone plz" and failed to provide and reason as to how he's real and not

> just making it up.
>
> Maybe if there's a way to know this guy is legit, I'll help out if 
> possible, but until then I'm just going to watch others with caution 
> and I suggest others do as well.
>
> On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 12:04 AM, Chris  wrote:
> > I'm not William and a friend pasted a link on IRC to me. I'm going 
> > to send him a few bucks because I know how it feels to get 
> > blindsided by the police on one random day and your world is turned
upside down.
> >
> > Source:
> http://www.lowendtalk.com/discussion/6283/raided-for-running-a-tor-exi
> t-accepting-donations-for-legal-expenses
> >
> > From the URL:
> >
> > Yes, it happened to me now as well - Yesterday i got raided for 
> > someone sharing child pornography over one of my Tor exits.
> > I'm good so far, not in jail, but all my computers and hardware have

> > been confiscated.
> > (20 computers, 100TB+ storage, My Tablets/Con

Re: [tor-talk] William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if you can.

[Peter Kristolaitis]

On 11/30/2012 04:01 PM, Naslund, Steve wrote:

   I am a little concerned that this guy keeps a safe deposit box with a burner
phone and cash around.  Is he a CIA agent? :)
Anyone who DOESN'T have such things stashed away somewhere is, IMHO, 
incredibly naive and taking on quite a large amount of risk.


The likelihood (and hope) is that you'll never need it.  But on the off 
chance that you get f***ed by the legal system because of some power 
hungry, mouth-breather cop who can't/won't understand that you've done 
nothing wrong -- or worse, that you're easily provably within the law, 
but he "believes" that you're not and drags you through the process 
anyways -- you'll be very happy that you stashed away that old unlocked 
cell phone, old laptop, change of clothes and cash.


I'm a (legal) firearms owner... up here in Canada, where some previous 
governments enacted extreme anti-gun legislation, that pretty much means 
that if I so much as sneeze in a way that a cop doesn't like, I can have 
my life ruined pretty damned fast (not quite, but really close).  I 
wouldn't bet against me having an excrement-hitting-the-oscillator stash 
like this guy does.  ;)


(Note:  I don't mean to imply that all cops are power hungry 
mouth-breathers intent on destroying the lives of citizens.   Most cops 
are fundamentally good people and do a great job.  But like every other 
profession, there ARE bad cops out there, and it's within the realm of 
possibility that you'll deal with one of them one day.)



Why would I donate to his legal defense when he has not been charged
yet?  A little premature, no?

If you think that legal costs in a criminal case only start when you've 
been formally charged, you're grossly misinformed.   At what point you 
personally decide to donate is one thing, but implying that someone 
doesn't need a defense fund prior to charges being laid is a bit naive 
about how the process works.


- Pete

___
tor-talk mailing list
tor-talk@lists.torproject.org
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk

Re: [tor-talk] William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if you can.

[Naslund, Steve]

As a network professional do I not have a duty to protect my companies
network from unauthorized access within my ability to do so?  I think I
do.  If you lost all of your credit card and identity data because I
left an open wifi hotspot on my network would you have a liability case?
I sure think so.
If I go into your building and plug in an open wifi hotspot that allows
a hacker to gain access to your stuff, is that illegal?  I think it is.

In this case we are not talking about a civil claim of negligence at
all.  It is not even a civil case.  Let's look at it more as the
credibility of deniability.  Grandma can claim in court that she had no
idea that the neighborhood was using her wifi and be believable.  I
can't make that claim because it is easy to prove that I know better.
Whether the act itself is legal is another matter, but the ability to
deny knowledge of the act is the question.  So, the way this translates
is "Sir, did you know that a large percentage of Tor use is for illegal
activities?"  How does this guy answer no when he supposedly runs a
large ISP?

As far as the anonymous remailer, at that time sending anonymous email
or spam was not yet illegal.  Many ISPs began cracking down on open mail
relays well before the CAN SPAM stuff came about because it was good
business and most of the industry agreed that open mail relay was bad.  

What I find really interesting is that the ISP (in general, there are a
few rogues) will immediately shut down access to an open mail relay
being hosted by their customer because it enables SPAM, but would allow
a Tor relay that allows lots of illegal activity.

I can tell you exactly why this happens.  Most network professionals
hate spam, its inconvenience, its clogging of the systems we maintain,
and we declared war on the spammers.  Tor however enables a whole lot of
"gray area" activities like media piracy, warez, and lots of other stuff
that some of us are less concerned about (and some of us actually use).
If the ISPs and engineers get concerned about any of this stuff, we are
capable of killing it off easier than the law enforcement channels.  We
never eliminated SPAM but it was made a lot tougher.  Unfortunately, the
history of the public Internet shows that one of the technology drivers
of higher and better connections are for things like media sharing and
distribution which includes some not so savory or legal sharing and
distribution and some not so nice media.

Steven Naslund



-Original Message-
From: Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law
[mailto:froom...@law.miami.edu] 
Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2012 6:30 PM
To: Naslund, Steve
Cc: NANOG
Subject: RE: William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help
if you can.

On Thu, 29 Nov 2012, Naslund, Steve wrote:

[...]
>
> When it comes to running an open access point, I think the legal issue

> would be negligence.  Is it negligence for the 90 year old grandma to 
> have an open AP (probably not, just didn't know better)?  Is it 
> negligence for me to have an open AP (probably, I am a network 
> professional and know how to secure a network).
>

In order for there to be a civil claim of negligence there must be,
inter alia, a breach of duty.

What duty has been breached in your scenario?  None.

[...]
>
> This is certainly an interesting discussion and I think there are not 
> a lot of concrete answers since this is on the edge of technology law.

> I

Actually some of us have been teaching and writing about this stuff
since the mid 1990s.  These issues are far from new; we went through
them in the early anonymous remailer days.



--
A. Michael Froomkin, http://www.law.tm Blog: http://www.discourse.net
Laurie Silvers & Mitchell Rubenstein Distinguished Professor of Law
Editor, Jotwell: The Journal of Things We Like (Lots),  jotwell.com U.
Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
+1 (305) 284-4285  |+1 (305) 284-6506 (fax)  |  froom...@law.tm
-->It's warm here.<--
___
tor-talk mailing list
tor-talk@lists.torproject.org
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk

Re: [tor-talk] William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if you can.

[Naslund, Steve]

OK, there must be a lot more paranoid people out there than I thought
there were.  I personally don't have a "runaway kit" stashed away.  I
will get right on that. So when that "mouth breather cop" won't believe
you are innocent, your answer is to grab your stuff and go on the lamb
for awhile?  I am sure he will let you out to go to the bank, get your
stuff, and leave town.  I think you have seen way to many movies.

So if the cops show up at his door tomorrow and say "Here's all your
stuff back, there was no evidence of a crime.", you are OK with this
guys keeping the "defense fund"?

Steve

-Original Message-
From: Peter Kristolaitis [mailto:alte...@alter3d.ca] 
Sent: Friday, November 30, 2012 3:53 PM
To: na...@nanog.org
Subject: Re: William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help
if you can.


On 11/30/2012 04:01 PM, Naslund, Steve wrote:
>I am a little concerned that this guy keeps a safe deposit box with

> a burner phone and cash around.  Is he a CIA agent? :)
Anyone who DOESN'T have such things stashed away somewhere is, IMHO,
incredibly naive and taking on quite a large amount of risk.

The likelihood (and hope) is that you'll never need it.  But on the off
chance that you get f***ed by the legal system because of some power
hungry, mouth-breather cop who can't/won't understand that you've done
nothing wrong -- or worse, that you're easily provably within the law,
but he "believes" that you're not and drags you through the process
anyways -- you'll be very happy that you stashed away that old unlocked
cell phone, old laptop, change of clothes and cash.

I'm a (legal) firearms owner... up here in Canada, where some previous
governments enacted extreme anti-gun legislation, that pretty much means
that if I so much as sneeze in a way that a cop doesn't like, I can have
my life ruined pretty damned fast (not quite, but really close).  I
wouldn't bet against me having an excrement-hitting-the-oscillator stash
like this guy does.  ;)

(Note:  I don't mean to imply that all cops are power hungry 
mouth-breathers intent on destroying the lives of citizens.   Most cops 
are fundamentally good people and do a great job.  But like every other
profession, there ARE bad cops out there, and it's within the realm of
possibility that you'll deal with one of them one day.)

> Why would I donate to his legal defense when he has not been charged 
> yet?  A little premature, no?
>
If you think that legal costs in a criminal case only start when you've 
been formally charged, you're grossly misinformed.   At what point you 
personally decide to donate is one thing, but implying that someone
doesn't need a defense fund prior to charges being laid is a bit naive
about how the process works.

- Pete


___
tor-talk mailing list
tor-talk@lists.torproject.org
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk

Re: [tor-talk] William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if you can.

[Naslund, Steve]

>From: Jimmy Hess [mailto:mysi...@gmail.com] 
>Sent: Friday, November 30, 2012 3:47 PM
>To: William Herrin
>Cc: NANOG list
>Subject: Re: William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please
help if you can.

>On 11/29/12, William Herrin  wrote:

>> If the computer at IP:port:timestamp transmitted child porn, a
warrant 
>> for "all computers" is also too broad. "Computers which use said IP

>As you know, there may always be some uncertainty about which computer
was using a certain IP address at a certain time --  the computer
>assigned that address might have been off,  with a   deviant
>individual spoofing MAC address and IP address of a certain computer,
using different equipment still attached to the same physical LAN.

>Their warrant authors will probably not say "all computers";  they will
more likely say something like all digital storage media,  and equipment
>required for access.

Funny thing is they hit his residence, not the location where
the Tor server was located.  Most likely they tracked the Tor server's
IP to anaccount at the ISP that hosted it, that pointed at his
residence.  Strange that they did not seize the server itself according
to the interview of the guy involved.


>Which includes all hard drives, SSDs,  CF cards, diskettes, CDRs,  and
all the computing equipment they are installed in  (keyboard, monitor,
mouse, >etc)  normally used to access the media.

Probably said all computing equipment and media on the premise.
That is extremely common language for these warrants.  I have never,
ever, heard of a seizure that only involved a single IP address.  The
cops know that media moves around.


>> address or which employ forensic countermeasures which prevent a
ready 
>> determination whether they employed said IP address." And have a

>DHCP?

>> qualified technician on the search team, same as you would for any 
>> other material being searched.

>If they had a qualified technician,  they probably wouldn't be raiding
>a TOR exit node in the first place;   they would have investigated the
>matter  more thoroughly, and saved precious time.
>

Remember, they did not raid the Tor exit node.  They raided the home of
the guy running the Tor exit node.  Way different.


>--
>-JH


Steven Naslund
___
tor-talk mailing list
tor-talk@lists.torproject.org
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk

Re: [tor-talk] William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if you can.

[Warren Bailey]

When is the last time you were arrested, or even in a legal situation
which required your attention as a defendant? It seems pretty straight
forward, but I can assure you this guy is getting very little sleep and
his heart is beating out of his chest. Granted this entire situation is
taking place in a legal venue which I have no understanding of (The EU
obviously does things differently). I think it was pretty risky to
consider running a Tor node, much less being involved in running multiple
nodes. This entire situation is beginning to read like a Kim DotCom (or
Schmitz for those of us who worked for him at some point) novel, where an
outside force directed a local LEA to perform some kind of raid to get
someone's attention. This was obviously not a helicopter raid with SWAT,
ala RapidShare, but I hope you get the point. This guy is sweating bullets
because he has no idea what is going to happen next (in my humble
opinion), so his rational thought process and/or even discussing when he
will return the funds donated is a pre-mature at best.

Just my .02.

On 11/30/12 1:30 PM, "Naslund, Steve"  wrote:

>WAIT A SECOND HERE!?!?
>
>I just read below that this guy runs a large ISP in Austria.  I thought
>his Tor node was hosted with an external provider.  If he runs the ISP,
>why would he not host his own server in house?  I suppose there are
>reasons but I can't think of one, especially if you feel so strongly
>about this being your right.
>
>He talks about moving it to another ISP in the article interviewing him.
>How about moving it to the large ISP you run?
>
>If he runs a large ISP he must not be very good at it if he needs our
>donations to help him defend himself from a crime he has not been
>charged with yet.  Most of the guys I know that run large ISPs have
>legal guys available to them.  They could also come up with 1EUR if
>necessary.  
>
>What is he going to do with this money if no charges are filed and they
>give his gear back?  If he believes that he is innocent of any crime
>then he should be confident they won't find anything to charge him with,
>right?
>
>> > If convicted i could face up to 6 years in jail, of course i do not
>> > want that and i also want to try to set a legal base for running Tor
>
>> > exit nodes in Austria or even the EU.
>> >
>
>Six years in jail for what?  They didn't arrest you yet.  How do you
>know what the charges are?  The cops must not be too worried about the
>Tor node if they did not seize it.  They seem a lot more interested in
>his personal storage devices.  He seems to have a lot of data at home,
>not illegal (possibly) but I am wondering what it all might be.  The
>cops have a lot of looking around ahead of them.  Seems awful worried
>for a guy who claims to be innocent.  I am wondering why he seems so
>sure he will be charged that he is building a legal defense fund before
>being arrested.
>
>
>> > Sadly we have nothing like the EFF here that could help me in this
>> > case by legal assistance, so i'm on my own and require a good
>lawyer.
>> > Thus i'm accepting donations for my legal expenses which i expect to
>
>> > be around 5000-1 EUR.
>
>So you know how much it costs to defend a case with unknown charges and
>without knowing if you will be arrested yet?!?!?!
>
>This whole thing sounds flakier with every new detail.
>
>Steven Naslund
>
>-Original Message-
>From: Eugen Leitl [mailto:eu...@leitl.org]
>Sent: Friday, November 30, 2012 1:25 AM
>To: NANOG list
>Subject: Re: [tor-talk] William was raided for running a Tor exit node.
>Please help if you can.
>
>- Forwarded message from Asad Haider  -
>
>From: Asad Haider 
>Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2012 19:37:24 +
>To: tor-talk@lists.torproject.org
>Subject: Re: [tor-talk] William was raided for running a Tor exit node.
>   Please help if you can.
>Reply-To: tor-talk@lists.torproject.org
>
>William will be posting a statement soon which will explain everything
>that's happened and give a detailed account of events, along with
>evidence including pictures showing the aftermath of the raid in his
>apartment, as well as copies of the warrant and inventory of seized
>items.
>
>He runs a large ISP in Austria and is a well respected member of the
>community, a lot of us have already sent in donations.
>
>His blog is https://rdns.im/ and I'm guessing the statement will be
>posted on there, I'll send everyone a link once it's finished being
>written.
>
>On 29 November 2012 19:22, Eugen Leitl  wrote:
>
>> - Forwarded message from Emily Ozols  -
>>
>> From: Emily Ozols 
>> Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2012 01:14:08 

Re: [tor-talk] William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if you can.

[Peter Kristolaitis]

I didn't say anything about trying to run away.  That probably won't 
accomplish a whole lot in the long run.   But when all of your bank 
accounts and credit cards are frozen, and your house is a crime scene, 
at least you have the means to rent a hotel room, contact 
family/lawyers, etc.


And no, I'm not OK with people keeping any money that was donated for a 
specific purpose in excess of what was actually used.  You'd hope that 
he'd be a good guy about it and give back the portion that wasn't used, 
or clearly state that any excess will go to charity or something.  
However, there's no such guarantee (short of doing it through a trust 
fund with his lawyer), and just like any philanthropic venture, it's up 
to each donor choose when/if they'll help out.   It's just like 
Kickstarter -- you hope to get something good out of it, but if it 
bombs, well... you pay your money and you take your chances.


- Pete



On 11/30/2012 05:02 PM, Naslund, Steve wrote:

OK, there must be a lot more paranoid people out there than I thought
there were.  I personally don't have a "runaway kit" stashed away.  I
will get right on that. So when that "mouth breather cop" won't believe
you are innocent, your answer is to grab your stuff and go on the lamb
for awhile?  I am sure he will let you out to go to the bank, get your
stuff, and leave town.  I think you have seen way to many movies.

So if the cops show up at his door tomorrow and say "Here's all your
stuff back, there was no evidence of a crime.", you are OK with this
guys keeping the "defense fund"?

Steve

-Original Message-
From: Peter Kristolaitis [mailto:alte...@alter3d.ca]
Sent: Friday, November 30, 2012 3:53 PM
To: na...@nanog.org
Subject: Re: William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help
if you can.


On 11/30/2012 04:01 PM, Naslund, Steve wrote:

I am a little concerned that this guy keeps a safe deposit box with
a burner phone and cash around.  Is he a CIA agent? :)

Anyone who DOESN'T have such things stashed away somewhere is, IMHO,
incredibly naive and taking on quite a large amount of risk.

The likelihood (and hope) is that you'll never need it.  But on the off
chance that you get f***ed by the legal system because of some power
hungry, mouth-breather cop who can't/won't understand that you've done
nothing wrong -- or worse, that you're easily provably within the law,
but he "believes" that you're not and drags you through the process
anyways -- you'll be very happy that you stashed away that old unlocked
cell phone, old laptop, change of clothes and cash.

I'm a (legal) firearms owner... up here in Canada, where some previous
governments enacted extreme anti-gun legislation, that pretty much means
that if I so much as sneeze in a way that a cop doesn't like, I can have
my life ruined pretty damned fast (not quite, but really close).  I
wouldn't bet against me having an excrement-hitting-the-oscillator stash
like this guy does.  ;)

(Note:  I don't mean to imply that all cops are power hungry
mouth-breathers intent on destroying the lives of citizens.   Most cops
are fundamentally good people and do a great job.  But like every other
profession, there ARE bad cops out there, and it's within the realm of
possibility that you'll deal with one of them one day.)


Why would I donate to his legal defense when he has not been charged
yet?  A little premature, no?


If you think that legal costs in a criminal case only start when you've
been formally charged, you're grossly misinformed.   At what point you
personally decide to donate is one thing, but implying that someone
doesn't need a defense fund prior to charges being laid is a bit naive
about how the process works.

- Pete





___
tor-talk mailing list
tor-talk@lists.torproject.org
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk

Re: [tor-talk] William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if you can.

[William Herrin]

On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 4:46 PM, Jimmy Hess  wrote:
> On 11/29/12, William Herrin  wrote:
>> If the computer at IP:port:timestamp transmitted child porn, a warrant
>> for "all computers" is also too broad. "Computers which use said IP
>
> As you know, there may always be some uncertainty about which computer
> was using a certain IP address at a certain time --  the computer
> assigned that address might have been off,  with a   deviant

Or more likely behind a NAT device where the address which presents is
the NAT device. But the police won't know that until they search.
Until they search they have no factual basis for the presumptions
either that more than one computer was associated with the activity or
that it isn't possible to readily identify which computer was
involved. That Tor node was probably on a static IP address and was
probably  on the same static IP address at the time of the alleged
activity.

"Reasonable suspicion" doesn't mean Bob thinks you did it, it means
that there's a trail of facts which lead *directly* to the evidence
you seek permission to seize. The trail to child porn doesn't include
the right to seize the stack of John Denver music and while it might
include the right to search the shelf of DVDs it doesn't include the
right to seize the ones produced by Disney. The right to search your
computer and the right to seize it are not at all the same thing.

Practically speaking, right now the police are going to seize all your
computers. But keep watching. Some time in the next decade or two
warrants will start to get quashed for failing to specify (by
parameters) *which* computer they were looking for. As computers
become more central to our lives it will probably come out that they
have the right to duplicate your hard drives and other read/write
media but don't have a right to take the originals unless they observe
warrant-covered material *on* the computer while searching.

Regards,
Bill Herrin


-- 
William D. Herrin  her...@dirtside.com  b...@herrin.us
3005 Crane Dr. .. Web: 
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
___
tor-talk mailing list
tor-talk@lists.torproject.org
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk

Re: [tor-talk] William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if you can.

[Naslund, Steve]

Guess who has power over the networks and Internet.  We do and power corrupts 
us too.  There are some bad guy ISPs and engineers out there too.  Just because 
you are running a Tor server to allow for "privacy protection" does not mean 
you were never doing anything illegal through it.  I know this is not true in 
all cases but a lot of times the guy who screams the most about privacy has 
something to hide.  Do you like getting phone calls with blocked callerID?  Do 
you like getting anonymous SPAM?  Do you mind having anonymously sourced pics 
of your kids going out over the internet?  One guys privacy is sometimes an 
invasion of mine.  

If this guy is so distraught over this case maybe he should have ensured that 
he had the resources to defend himself before he put up the multiple exit 
nodes.  There are test cases all the time, but if you want to be the test case 
you should be prepared.  

How many of us have killed an open mail relay (did you have a warrant before 
you interrupted that good Samaritan providing that free mail server to the poor 
downtrodden email-less masses...you are not even a cop and did not have a judge 
review your actions..how dare you...)?

Steven Naslund

-Original Message-
From: Eric Wieling [mailto:ewiel...@nyigc.com] 
Sent: Friday, November 30, 2012 4:12 PM
To: na...@nanog.org
Subject: RE: William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if you 
can.

>-Original Message-
>From: Peter Kristolaitis [mailto:alte...@alter3d.ca] 
>Sent: Friday, November 30, 2012 4:53 PM
>To: na...@nanog.org
>Subject: Re: William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if 
>you can.
>
> (Note:  I don't mean to imply that all cops are power hungry 
>mouth-breathers intent on destroying the lives of citizens.   Most cops 
>are fundamentally good people and do a great job.  But like every other 
>profession, there ARE bad cops out there, and it's within the realm of 
>possibility that you'll deal with one of them one day.)

Power corrupts and cops have power.What scares me is that there is no way 
*I* can tell the difference between a cop who accepts free coffee from the 
local café and a cop who will lie to get what they want.

___
tor-talk mailing list
tor-talk@lists.torproject.org
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk

Re: [tor-talk] William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if you can.

[bvvq]

On 1/12/2012 9:02 AM, Naslund, Steve wrote:

OK, there must be a lot more paranoid people out there than I thought
there were.  I personally don't have a "runaway kit" stashed away.  I
will get right on that. So when that "mouth breather cop" won't believe
you are innocent, your answer is to grab your stuff and go on the lamb
for awhile?  I am sure he will let you out to go to the bank, get your
stuff, and leave town.  I think you have seen way to many movies.



I agree the scenario you described is absurd, but I don't agree it's 
absurd to be paranoid or practical when your activities (like running an 
exit node) may result in you being raided.


I was raided in 2010 because of false allegations made by a cranky 
former employer. It was a very unpleasant experience and it's the reason 
why I run relays instead of exit nodes. The raid resulted in the seizure 
of all "electronic devices with storage capabilities" that were at my 
personal residence, in my vehicle, and on my person; it didn't include 
my hosted servers or offsite backups.


Unfortunately, this meant that my mobile phone (work and personal use), 
tablet (personal use), and laptop (work use) were seized because they 
were on me when the raid occurred. Fortunately, I'm paranoid/practical 
and had a mobile phone, laptop, and recent backups stored at my parents' 
house. Having these backups in place required a little effort and 
upfront cost, but it allowed me to return to work and studies with 
minimal disruption.


___
tor-talk mailing list
tor-talk@lists.torproject.org
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk

Re: [tor-talk] William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if you can.

[Paolo Palmieri]

> The cops don't have to present evidence until there is a court case.
> Since this guy was not arrested, they have apparently not decided to
> charge him yet.

You clearly do not understand the general procedure stated in European
crime laws. In most EU countries, the police cannot arrest you, after
being charged, unless they can prove that:
- you are likely to escape;
- you are likely to commit the crime again;
- you are likely and able to destroy or conceal evidence or somehow
manipulate witnesses.

Let me say this again: *after* you have been charged. This comes from
the principle that you are considered innocent until proven guilty, that
is, until the last court appeal was unsuccessful. This usually means 3
trials, and years later than the criminal proceeding start.

Paolo

___
tor-talk mailing list
tor-talk@lists.torproject.org
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk

Re: [tor-talk] William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if you can.

[Ted Smith]

On Fri, 2012-11-30 at 16:31 -0600, Naslund, Steve wrote:
> Guess who has power over the networks and Internet.  We do and power
> corrupts us too.  There are some bad guy ISPs and engineers out there
> too.  Just because you are running a Tor server to allow for "privacy
> protection" does not mean you were never doing anything illegal
> through it.  I know this is not true in all cases but a lot of times
> the guy who screams the most about privacy has something to hide. 

You've been pretty vocal in your opposition to anyone helping this Tor
volunteer, and now you're alleging that he was using his own exit node
to do illegal things?

Not only does that not make sense in the slightest (Tor clients can
select exit nodes -- why would he select his own?), by your own logic
it's becoming suspicious. A lot of times the guy who screams the most
about the culpability of privacy advocates has the most nefarious
influence to hide.

So either there's a breakdown in our logic, or you're getting paid by
the Illuminati to spread FUD about Tor on mailing lists. Which is it? (I
notice you haven't yet denied it, which is itself very suspect...)

-- 
Sent from Ubuntu

___
tor-talk mailing list
tor-talk@lists.torproject.org
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk

Re: [tor-talk] William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if you can.

[Joe Btfsplk]

I forgot - did someone say they keep cash & extra phone in a safe 
deposit box (pre paid or contract?  Contract phone is no use in a police 
crack down)?
If a deposit box, judge could freeze that too, so better hide it in 
someone else's house.  And what are they gonna say about that?  "I need 
to hide a phone, money, gun, etc. in your basement."
Even though I might think some of it's vaguely similar to preparing for 
a hurricane, most of my family would have me committed.


Though I empathize w/ him (read below), if William hasn't been charged 
w/ ANY thing, there's not much need for a full legal team - just yet.  
Sure, he's sweating bullets - innocent or not.  But that doesn't 
translate into spending huge $ right now.  An attorney can't do anything 
(if he's truly innocent) unless there are at least some charges to start 
thinking about a defense; they arrest him, etc.


Unless William's goal is to get his equip back quickly.  A lawyer could 
file motions, but probably wouldn't do much good - at least for now.  It 
does appear that one in his situation would be building a defense fund 
before there is anything to defend against.  Now, if he could promise to 
pay everyone back, proportionally, for what wasn't used for defense... 
but how could one do that?  How would we make them, if they decided not to?


What if the defense fund is needed because he actually did something 
illegal (not necessarily porn)?  I agree, that in these VERY beginning 
stages, a guy w/ the credentials he's presented, should have the means 
to pay an attorney for an hr or 2, to tell him what to do / not to do, 
until such time that he's arrested, charges are filed, etc., (if ever).  
Right now, that's all  he needs.


*How do I know?*  Cause I was put in a similar situation - of the 
*possibility* I might have to defend myself against false charges - 
unrelated to issues in this case.  I got basic advice on what to do / 
not do for now; have cash for bail bond, in unlikely event I was 
arrested.  (Believe me, they could've arrested me & asked questions 
later).  Then, nothing to do but wait... and wait.  Nerve racking.  Lost 
bunch of weight when needed to gain some.  But, didn't need bunch of money.


I didn't have equipment or belongings seized, but police never "told" me 
anything later on, like, "We're not filing charges;" "the DA isn't 
referring this to a Grand Jury."  Nothing, nada.  No, "Sorry we came to 
your house w/ no justification & threatened you."  No arresting the 
other person that made false accusations, even though there were 
witnesses.  Even then, I only needed a lawyer to advise me of basic 
rights, of prudent behavior till something did / did not develop, etc.  
No giant defense fund needed.  The whole thing just... disappeared.

How much is 10,000 EU anyway - $100 USD?

There's a reason I'd never run a Tor exit or probably relay.  I'd like 
to.  If raided, I could never take the stress.  Too old now, w/ chronic 
health issues.  Plus I wouldn't want to spend my retirement savings 
hiring lawyers, if things got really ugly.


And people call me paranoid...
I should get started on my dooms day supplies & cash.  I don't know 
where to keep it.  We live in hurricane territory & you have to prepare 
way in advance of knowing whether the storm will hit nearby, or it's too 
late.


___
tor-talk mailing list
tor-talk@lists.torproject.org
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk

Re: [tor-talk] William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if you can.

[Andreas Krey]

On Fri, 30 Nov 2012 20:42:45 +, Joe Btfsplk wrote:
...
> How much is 10,000 EU anyway - $100 USD?

More like 13.000 USD, as you might have checked easily.

Andreas

-- 
"Totally trivial. Famous last words."
From: Linus Torvalds 
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2010 07:29:21 -0800
___
tor-talk mailing list
tor-talk@lists.torproject.org
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk

Re: [tor-talk] William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if you can.

[Mitar]

Hi!

On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 2:09 PM, Naslund, Steve  wrote:
> Remember, they did not raid the Tor exit node.  They raided the home of
> the guy running the Tor exit node.  Way different.

I can probably explain that. We were running a Tor exit node in
Slovenia (neighboring country of Austria, EU too). We had Tor exit
node on collocation at local ISP and the collocation was on friend's
name (not on some legal entity). Twice they came to his home in early
hours with warrant for all computer equipment he has at home. Once
because somebody was using Tor for blackmailing, the second time for
child pornography.

Why they came to his home? I believe the reason is simple: they have
IP, they write to ISP something like "Who is your client who had that
and that IP at that and that time?" ISP responds: "This is X Y, living
there and there and + some other personal information they have on who
this person is." Criminal investigators go to the judge and say "We
need a warrant for this and this person at this and this location."
They get one and they come to visit you in early morning hours.

In both cases he just had to explain that: 1) this IP is at
collocation and not at that location and 2) that it is a Tor exit node
and we do not keep any logs of activity through it.

1) tells makes their warrant invalid and you move from being a suspect
(they had in mind that you are using your own home connection to do
something illegal, this is the highest probability based on their
information) to a witness (you are server admin and it is higher
probability that some your user did something illegal).

2) tells them that even if you are a witness, you are worthless
witness: you do not have typical users and services, and you are not
even logging anything. For most services you are not really required
to log anything. Running Tor is not illegal. Having logs for it also
not required.

They left without taking anything and he hasn't heard from them
afterwards (this was few years ago). It might be because both cases
were international (Interpol) so for local investigators it was the
easiest to just write: it was Tor exit nodes, no logs possible to
obtain, case closed. And move on with their lives. If it would be some
local thing with a very motivated investigator they might not believe
him and would still confiscate equipment. But from a point when they
discover that their warrant is probably wrong they are on thin ice as
obviously IP was physically somewhere else.

It might be that in this case of a guy from Austria he didn't know
that it raid is for Tor node but he thought that it might be for
something else and just later on discovered that. Or that they simply
didn't listen to or believe him. Probably it depends on how you
communicate with investigators and your language skills.


Mitar
___
tor-talk mailing list
tor-talk@lists.torproject.org
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk

Re: [tor-talk] William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if you can.

[Mitar]

Hi!

On Sat, Dec 1, 2012 at 12:29 AM, Mitar  wrote:
> It might be that in this case of a guy from Austria he didn't know
> that it raid is for Tor node but he thought that it might be for
> something else and just later on discovered that. Or that they simply
> didn't listen to or believe him. Probably it depends on how you
> communicate with investigators and your language skills.

>From this:

http://raided4tor.cryto.net/

It seems that "I had to have a co-worker get me the phone number of
the lawyer, who advised me not to say anything" was not the best
advice given, according to what I wrote before.


Mitar
___
tor-talk mailing list
tor-talk@lists.torproject.org
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk

Re: [tor-talk] William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if you can.

[Naslund, Steve]

OK, I get it.  I think my BS detector is set to high today.  I am just
really suspicious that this guy that runs an large ISP can't at least
wait until there are charges before all the uproar.  I think if the cops
came and seized my home PCs right now I would probably give them the
time to look at them, realize there is nothing there, and give them back
to me before freaking out completely.  I would be wondering what was
going on but probably not raising a defense fund.

Steve

-Original Message-
From: Peter Kristolaitis [mailto:alte...@alter3d.ca] 
Sent: Friday, November 30, 2012 4:21 PM
To: na...@nanog.org
Subject: Re: William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help
if you can.

I didn't say anything about trying to run away.  That probably won't 
accomplish a whole lot in the long run.   But when all of your bank 
accounts and credit cards are frozen, and your house is a crime scene,
at least you have the means to rent a hotel room, contact
family/lawyers, etc.

And no, I'm not OK with people keeping any money that was donated for a
specific purpose in excess of what was actually used.  You'd hope that
he'd be a good guy about it and give back the portion that wasn't used,
or clearly state that any excess will go to charity or something.  
However, there's no such guarantee (short of doing it through a trust
fund with his lawyer), and just like any philanthropic venture, it's up 
to each donor choose when/if they'll help out.   It's just like 
Kickstarter -- you hope to get something good out of it, but if it
bombs, well... you pay your money and you take your chances.

- Pete



On 11/30/2012 05:02 PM, Naslund, Steve wrote:
> OK, there must be a lot more paranoid people out there than I thought 
> there were.  I personally don't have a "runaway kit" stashed away.  I 
> will get right on that. So when that "mouth breather cop" won't 
> believe you are innocent, your answer is to grab your stuff and go on 
> the lamb for awhile?  I am sure he will let you out to go to the bank,

> get your stuff, and leave town.  I think you have seen way to many
movies.
>
> So if the cops show up at his door tomorrow and say "Here's all your 
> stuff back, there was no evidence of a crime.", you are OK with this 
> guys keeping the "defense fund"?
>
> Steve
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Peter Kristolaitis [mailto:alte...@alter3d.ca]
> Sent: Friday, November 30, 2012 3:53 PM
> To: na...@nanog.org
> Subject: Re: William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please 
> help if you can.
>
>
> On 11/30/2012 04:01 PM, Naslund, Steve wrote:
>> I am a little concerned that this guy keeps a safe deposit box 
>> with a burner phone and cash around.  Is he a CIA agent? :)
> Anyone who DOESN'T have such things stashed away somewhere is, IMHO, 
> incredibly naive and taking on quite a large amount of risk.
>
> The likelihood (and hope) is that you'll never need it.  But on the 
> off chance that you get f***ed by the legal system because of some 
> power hungry, mouth-breather cop who can't/won't understand that 
> you've done nothing wrong -- or worse, that you're easily provably 
> within the law, but he "believes" that you're not and drags you 
> through the process anyways -- you'll be very happy that you stashed 
> away that old unlocked cell phone, old laptop, change of clothes and
cash.
>
> I'm a (legal) firearms owner... up here in Canada, where some previous

> governments enacted extreme anti-gun legislation, that pretty much 
> means that if I so much as sneeze in a way that a cop doesn't like, I 
> can have my life ruined pretty damned fast (not quite, but really 
> close).  I wouldn't bet against me having an 
> excrement-hitting-the-oscillator stash like this guy does.  ;)
>
> (Note:  I don't mean to imply that all cops are power hungry
> mouth-breathers intent on destroying the lives of citizens.   Most
cops
> are fundamentally good people and do a great job.  But like every 
> other profession, there ARE bad cops out there, and it's within the 
> realm of possibility that you'll deal with one of them one day.)
>
>> Why would I donate to his legal defense when he has not been charged 
>> yet?  A little premature, no?
>>
> If you think that legal costs in a criminal case only start when
you've
> been formally charged, you're grossly misinformed.   At what point you
> personally decide to donate is one thing, but implying that someone 
> doesn't need a defense fund prior to charges being laid is a bit naive

> about how the process works.
>
> - Pete
>
>
>


___
tor-talk mailing list
tor-talk@lists.torproject.org
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk

Re: [tor-talk] William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if you can.

[Naslund, Steve]

I might be reading this the wrong way but it looked to me like the cops
raided his home and the Tor server is hosted off site with an ISP.  That
is what is bugging me so much.  The cops raided his house, not the
location of the server.  If they had tracked the server by its IP it
would have led to the hoster, not his home.  They could have gotten his
address as the account holder but the ISP would have known that the Tor
server was at their site not his home.  The IP would not track to his
residence.  Something is not the full story here or I am misreading his
interview.

I have seen some of the warrants due to child porn cases.  They tend to
be very sweeping and usually specify recordable media and data
processing equipment.  That is admittedly broad but the cops usually do
not have forensic computer guys on site so they try to grab it all.  It
is not right but that is how it currently works.  Anything else requires
the expertise on site to search the equipment where it is.  Most cops
don't know a PC from a router, from a switch.  It all goes.


Steven Naslund

-Original Message-
From: William Herrin [mailto:b...@herrin.us] 
Sent: Friday, November 30, 2012 4:21 PM
To: Jimmy Hess
Cc: NANOG list
Subject: Re: William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help
if you can.

On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 4:46 PM, Jimmy Hess  wrote:
> On 11/29/12, William Herrin  wrote:
>> If the computer at IP:port:timestamp transmitted child porn, a 
>> warrant for "all computers" is also too broad. "Computers which use 
>> said IP
>
> As you know, there may always be some uncertainty about which computer

> was using a certain IP address at a certain time --  the computer
> assigned that address might have been off,  with a   deviant

Or more likely behind a NAT device where the address which presents is
the NAT device. But the police won't know that until they search.
Until they search they have no factual basis for the presumptions either
that more than one computer was associated with the activity or that it
isn't possible to readily identify which computer was involved. That Tor
node was probably on a static IP address and was probably  on the same
static IP address at the time of the alleged activity.

"Reasonable suspicion" doesn't mean Bob thinks you did it, it means that
there's a trail of facts which lead *directly* to the evidence you seek
permission to seize. The trail to child porn doesn't include the right
to seize the stack of John Denver music and while it might include the
right to search the shelf of DVDs it doesn't include the right to seize
the ones produced by Disney. The right to search your computer and the
right to seize it are not at all the same thing.

Practically speaking, right now the police are going to seize all your
computers. But keep watching. Some time in the next decade or two
warrants will start to get quashed for failing to specify (by
parameters) *which* computer they were looking for. As computers become
more central to our lives it will probably come out that they have the
right to duplicate your hard drives and other read/write media but don't
have a right to take the originals unless they observe warrant-covered
material *on* the computer while searching.

Regards,
Bill Herrin


--
William D. Herrin  her...@dirtside.com  b...@herrin.us
3005 Crane Dr. .. Web: 
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004

___
tor-talk mailing list
tor-talk@lists.torproject.org
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk

Re: [tor-talk] William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if you can.

[Achter Lieber]

- Original Message -
From: Barry Shein
Sent: 12/01/12 12:48 AM
To: Joakim Aronius
Subject: Re: [tor-talk] William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please 
help if you can.

 On November 30, 2012 at 08:18 joa...@aronius.se (Joakim Aronius) wrote: > > I 
am all for being anonymous on the net but I seriously believe that we still 
need to enforce the law when it comes to serious felonies like child pr0n, 
organized crime etc, we can't give them a free pass just by using Tor. I dont 
think it should be illegal to operate a Tor exit node but what just happened 
could be a consequence of doing it. Yeah, next they'll let just anyone walk 
down the sidewalk without identifying themselves. And those are public 
sidewalks paid for by tax dollars! Or drop a few coins in a public telephone (I 
know, a little dated, but they exist) w/o id and commit some crime! I think 
some here need to reflect on what they're saying. Sure, it'd be better to stop 
bad guys, but this has always been the problem in a free society, you can't 
just put draconian rules on everyone else because otherwise some bad guy might 
not be immediately and easily identified. This was the sort of reaso
 ning they used in the Soviet Union to make it very difficult to get access to 
a photocopy machine (ask someone who lived there, it was practically like 
buying a firearm in the US.) We're all (well most of us) glad that law 
enforcement does its job, but even the US Constitution (3rd amendment) bothered 
to state: No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without 
the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed 
by law. It's only an analogy but I think it's clear, if we're protected from 
being forced to provide food & shelter directly to soldiers presumably 
defending our lives and country the principle as it pertains to being required 
to do whatever law enforcement dreams up to catch bad guys is pretty clear. As 
a principle -- Note: I am NOT making a legal point! Ok, grab onto that "manner 
prescribed by law", but remember that it said "in time of war". None of what 
we're discussing is relevant to any war (except as politicians to
 ss around the war on this or that.) > Of course they might not know abot Tor 
and believes that it is Mr Williams that is the bad guy. > > /J Sure, but I 
assume he told them that :-) -- -Barry Shein The World | b...@theworld.com | 
http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 800-THE-WRLD | Dial-Up: 
US, PR, Canada Software Tool & Die | Public Access Internet | SINCE 1989 *oo* 
___ tor-talk mailing list 
tor-talk@lists.torproject.org 
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk

 You need to get rid of a helluva ton of laws before you begin allowing LEA to 
go out "in-FORCING".
 Check out Louisiana and its status as the state with the highest rate of 
incarcerating its citizens. But more importantly, check out
 the lobbying that goes on to defeat almost every measure that would cut crime, 
so that crime increases.
 Private business prisons, need customers. One easy way to get more, is to pass 
more laws that can effectively,
 and easily make it possible for more people to become criminals, "by law!"
 That, is what Obama and Romney both mean when they say, "America, a country 
that lives by the rule of law!"

 The hot-button of CP is akin to suspending gravity because one child falls off 
a roof.
 If you suspend it for one, then everyone else falls off the planet, or in this 
case through the cracks and into the hands of the law,
 who are always breaking the law!
 Thus, you take away the rights of everyone, for one example, which in a way, 
is a one time affair. But the loss of liberties is forever.
 Control your children and stop controlling or trying to control everyone else.

 See what kind of monster you have begat when your controlled children can 
finally leave home!
 Some will immediately go to war, killing other poor people for a paycheck.
___
tor-talk mailing list
tor-talk@lists.torproject.org
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk

Re: [tor-talk] William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if you can.

[Naslund, Steve]

If he is claiming that the traffic to the forum came through the Tor
node, that IP would lead them to the hosting company of the Tor node.
Not his residence.  If they had an IP that led to his home, that would
have to mean that the traffic did not come from his Tor node at the ISP.
I suppose you could get your own block of addresses and get the ISP to
advertise them for you to host your server but I don't think you would.


If they got his address from the hosting company, I suppose that might
lead them to his house but it also would have told them that the Tor
node was not AT his house.  Why go there?  I think they have something
else.  There are lots of terabytes for them to look at.  Who wants to
bet what is there?


Steven Naslund

-Original Message-
From: Michael Painter [mailto:tvhaw...@flex.com] On Behalf Of Michael
Painter
Sent: Friday, November 30, 2012 5:37 PM
To: Naslund, Steve; NANOG list
Subject: Re: William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help
if you can.

Naslund, Steve wrote:
> I might be reading this the wrong way but it looked to me like the 
> cops raided his home and the Tor server is hosted off site with an 
> ISP.  That is what is bugging me so much.  The cops raided his house, 
> not the location of the server.  If they had tracked the server by its

> IP it would have led to the hoster, not his home.  They could have 
> gotten his address as the account holder but the ISP would have known 
> that the Tor server was at their site not his home.  The IP would not 
> track to his residence.  Something is not the full story here or I am 
> misreading his interview.

How about:

Police have seen CP and have logs from "Additionally, I was accused of
sharing (and possibly producing) child pornography on a clearnet forum
via an image hosting site that was probably tapped."
Police look at IP addresses that have accessed the images for those that
are within their jurisdiction.
Police find an address within a block that is registered to Wiliam.
Police raid William and receive an education on TOR exit nodes on
servers in Poland.

Maybe?
Why wouldn't the IP address have led to William?

--Michael 

___
tor-talk mailing list
tor-talk@lists.torproject.org
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk

Re: [tor-talk] William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if you can.

[b.g. white]

PROCEDURE FOR SEIZURE OF COMPUTERS AND RELATED DEVICES

 This search warrant covers and controls the procedure for searching:  (1)
electronic or computer devices, related equipment or media which has been
authorized to be seized pursuant to this warrant on the basis that it is
contraband or a direct instrumentality used to commit the crime, and (2)
electronic or computer devices, related equipment or media for which
seizure has not been specifically authorized.  Agents are authorized to
seize and remove from the premises such electronic or computer device,
including computer system input/output (I/O) peripheral devices, software
and media so that a qualified computer expert can accurately search for and
retrieve the data in a laboratory or other controlled environment when this
is necessary in order to search and retrieve the data or information
authorized to be searched for and seized pursuant to this warrant.


  "Agents and computer experts working with agents are authorized to
seize the relevant system software (operating systems, interfaces and
hardware drivers), any applications software which may have been used to
create the data (whether stored on hard drives or on external media), as
well as all related instruction manuals or other documentation and data
security devices (including but not limited to passwords, keycards and
dongles) in order to facilitate the authorized search.  In addition, if
necessary for data retrieval, they are authorized to reconfigure the system
in order to accurately search for and retrieve the evidence stored therein.
 If, after inspecting the I/O devices, software, documentation and data
security devices, the analyst determines that these items are no longer
necessary to search for, retrieve and preserve the data, and if the
software, documentation and devices have not been seized pursuant to the
warrant as contraband or instrumentalities of the crime, the items shall be
returned within a reasonable time."


https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:HJ9PtsbdL3kJ:www.fjc.gov/public/pdf.nsf/lookup/ElecDi31.rtf/%24file/ElecDi31.rtf+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us


Example of an actual warrant:


https://www.eff.org/sites/default/files/filenode/inresearchBC/EXHIBIT-A.pdf


Not a lawyer.



On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 6:25 PM, Randy Bush  wrote:

> as this thread has moved firmly to legal opinions, i now scan it for
> postings by folk i know are actual lawyers and whack the rest.  if you
> are a lawyer, but not well known as such, please say so right up front
> in your message.
>
> randy
>
>
___
tor-talk mailing list
tor-talk@lists.torproject.org
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk

Re: [tor-talk] William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if you can.

[Owen DeLong]

> 
> Not only that, but the list of people who proclaimed their innocence only
> to be proven guilty is very long. I can't vouch for countries outside of
> the USA, but here at least we don't get subpoenas on a whim. They are
> usually part of a very long drawn-out investigation, and they usually are
> for a very good reason.

Usually, but not always. I've seen a number of subpoenas and a few search
warrants that were:

Ridiculously broad
Overreaching
Really stretched the concept of probable cause

As in all else, not all LEOs are good actors.

Owen

___
tor-talk mailing list
tor-talk@lists.torproject.org
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk

Re: [tor-talk] William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if you can.

[William Allen Simpson]

On 11/30/12 5:15 PM, Naslund, Steve wrote:

Well, in that case  I am really worried that the cops might charge
me with a crime.  They took my computers and are looking at them.  I did
not do anything wrong but just in case they decide to charge me with a
crime, please send me some money.


As well you could be, because you appear to have the same name as a
registered sex offender:

  http://www.sexoffenderin.com/reg110698/steven_w_naslundmugshot.htm

On 11/29/12 6:39 PM, Naslund, Steve wrote:
# As a long time service provider ...
#
# my many years of experience in engineering ARPANET, MILNET, and the
# Internet I would have to guess that most Tor servers are used for no
# good much more than they are protecting anyone's privacy.

I'm surprised that medline.com is offering network access as an ISP?
Admittedly, you began posting to NANOG in 2002 as:

  Network Engineering Manager
  Hosting.com - Chicago

While I was involved in engineering NSFnet and the Internet and was an
"original" member of NANOG, but I don't remember you.  Of course, I'm
notoriously bad with names.

OTOH, I have met, remember, and greatly respect the Tor engineers.

___
tor-talk mailing list
tor-talk@lists.torproject.org
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk

Re: [tor-talk] William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if you can.

[bvvq]

On 1/12/2012 10:49 AM, Naslund, Steve wrote:


If he is claiming that the traffic to the forum came through the Tor
node, that IP would lead them to the hosting company of the Tor node.
Not his residence.  If they had an IP that led to his home, that would
have to mean that the traffic did not come from his Tor node at the ISP.
I suppose you could get your own block of addresses and get the ISP to
advertise them for you to host your server but I don't think you would.


If they got his address from the hosting company, I suppose that might
lead them to his house but it also would have told them that the Tor
node was not AT his house.  Why go there?  I think they have something
else.  There are lots of terabytes for them to look at.  Who wants to
bet what is there?


Steven Naslund


The only information I've read about the matter is what's on 
http://raided4tor.cryto.net/ , and it doesn't provide much regarding the 
length or complexity of the investigation. From that webpage, the 
information I find relevant is:


(1-1) the exit node was located in Poland, and therefore outside the 
jurisdiction of the LKA;
(1-2) William had already been questioned by Polish LEA about activities 
coming from the exit node;
(1-3) the exit node was moved to a different ISP after the troubles with 
the Polish LEA;

(1-4) the exit node wasn't turned back on.

What we _do_not_ know is:

(2-1) what country the clearnet forum (that the child porn was posted 
to) is located in;
(2-2) who reported the child porn to LEA, or if LEA was already 
monitoring for the child porn;

(2-3) if Polish and Austrian LEA are cooperating on the investigation;
(2-4) when the investigation was initiated;
(2-5) which LEA initiated the investigation.

Given the information above, it's a completely reasonable scenario that 
the child porn was reported by the clearnet forum owner, or discovered 
by some LEA, at which time the offending forum user's IP was determined 
to belong to the Polish host of the exit node. When compelled, the 
Polish host provided the details of William Weber. The LKA are then able 
to raid William on the suspicion of child porn distribution, and they 
seize everything that could be used to store the material.


You (Steven Naslund) question why no LEA seized the exit node. This is 
explained by the fact that the exit node was moved from the Polish host 
_after_ the child porn was posted to the clearnet forum. It's completely 
reasonable that LEA may not have been able to determine where the server 
was moved to.


You also question the reasons for the LKA to raid his private residence 
when the exit node's last known location was a Polish host. Surely you 
aren't suggesting that LEA shouldn't raid a suspect's private residence 
because the last known location of a (missing) server (that is confirmed 
to belong to the suspect) wasn't the same address?


Your opposition to this matter is moving into land of the crazy 
conspiracy-theorist. You're looking so hard for something more sinister 
to the story that you're ignoring reason. We should only take positions 
on the evidence we have, not the evidence we don't have.


___
tor-talk mailing list
tor-talk@lists.torproject.org
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk

Re: [tor-talk] William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if you can.

[Fabio Pietrosanti (naif)]

On 12/1/12 12:49 AM, Naslund, Steve wrote:
> If he is claiming that the traffic to the forum came through the Tor
> node, that IP would lead them to the hosting company of the Tor node.
> Not his residence.  If they had an IP that led to his home, that would
> have to mean that the traffic did not come from his Tor node at the ISP.
> I suppose you could get your own block of addresses and get the ISP to
> advertise them for you to host your server but I don't think you would.
Imho Tor Software should provide by default a little piece of software
built-in to manage abuse complaint, drive abuse complaint, and inform
users about the role of that kind of IP address.

After we introduced an abuse complaint banner within Tor2web visited web
pages, the server-takedown issues has been strongly reduced.

That is because when someone see an IP or website, the first things try
to goes on on the IP/web with a browser, where it find a proper path to
Send an Abuse Request with a useful form that send an email to the
Tor2web node maintainer.

That way:
- The investigator is immediately informed of what's going on, what is that
- The investigator is given immediately a way to get more information
and make his abuse complaint
- The Node owner can receive the notifications much easily (and much
probably!) and can answer

This would probably be something *very valuable* for any Tor Exit Node
maintainer if Tor software would provide such kind of facility to
facilitate:
- understanding of a third party
- drive the abuse/more information request actions

If the law enforcement:
- Don't understand what is that
- Don't have a way (an easy way) to contact the owner of the server

then more probably will proceed "by office procedure" to the seizure.

So my point is that the software itself could be improved to facilitate
such kind of "good behaviour" .


Fabio
___
tor-talk mailing list
tor-talk@lists.torproject.org
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk

Re: [tor-talk] William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if you can.

[Michael Gersten]

As much as I'm not sure I want to add to this, and while I recognize that this 
is not the USA, do recall that in my own country of the USA, where the right to 
justice is explicit in the constitution, it is routinely ignored by judges who 
say that they run courts of law, not of justice. I'll also remind you of people 
who were railroaded because politicians wanted to prove a point -- and there's 
the recent publicity over a group of 5 that were interrogated without lawyers 
at the age of 15, forced to confess, and then spent 25 years in jail, partially 
because their appointed lawyers were horrible.

We've learned that if the people in power want to make an example of you, 
nothing matters except being so rich that you can afford the best lawyers. O.J. 
Simpson's lawyers were skilled enough -- and could afford everything involved 
-- to demonstrate that police procedures were iffy at best, and down-right 
rotten -- and these were the procedures that were "standard" behavior at worst, 
and "best case, high profile case" at best. Out of that whole thing came a 
federal government report that "forensic science" had little to no science in 
it, was full of holes, and a long list of cases where an "expert" had testified 
to stuff that was impossible -- including at least one case where a bitemark 
could not have been a match -- the person investigated was missing two teeth, 
the bite mark was only missing one, and on the basis of the testimony of an 
"expert" that "He could have twisted his mouth while biting to make that mark", 
an innocent person was sentenced.

We've learned that "Fingerprints", that absolute match that can send you away 
as an absolute conviction, are so unreliable that the report all but said that 
they are completely unreliable with the current technology.

Do we have lots of people sentenced improperly? Yes. We can prove it. We are 
doing nothing to fix this.

Heck, do you remember a few years ago where it was discovered that we had a 
juvenile judge routinely sending juveniles to what was basically a work camp 
that he was profiting from? Even when innocent? Now it turns out that we are 
putting adult prisoners to work, at a cost of around $4 per hour, and 
outsourcing that to any company in the country that wants cheap labor 
(previously outsourced to federal agencies, as it turns out, for years -- and 
in some cases, those federal agencies were required to use this labor source). 
That's right -- we were putting innocent people to forced labor in prison while 
taking jobs away from ordinary people out of prison.

And you're expecting that "If he's not charged, he doesn't have to worry. If 
he's innocent, he's safe"? I used to think that. I don't any more.

___
tor-talk mailing list
tor-talk@lists.torproject.org
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk

Re: [tor-talk] William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if you can.

[Jean-Francois Mezei]

The BBC has an article about a similar issue on a Tor exit node in Austria:

Austrian police raid privacy network over child porn
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-20554788


##
Austrian police have seized servers that were part of a global anonymous
browsing system, after images showing child sex abuse were found passing
through them.

Many people use the Tor network to conceal their browsing activity.

Police raided the home of William Weber, who ran the servers, and
charged him with distributing illegal images.
##


It is unfortunate that systems in place to allow free speech end up
being abused for the wrong purposes. The same applies to anonymous
remailers which have been used to stalk and harass/bully people often
using forged email addresses (since those remailers allow one to forge
the sender's email address instead of forcing an "Anonymous" sender email.

If Tor servers are just glorified routers then they could be considered
more as transit providers and not responsible for content transiting
through them.

However, if a transit service goes out of its way to hide the identity
of the sender of a packet to make it untraceable, then it becomes more
than a simpler "carrier".
___
tor-talk mailing list
tor-talk@lists.torproject.org
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk

Re: [tor-talk] William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if you can.

[Anne P. Mitchell, Esq.]

> Example of an actual warrant:
> 
> 
> https://www.eff.org/sites/default/files/filenode/inresearchBC/EXHIBIT-A.pdf

Please also keep in mind, if it's relevant, that *no warrant* is required for 
data that is stored by a third-party.  Data on a server, TOR or otherwise, 
would by definition be data that is stored by a third party.  Which means that 
if there is a person of interest (POI), it would not be terribly hard to get at 
personal information about the POI that is not on their own private machines.

(Here is an article we wrote about that:  
http://www.theinternetpatrol.com/no-warrant-necessary-for-law-enforcement-to-access-data-stored-in-the-cloud/
 )

> Not a lawyer.

Is a lawyer, but hasn't been following this thread.  That said, if there are 
specific questions, I'd be happy to answer them if I can.

Anne

Anne P. Mitchell, Esq
CEO/President
Institute for Social Internet Public Policy
http://www.ISIPP.com 
Member, Cal. Bar Cyberspace Law Committee
___
tor-talk mailing list
tor-talk@lists.torproject.org
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk

Re: [tor-talk] William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if you can.

[Jutta Zalud]

> The BBC has an article about a similar issue on a Tor exit node in Austria:

> Austrian police raid privacy network over child porn
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-20554788

actually it is not a "similar case" but the case of William W. that
BBC reported. Though with some mistakes: the servers were not seized,
the hardware (drives etc) at his home was seized, William was not
charged (he says), police is just investigating.

http://www.lowendtalk.com/discussion/6283/raided-for-running-a-tor-exit-accepting-donations-for-legal-expenses/p5

And so far only the police know if "images showing child sex abuse"
were actually "found passing through them" as BBC writes.

The warrent posted at arstechnica.net
http://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Beschluss.png
mentions section 207a, para 2, 2nd case, and para 4 no 2, lit b of
Austrian Criminal Code, which would be possession of a a pornographic
depiction of a minor person over 14, showing their genitals in an
obscene manner. (the text of the relevant section in German:
http://www.ris.bka.gv.at/Dokumente/Bundesnormen/NOR40105143/NOR40105143.html)

The warrent does not mention anything that refers to distribution or
transport of pornographic images. So, either police and judge were not
aware that it was a TOR server or they have/had a suspicion
that's not related to running a TOR server. Or the made a
mistake and quoted the wrong section. We simply don't know at present.

regards,
jutta

am Samstag, 01. Dezember 2012 um 17:10 schrieb na...@nanog.org:

> The BBC has an article about a similar issue on a Tor exit node in Austria:

> Austrian police raid privacy network over child porn
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-20554788


> ##
> Austrian police have seized servers that were part of a global anonymous
> browsing system, after images showing child sex abuse were found passing
> through them.

<...>

___
tor-talk mailing list
tor-talk@lists.torproject.org
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk

Re: [tor-talk] William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if you can.

[Julian Yon]

On Sat, 01 Dec 2012 16:00:00 +0100
"Fabio Pietrosanti (naif)"  wrote:

> This would probably be something *very valuable* for any Tor Exit Node
> maintainer if Tor software would provide such kind of facility to
> facilitate:
> - understanding of a third party
> - drive the abuse/more information request actions

There is the DirPortFrontPage config option. It's probably most useful
if your DirPort is port 80, of course.


Julian

-- 
3072D/F3A66B3A Julian Yon (2012 General Use) 


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
tor-talk mailing list
tor-talk@lists.torproject.org
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk

Re: [tor-talk] William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if you can.

[Julian Yon]

On Fri, 30 Nov 2012 20:42:45 -0600
Joe Btfsplk  wrote:

> [Load of US-centred rubbish]

Seriously, you need to realise that most of the world is not the
States, and things work differently over here. Some parts of Europe are
safer than others, and some (including UK) are distinctly unsafe,
despite external appearances. You can bet if I was served a warrant
relating to an alleged child sex offence I'd be opening a defence fund,
because the police here are very fond of reminding you who's in charge.
It's not about whether you did the crime, it's about whether you want
to spend months on remand (and potentially losing your job, home,
partner etc) before eventually being acquitted. Never mind that the
tabloids will splash your picture all over their front pages with
headlines that will tarnish your name forever. You need money to fight
that, too.

And that's Europe. If he was in most African countries he'd be totally
screwed.

> How much is 10,000 EU anyway - $100 USD?

You seem to have the wrong idea about which is the weaker currency. The
Euro and Sterling have certainly taken a battering, but the Dollar isn't
exactly the safest investment either. Really, childish xenophobia isn't
constructive.


Julian

-- 
3072D/F3A66B3A Julian Yon (2012 General Use) 


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
tor-talk mailing list
tor-talk@lists.torproject.org
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk

Re: [tor-talk] William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if you can.

[Joe Btfsplk]

On 12/1/2012 10:10 AM, Jean-Francois Mezei wrote:

If Tor servers are just glorified routers then they could be considered
more as transit providers and not responsible for content transiting
through them.

However, if a transit service goes out of its way to hide the identity
of the sender of a packet to make it untraceable, then it becomes more
than a simpler "carrier".

I think I understand your point, but if Tor (or anything else) isn't 
really anonymous, there's no point in advertising it as anonymous. 
Unless you're selling snake oil.  If gov'ts (or other groups) can get 
what they want, when they want, out of an ISP, exit relays, etc., then 
it's only anonymous as long as no one's interested in what you're saying 
or doing.  Meaning, it's not really anonymous at all.


If being anonymous, or more specifically, having anonymous communication 
is outlawed (& it almost is, in practice), then there will be no Tor.


The conundrum:  if every thing that has some useful purpose is outlawed 
because someone can also use it maliciously, or LEAs make so no one 
wants to touch it, then most everything could be be banned - by that 
line of thinking.

gasoline - gone.
2" x 4" lumber - can be used as weapon - gone.
baby diapers - can be used to smother someone - gone.
kitchen or butcher knives injure / kill thousands around the world each 
year?  They're not trying to outlaw knives over 5 inches, because they 
pose no threat to a gov't.


Bottom line is, no gov'ts want their law abiding or criminal citizens to 
communicate anonymously, because it takes away power. Yes, they want to 
catch criminals (& we want them to).  No, they're not concerned in the 
least if 90 - 99% (or what ever) of Tor users don't break the law.  If 
they catch criminals AND stop people from using Tor, running exits - out 
of fear, they killed 2 birds w/ one stone.


The internet is really the best thing invented to allow gov'ts of the 
world to keep tabs on all citizens ( though they say they're only after 
criminals).  When people still wrote letters, (most) gov'ts couldn't 
scan EVERY letter, just to see what popped up.

___
tor-talk mailing list
tor-talk@lists.torproject.org
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk

Re: [tor-talk] William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if you can.

[Joe Btfsplk]

On 12/1/2012 1:28 PM, Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. wrote:


Please also keep in mind, if it's relevant, that *no warrant* is required for 
data that is stored by a third-party.  Data on a server, TOR or otherwise, 
would by definition be data that is stored by a third party.  Which means that 
if there is a person of interest (POI), it would not be terribly hard to get at 
personal information about the POI that is not on their own private machines.

(Here is an article we wrote about that:  
http://www.theinternetpatrol.com/no-warrant-necessary-for-law-enforcement-to-access-data-stored-in-the-cloud/
 )

Is a lawyer, but hasn't been following this thread.  That said, if there are 
specific questions, I'd be happy to answer them if I can.

Anne

Anne P. Mitchell, Esq
CEO/President
Institute for Social Internet Public Policy
http://www.ISIPP.com
Member, Cal. Bar Cyberspace Law Committee
Thanks Anne.  Laws in virtually every state (U.S.) & country are 
different - yes?
I think I understand what you said, but not sure why it'd be so (in 
U.S.)  In a situation that LEAs SAY they suspect a crime, one's personal 
data (say, credit card info / transactions) stored on "3rd party 
servers" - (say, Amazon.com) is not protected in any shape form or 
fashion, from Boss Hogg (aka, an LEA) saying, Amazon - I want Daisy 
Duke's credit card info.  I don't have a warrant, but give it to me, 
anyway.  And Amazon has to say, "Sure,"... because of why??


Any business like that storing info would be a 3rd party server - yes?  
So no LEA would ever need warrants to get financial / purchase 
transactions, email, ISP browsing records - ad nauseum,  Habeas Corpus, 
defacto, oreo.  Because it's your info, NOT stored on your personal 
equipment.  Is that correct?


Doctors storing patients' medical info, for back up purposes, off site, 
would be storing it on a 3rd party server.  So, does it become public 
information?


Or at least Deputy Fife could walk into the back up storage facility & 
say, I want medical records on a guy that's been sniffing around Thelma 
Lou, cause he ran a stop sign.  And they must give it to him w/o a 
warrant?  I think we must have skipped over a few details.

___
tor-talk mailing list
tor-talk@lists.torproject.org
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk

Re: [tor-talk] William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if you can.

[Joe Btfsplk]

On 12/1/2012 4:22 PM, Julian Yon wrote:

On Fri, 30 Nov 2012 20:42:45 -0600
Joe Btfsplk  wrote:


How much is 10,000 EU anyway - $100 USD?
I knew I shouldn't have written that - too many people don't get satire 
/ comedic sarcasm.

___
tor-talk mailing list
tor-talk@lists.torproject.org
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk

Re: [tor-talk] William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if you can.

[Eugen Leitl]

- Forwarded message from "Naslund, Steve"  -

From: "Naslund, Steve" 
Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2012 16:44:47 -0600
To: na...@nanog.org
Subject: RE: [tor-talk] William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please
    help if you can.

A lot of guys have the same names, I did not assume that you are related
to Jessica Simpson or Bart Simpson for that matter. 

Maybe I did not see you at NSFnet because I was working with DDN which
was established a full two years before NSFnet.  So what?   Does the
fact that I worked on the precursor to the Internet and NSFnet make me
more credible than you?  I was not aware that in order to be credible on
NANOG, we had to meet you at some point.  They did not tell me that at
the Pentagon or when I got my engineering degrees.  

I also have great respect for the Tor engineers,  it was great work.  I
just don't have respect for the idiots that sometimes use Tor.  I also
have great respect for the guys who wrote sendmail and don't blame them
every time I get spam.  What I don't have any respect for is the "I was
here first (you weren't)", name dropping (I know the Tor guys), know it
all (that does not know that a lot of what people do does not show up in
google).  

For those of you who care about credentials.  I have been working on the
Internet and its predecessors since 1985.  Of course that has absolutely
nothing to do with the credibility of what I say because time does not
always equal knowledge.  As soon as you assume you are smarter than
everyone else in the room you can be assured that you are not.

Steven Naslund

-Original Message-
From: William Allen Simpson [mailto:william.allen.simp...@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, November 30, 2012 9:20 PM
To: na...@nanog.org
Subject: Re: [tor-talk] William was raided for running a Tor exit node.
Please help if you can.

On 11/30/12 5:15 PM, Naslund, Steve wrote:
> Well, in that case  I am really worried that the cops might charge

> me with a crime.  They took my computers and are looking at them.  I 
> did not do anything wrong but just in case they decide to charge me 
> with a crime, please send me some money.
>
As well you could be, because you appear to have the same name as a
registered sex offender:

   http://www.sexoffenderin.com/reg110698/steven_w_naslundmugshot.htm

On 11/29/12 6:39 PM, Naslund, Steve wrote:
# As a long time service provider ...
#
# my many years of experience in engineering ARPANET, MILNET, and the #
Internet I would have to guess that most Tor servers are used for no #
good much more than they are protecting anyone's privacy.

I'm surprised that medline.com is offering network access as an ISP?
Admittedly, you began posting to NANOG in 2002 as:

   Network Engineering Manager
   Hosting.com - Chicago

While I was involved in engineering NSFnet and the Internet and was an
"original" member of NANOG, but I don't remember you.  Of course, I'm
notoriously bad with names.

OTOH, I have met, remember, and greatly respect the Tor engineers.



- End forwarded message -
-- 
Eugen* Leitl http://leitl.org";>leitl http://leitl.org
__
ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE
___
tor-talk mailing list
tor-talk@lists.torproject.org
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk