subject:"Re\: \[tor\-talk\] Tor Exit Operator convicted in Austrian lower court"

Re: [tor-talk] Tor Exit Operator convicted in Austrian lower court

2015-03-09 Thread Joe Btfsplk


On 7/4/2014 11:37 PM, Moritz Bartl wrote:
I will pick up this thread only after we have seen a written statement 
by the court. 


Anyone (not just Moritz) know what ever happened in this court case?  
Was prosecution dropped?  A legal opinion (verdict) reached?

--
tor-talk mailing list - tor-talk@lists.torproject.org
To unsubscribe or change other settings go to
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk

Re: [tor-talk] Tor Exit Operator convicted in Austrian lower court

2014-07-08 Thread Anders Andersson

On Tue, Jul 8, 2014 at 2:32 AM, Joe Btfsplk joebtfs...@gmx.com wrote:
 On 7/7/2014 6:04 PM, I wrote:
 As for freedom of speech Australia has none legislated and does have
 severe laws against sedition.
 What other developed country can match that for discouraging speech?

 Well, 'Stralia is a penal colony, after all. :D  They have to keep all the
 prisoners on a short leash.
 Aussies don't have freedom of speech guaranteed in their constitution (or
 the equivalent)?

Did I miss the discussions when this changed from Austria to
Australia? Those two countries are bound to have very different legal
systems. I'm not sure Australia is on-topic for this thread.
-- 
tor-talk mailing list - tor-talk@lists.torproject.org
To unsubscribe or change other settings go to
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk

Re: [tor-talk] Tor Exit Operator convicted in Austrian lower court

2014-07-08 Thread Zenaan Harkness

On 7/8/14, Joe Btfsplk joebtfs...@gmx.com wrote:
 On 7/7/2014 10:04 PM, C B wrote:
 But it is often said, if you do not know what your rights are, you have
 none. Rights have to be asserted. Strenuously. Thousands of people have
 been more than willing to go to prison to assert various rights so that
 everyone else will have them.

 Mostly, you have a guaranteed right to pay taxes  die.

I think mostly people believe that taxes are compulsory.

The link between the Act(s) which suggest/require payment
of taxes, to the individual human, is rather dubious, in both USA
and Australia.
-- 
tor-talk mailing list - tor-talk@lists.torproject.org
To unsubscribe or change other settings go to
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk

Re: [tor-talk] Tor Exit Operator convicted in Austrian lower court

2014-07-08 Thread Paul Syverson

On Tue, Jul 08, 2014 at 09:30:07AM +0200, Anders Andersson wrote:
 On Tue, Jul 8, 2014 at 2:32 AM, Joe Btfsplk joebtfs...@gmx.com wrote:
  On 7/7/2014 6:04 PM, I wrote:
  As for freedom of speech Australia has none legislated and does have
  severe laws against sedition.
  What other developed country can match that for discouraging speech?
 
  Well, 'Stralia is a penal colony, after all. :D  They have to keep all the
  prisoners on a short leash.
  Aussies don't have freedom of speech guaranteed in their constitution (or
  the equivalent)?
 
 Did I miss the discussions when this changed from Austria to
 Australia? Those two countries are bound to have very different legal
 systems. I'm not sure Australia is on-topic for this thread.

Also when the discussions changed from being about Tor? Some broader
contextual discussion is to be expected occasionally, but this thread
seems to have completely left Tor behind many messages ago.
Could posters please connect what you are saying to Tor or take the
discussion elsewhere?

aloha,
Paul
-- 
tor-talk mailing list - tor-talk@lists.torproject.org
To unsubscribe or change other settings go to
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk

Re: [tor-talk] Tor Exit Operator convicted in Austrian lower court

2014-07-07 Thread Joe Btfsplk


On 7/7/2014 6:04 PM, I wrote:

It appears that it is specifically unwise to rubbish the court while subject to 
it.

As for freedom of speech Australia has none legislated and does have severe 
laws against sedition.
What other developed country can match that for discouraging speech?

Well, 'Stralia is a penal colony, after all. :D  They have to keep all 
the prisoners on a short leash.
Aussies don't have freedom of speech guaranteed in their constitution 
(or the equivalent)?


Sedition and freedom of speech for political  religious views can 
overlap.  In the U.S., you can criticize the gov't - usually without 
fear, as long as it's not promoting anarchy, inciting a riot, etc.

It usually doesn't do any good, but you can criticize.
--
tor-talk mailing list - tor-talk@lists.torproject.org
To unsubscribe or change other settings go to
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk

Re: [tor-talk] Tor Exit Operator convicted in Austrian lower court

2014-07-07 Thread Zenaan Harkness

On 7/8/14, I beatthebasta...@inbox.com wrote:
It appears that it is specifically unwise to rubbish the court while subject
to it.

I think this is a valid point in any jurisdiction, and also speaks to
the difficulty in having a lower court sanction itself - thus superior
courts.

As for freedom of speech Australia has none legislated and does have severe
laws against sedition.
What other developed country can match that for discouraging speech?

Yes, pretty sad.

Although our High Court (equiv. to US Supreme Court) has ruled that we
have a freedom of communication on political and related matters
'implied within our constitution' (although it is not explicit).

So some communication (political matters) has been ruled as an implied
freedom. This is the freedom that a lot of our political protest (if
not all) falls under. See for example the case of Levy:
http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/cth/HCA/1997/31.html?query=title(Levy)

Levy is long sorry - the gist is a duck-hunting protester who
trespassed as part of his protest - it was upheld by our High Court
that he was exercising his implied right to freedom of communciation
on political matters.

See also:
http://www.piac.asn.au/legal-help/public-interest-cases/public-interest-cases-2008/free-speech-cases/free-speech-cases

The reasoning of our superior court that we have this implied freedom,
is that our constitution embodies/ proscribes a system of democratic
government, and that this necessarily implies a right of the people to
discuss political and related matters. Sounds pretty straightforward.

So we are also assuming that our superior court would be likely to
similarly rule on the existence of an implied freedom of
communication on legal and related matters - the courts are
established by our constitution, the process of legal service, we have
the right to present for ourselves in court, etc, etc, so this legal
system proscribed by our constitution necessarily implies an implied
freedom to communicate on legal and related matters. This is a
question we are bringing to our High Court.

Interestingly, earlier this year, we brought (for the first time)
before the Magistrate's Court, our lowest court, the following
question: Is there within our (federal) constitution an implied right
to freedom of communication on legal and related matters?

We said this was a question which must be brought before our superior
court for determination, and incredibly, the Magistrate not only ruled
that she was not persuaded that there was any constitutional
question raised, but she also ruled on the constitutional question
itself, ruling there is no freedom of communication on legal matters
within our constitution, either implied or explicit.

Some of us were gobsmacked.

Anyway, we have the right to lift the matter to our superior courts,
and lift it we shall.

Stay tuned :)
Zenaan
--
tor-talk mailing list - tor-talk@lists.torproject.org
To unsubscribe or change other settings go to
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk

Re: [tor-talk] Tor Exit Operator convicted in Austrian lower court

2014-07-07 Thread Juan

On Mon, 07 Jul 2014 19:32:04 -0500
Joe Btfsplk joebtfs...@gmx.com wrote:


 Sedition and freedom of speech for political  religious views can 
 overlap.  In the U.S., you can criticize the gov't - usually without 
 fear, as long as it's not promoting anarchy, inciting a riot, etc.
 It usually doesn't do any good, but you can criticize.


you can criticize the gov't - usually without 
 fear, as long as it's not promoting anarchy 

so you dont have freedom of speech

It usually doesn't do any good, but you can criticize. 

so, whatever 'freedom' you have, it is 'granted' to you because
it is mostly useless. 

Well, actually, it useless to you, but useful to your
masters.




 



-- 
tor-talk mailing list - tor-talk@lists.torproject.org
To unsubscribe or change other settings go to
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk

Re: [tor-talk] Tor Exit Operator convicted in Austrian lower court

2014-07-07 Thread C B

If it helps any, the US Constitution, both lists a lot of rights, and in the 
9th Amendment says The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, 
shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. But 
anyone who takes a course on the Constitution learns that none of the rights we 
have come from the Constitution - it just enumerates some of the rights that 
everyone is born with. Everyone means everyone in Australia, everyone in 
Austria, everyone everywhere.

But it is often said, if you do not know what your rights are, you have none. 
Rights have to be asserted. Strenuously. Thousands of people have been more 
than willing to go to prison to assert various rights so that everyone else 
will have them.
 
--
Christopher Booth


 From: Juan juan@gmail.com
To: tor-talk@lists.torproject.org 
Sent: Monday, July 7, 2014 9:35 PM
Subject: Re: [tor-talk] Tor Exit Operator convicted in Austrian lower court
 


    you can criticize the gov't - usually without 
fear, as long as it's not promoting anarchy 
    
    so you dont have freedom of speech

    It usually doesn't do any good, but you can criticize. 

    so, whatever 'freedom' you have, it is 'granted' to you because
    it is mostly useless. 

    Well, actually, it useless to you, but useful to your
    masters.
-- 
tor-talk mailing list - tor-talk@lists.torproject.org
To unsubscribe or change other settings go to
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk

Re: [tor-talk] Tor Exit Operator convicted in Austrian lower court

2014-07-07 Thread Joe Btfsplk


On 7/7/2014 10:04 PM, C B wrote:

But it is often said, if you do not know what your rights are, you have none. 
Rights have to be asserted. Strenuously. Thousands of people have been more 
than willing to go to prison to assert various rights so that everyone else 
will have them.
  
Mostly, you have a guaranteed right to pay taxes  die. Everything 
else is subject to change or being discontinued.

--
tor-talk mailing list - tor-talk@lists.torproject.org
To unsubscribe or change other settings go to
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk

Re: [tor-talk] Tor Exit Operator convicted in Austrian lower court

2014-07-06 Thread Joe Btfsplk

To no.thing_to-hide -
the link you provided is inaccessible for me.
It gives a message: This page was not retrieved from its original
location over a secure connection.
Not sure if there's a way around it, or maybe provide the original page
let people translate it themselves?

On 7/4/2014 4:56 PM, no.thing_to-h...@cryptopathie.eu wrote:

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

I fully agree with Joe!

Running an exit can get you in serious legal trouble, because Tor /and
all other anonymity services/ will always be misused for illegal
activities. Every interested operator must make his personal moral
trade-off and come to a decision.
Sartre described such a discussion in a more extreme scenario in Les
mains sales (= Dirty hands)

Anyway, I decided not to run an exit but only an internal relay. And
to join German CCC and Zwiebelfreunde (Hello to the colleagues by the
way!). We operate really big relays, secured by professional admins.
Much better than I could setup at home as hobbyist w/o IT-education.
So you are an association and the legal risk and potential lawyer
costs are distributed.

Even the simple use of Tor is not w/o risk for everyday use:
https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=enie=UTF8prev=_tsl=detl=enu=http://www.heise.de/ct/heft/2013-20--2248651.html%3Fview%3Dprint

I think one should have at least some basic knowledge about what the
Internet, SSL certificates, browsers, scripting and plugins are and
how they work.

Best regards

Anton
- --
no.thing_to-hide at cryptopathie dot eu

0x30C3CDF0, RSA 2048, 24 Mar 2014
0FF8 A811 8857 1B7E 195B 649E CC26 E1A5 30C3 CDF0
Bitmessage (no metadata): BM-2cXixKZaqzJmTfz6ojiyLzmKg2JbzDnApC

On 04/07/14 22:56, Joe Btfsplk wrote:

On 7/3/2014 2:23 PM, C B wrote:

I agree that collecting stories about why/how I use Tor is
useful, but I disagree that any special education or warning
should be needed before setting up an exit node. Setting up an
exit node is simply providing another IP that can be used for
traffic and nothing else.

Holy... they may not have a clue what danger lies ahead, Batman.
We're going to have to agree to disagree, that at least some basic
info on potential dangers be supplied, if only links. We've all
seen several people conversing on tor-talk now, that were run
through the ringer, for running Tor relays.

I don't think any of them thought they'd be fighting for their
freedom; spending a huge part of savings to defend themselves or
going through extended, true mental anguish of wondering if they'd
lose their freedom family.

Maybe Tor Project itself isn't the one that should be doing the
educating in this case - dunno. Though I don't like the thought of
people going through hell on Earth, because they didn't understand
the dangers, I also understand it's not in Tor Project's best
interest to scare off relay operators.

One issue is, every Tor user is encouraged to run a relay. Kind of
like the US Army commercials promoting adventure visiting foreign
lands, instead of bullets grenades coming at you.

Moritz, I'm not sure if the 1st FAQ at the link
https://www.torproject.org/eff/tor-legal-faq.html.en portrays an
accurate picture of potential dangers:

Has anyone ever been sued or prosecuted for running Tor?

*No*, we aren't aware of anyone being sued or prosecuted in the
United States just for running a Tor relay. Further, we believe
that running a Tor relay --- including an exit relay that allows
people to anonymously send and receive traffic --- is legal under
U.S. law.

That may need a bit of revision. :D Maybe no one has been
prosecuted in the US (I don't know), but people in other countries
sure have. And being investigated or going through court hearings
trials - maybe for months or yrs, can destroy a person. It can be
devastating, even if you're never formally charged.

Many people who've never gone through something like that can't
fully understand the incredible stress of being investigated
threatened.

The concept of, No one's been *prosecuted* in the US, therefore
running Tor relays has no potentially serious legal ramifications,
is glossing over the dangers.

Running a relay may not be *the* most dangerous activity, but it
sure carries significant risk. Many that get tor-talk regularly
have read that. But some potential relay operators might not read
tor-talk every day for months, to read about someone that got in
serious legal trouble, before they decide to / not to run a relay.

-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJTtyMGAAoJEMwm4aUww83wBsgH/iymnTz9KSoiy4XqlXDpRjTD
ki08BxScRcx1JPbGe/QXFAO0Nu4dmnr6qC5chti8qjsmupvsiNqr4+8pxTRh3yWH
FToWon/Qt6TiSBAqAvxUGc5UrEK4vhzHfaXcY5H/vnIJazjeYZKXo00ca3jV1e7o
Qeo8Algk/9Vp5So5aIkD+p706vQa564s6lpBrFZ0ULB+gHlvvZe29AudkuvGYIPh
SJSAnAVs9LjBmx5H64S/Wqk4S2WFRlT+UgwfgSLEoO3rGgJdwtv50bUkKxXBk3MW
nhXc48ujJHcChhqmf2I6sh96zDiImT/E4PQrHvs2IHvCNIPrgN/rtvQejd8e3Qw=
=MlMt
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

--
tor-talk mailing list -

Re: [tor-talk] Tor Exit Operator convicted in Austrian lower court

2014-07-06 Thread no . thing_to-hide

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

Thanks for the notice.
The German Heise publisher provides good information to IT-related
topics, but in German. I tried my Google-translate-link just before,
and it worked via Tor, perhaps you could switch the exit? Anyway, here
ist the original link:
http://www.heise.de/ct/heft/2013-20--2248651.html

Best regards

Anton

- --
no.thing_to-hide at cryptopathie dot eu
0x30C3CDF0, RSA 2048, 24 Mar 2014
0FF8 A811 8857 1B7E 195B 649E CC26 E1A5 30C3 CDF0
Bitmessage (no metadata): BM-2cXixKZaqzJmTfz6ojiyLzmKg2JbzDnApC

On 06/07/14 17:31, Joe Btfsplk wrote:
To no.thing_to-hide - the link you provided is inaccessible for
me. It gives a message: This page was not retrieved from its
original location over a secure connection. Not sure if there's a
way around it, or maybe provide the original page let people
translate it themselves? On 7/4/2014 4:56 PM,
no.thing_to-h...@cryptopathie.eu wrote: I fully agree with Joe!

Running an exit can get you in serious legal trouble, because Tor
/and all other anonymity services/ will always be misused for
illegal activities. Every interested operator must make his
personal moral trade-off and come to a decision. Sartre described
such a discussion in a more extreme scenario in Les mains sales
(= Dirty hands)

Anyway, I decided not to run an exit but only an internal relay.
And to join German CCC and Zwiebelfreunde (Hello to the colleagues
by the way!). We operate really big relays, secured by professional
admins. Much better than I could setup at home as hobbyist w/o
IT-education. So you are an association and the legal risk and
potential lawyer costs are distributed.

Even the simple use of Tor is not w/o risk for everyday use:
https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=enie=UTF8prev=_tsl=detl=enu=http://www.heise.de/ct/heft/2013-20--2248651.html%3Fview%3Dprint

I think one should have at least some basic knowledge about what
the Internet, SSL certificates, browsers, scripting and plugins are
and how they work.

Best regards

Anton -- no.thing_to-hide at cryptopathie dot eu 0x30C3CDF0, RSA
2048, 24 Mar 2014 0FF8 A811 8857 1B7E 195B 649E CC26 E1A5 30C3
CDF0 Bitmessage (no metadata):
BM-2cXixKZaqzJmTfz6ojiyLzmKg2JbzDnApC

On 04/07/14 22:56, Joe Btfsplk wrote:
On 7/3/2014 2:23 PM, C B wrote:
I agree that collecting stories about why/how I use Tor
is useful, but I disagree that any special education or
warning should be needed before setting up an exit node.
Setting up an exit node is simply providing another IP that
can be used for traffic and nothing else.

Holy... they may not have a clue what danger lies ahead,
Batman. We're going to have to agree to disagree, that at
least some basic info on potential dangers be supplied, if
only links. We've all seen several people conversing on
tor-talk now, that were run through the ringer, for running
Tor relays.

I don't think any of them thought they'd be fighting for
their freedom; spending a huge part of savings to defend
themselves or going through extended, true mental anguish of
wondering if they'd lose their freedom family.

Maybe Tor Project itself isn't the one that should be doing
the educating in this case - dunno. Though I don't like the
thought of people going through hell on Earth, because they
didn't understand the dangers, I also understand it's not in
Tor Project's best interest to scare off relay operators.

One issue is, every Tor user is encouraged to run a relay.
Kind of like the US Army commercials promoting adventure
visiting foreign lands, instead of bullets grenades coming
at you.

Moritz, I'm not sure if the 1st FAQ at the link
https://www.torproject.org/eff/tor-legal-faq.html.en portrays
an accurate picture of potential dangers:

Has anyone ever been sued or prosecuted for running Tor?
*No*, we aren't aware of anyone being sued or prosecuted in
the United States just for running a Tor relay. Further, we
believe that running a Tor relay --- including an exit relay
that allows people to anonymously send and receive traffic
--- is legal under U.S. law.

That may need a bit of revision. :D Maybe no one has been
prosecuted in the US (I don't know), but people in other
countries sure have. And being investigated or going through
court hearings trials - maybe for months or yrs, can
destroy a person. It can be devastating, even if you're never
formally charged.

Many people who've never gone through something like that
can't fully understand the incredible stress of being
investigated threatened.

The concept of, No one's been *prosecuted* in the US,
therefore running Tor relays has no potentially serious legal
ramifications, is glossing over the dangers.

Re: [tor-talk] Tor Exit Operator convicted in Austrian lower court

2014-07-06 Thread Joe Btfsplk

Thanks.  I've not used online translating sites for larger documents or 
whole websites.  For this document, I tried a few other well known 
translators besides google translate - in an attempt to avoid anything 
google.
Are there online translators that work for larger documents besides 
google translate?


Even Babylon translate didn't seem to work.  None of them seemed to 
translate the entire document (just the text part).
But copying / pasting the text into google translate did the whole 
document immediately.  I only had to allow google scripts in NoScript 
(as w/ most interactive sites).

On 7/6/2014 10:54 AM, no.thing_to-h...@cryptopathie.eu wrote:

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

Thanks for the notice.
The German Heise publisher provides good information to IT-related
topics, but in German. I tried my Google-translate-link just before,
and it worked via Tor, perhaps you could switch the exit? Anyway, here
ist the original link:
http://www.heise.de/ct/heft/2013-20--2248651.html



--
tor-talk mailing list - tor-talk@lists.torproject.org
To unsubscribe or change other settings go to
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk

Re: [tor-talk] Tor Exit Operator convicted in Austrian lower court

2014-07-06 Thread C B

 of 
the Internet traffic systematically, it offers a lever, this anonymity to 
crack. Very roughly simplified to lure the victim to a Web page that reloads 
other resources such as images. Size and timing of their packages, then form a 
pattern that you see on the other side of the Tor network and could therefore 
assign a specific address.
If we add that the data dribble at a snail's pace and with sensible delay 
through the Tor network, the associated limitations and risks outweighs the 
benefits for average Joe and his need for privacy on any more. On the other 
side stands or falls on the concept so that enough normal Internet users use 
Tor and thus those who are really dependent on anonymity, so to speak, offer 
coverage. Ideally, the dissidents and human rights activists who are being 
persecuted by their government and really need this protection. ( )


URL of this article: 
http://www.heise.de/ct/heft/2013-20--2248651.html
Links in this article: 
[1] 
http://www.heise.de/ct/zcontent/13/20-hocmsmeta/1379577863485453/contentimages/ju.nichtanon2.ig.IG.jpg
 
 
 
--
Christopher Booth



 From: no.thing_to-h...@cryptopathie.eu no.thing_to-h...@cryptopathie.eu
To: tor-talk@lists.torproject.org 
Sent: Sunday, July 6, 2014 11:54 AM
Subject: Re: [tor-talk] Tor Exit Operator convicted in Austrian lower court
 


Thanks for the notice.
The German Heise publisher provides good information to IT-related
topics, but in German. I tried my Google-translate-link just before,
and it worked via Tor, perhaps you could switch the exit? Anyway, here
ist the original link:
http://www.heise.de/ct/heft/2013-20--2248651.html

Best regards

Anton
-- 
tor-talk mailing list - tor-talk@lists.torproject.org
To unsubscribe or change other settings go to
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk

Re: [tor-talk] Tor Exit Operator convicted in Austrian lower court

2014-07-05 Thread Zenaan Harkness

On 7/5/14, Moritz Bartl mor...@torservers.net wrote:

 The legal FAQ is a legal FAQ. It is still completely legal in all
 countries we know of. It is not the how you should behave and what is
 the worst case scenario FAQ: That is
 https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/wiki/doc/TorExitGuidelines .

I'm not sure the TorExitGuidelines provide an adequate
Behaviour FAQ, in the hindsight of recent events.

Here's a draft of some extra FAQs, please jump on in everyone and
add/shred/modify:

- Node operators (relays, entries and exits) are advised to be
especially careful with their exercise of their right to free speech
in all public forums. A healthy paranoia is recommended in such public
circumstances.

- Consider that everything you say in public (and everything on the
internet is public) will most likely be held against you in a court of
law, should you (in the extreme case) find yourself as a Defendant in
a court case where your activities are related to Tor.

Perhaps some one would write up Williams case (with links) for
submission to torproject. Of course having the court's actual ruling
is a pre-requisite.


 A legal FAQ in my eyes should mention that a lot of cases
 already proved the legality of Tor exit relays.

A collection of pointers to cases/ events (those that have any public
records) would be a good start, regardless of primary language
(translation is merely one step in the collection, sorting and
presentation phases).


 You can't expect this document to be up
 to date by the minute. It also clearly states that it is something
 written by the EFF for United States only: Tor cannot give legal advice,
 US entities seem to have to be very careful about that.

Agreed. Thus the almighty disclaimer - as long as you don't step on
the potential profits of (those particular few unethical) lawyers,
then we ought be able to say what we like, and help each other.

The flip side of lay person giving legal advice or variations
thereof, is that a (potential) consumer of legal services, if they
are not properly informed and disclaimed etc, may pursue a path of
action which causes them harm of some sort, when it was/may have been
in their interests to seek legal advice.

So again, we have a duty of care to each other, and to those who read
the material we publish. Things can go off the rails if/when we are
not careful in considering unforeseen consequences into the future.

Unfortunately caveat human is no longer - humans are expected to be
baby sat and treated with provision of a cotton wool society, and
anyone who goes against that is treated (quasi) criminally (I have
personal experience of this in Australia).

Don't get me wrong: disclaimers and appropriate cautions are good things.

But so the firetruck is self responsibility and common sense; as these
are removed, we have survival of the stupidest.

Sorry, I'm ranting now...


 Sorry for sounding a bit rude, but yes, to say it frankly, I am pissed
 off because of this case. There was no reason for making this public
 before the written statement other to scare away other Tor relay
 operators. As if Tor didn't already have enough bad press, some fuckup
 THAT HAS NO LEGAL CONSEQUENCES FOR OTHER TOR RELAYS WHATSOEVER and WHERE
 THERE IS NOT EVEN A WRITTEN STATEMENT YET TO BASE ANY CONSTRUCTIVE
 DISCUSSION ON is not helpful.

Thank you. That is a very useful thing to say.

The torproject.org site, in the light of this, _ought_ provide some FAQs:

- How to publicize your court case if you need or want assistance.

Guys, let's jump in and formulate appropriate FAQs - paraphrasing
Moritz's words above in a FAQ- and family- friendly and functional
way.

 Pleaaase, everyone, you don't have to jump on everything on
 the Internet that some dude posted to a blog and waste
 your time discussing THINGS THAT NOBODY KNOWS ANYTHING
 ABOUT YET. If you want to be constructive, think about how we
 can properly design a legal fund. WE DO HAVE MONEY FOR THIS.

Again, what's a suitable FAQ entry.

We want to mitigate future versions of such events,
in the hindsight of these experiences.


 No, I do NOT plan on throwing 3 Euro to waste just because the
 operator didn't want our help and handled the whole case completely
 wrong. YES, I feel bad about this and we wanted to help him all this
 time. I understand it is not his fault, but sadly there is nothing we
 can do if the accused does not want our help.

- If you do not want the assistance of torproject.org,
please assist the community by contacting torproject.org
and letting them know that you have your case in hand,
either with lawyers or by yourself, so that the community
knows in advance that you have chosen a pathway for handling
your case.

- If you are able to, please pre-empt negative public discussion
about the free speech networks if and when you blog or otherwise
communicate about your case, whether or not you are receiving
any assistance from torproject.


 Please, understand that we have an active interest

Re: [tor-talk] Tor Exit Operator convicted in Austrian lower court

2014-07-05 Thread Moritz Bartl

On 07/05/2014 07:30 AM, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
 I'm not sure the TorExitGuidelines provide an adequate
 Behaviour FAQ, in the hindsight of recent events.

Again: There is no hindsight of recent events. There just can't be,
because the court opinion has not been released yet.

It has always been the case that Tor exit operators were threatened,
harassed, received email, had to change ISPs, face seizures, raids, and
lawsuits. Nothing has changed.

If you are European, you will fully understand that a single opinion by
a lowest court HAS NO EFFECT WHATSOEVER.

And, again, HE WAS NOT CONVICTED PURELY BECAUSE OF RUNNING AND EXIT.

read that again

HE WAS NOT CONVICTED BECAUSE OF RUNNING AND EXIT.

Every single character of any of the emails in this thread are PURELY
ASSUMPTIONS.

 - Node operators (relays, entries and exits) are advised to be
 especially careful with their exercise of their right to free speech
 in all public forums. A healthy paranoia is recommended in such public
 circumstances.

Sorry: bullshit.

 - Consider that everything you say in public (and everything on the
 internet is public) will most likely be held against you in a court of
 law, should you (in the extreme case) find yourself as a Defendant in
 a court case where your activities are related to Tor.

That is true for whatever you do, and in no way special to Tor.

 Don't get me wrong: disclaimers and appropriate cautions are good things.

Sorry, but especially the United States is way beyond crazy when it
comes to disclaimers. Not before long and underwear comes with a DON'T
SHIT IN YOUR PANTS label.

 Sorry, I'm ranting now...

Yeah, me, too. Sorry.

 Is it ok to prompt and suggest and debate potential FAQ/site
 enhancements here on tor-talk?

Sure! That's where they everything except code developemnt is supposed
to be discussed! Final, discussed and reviewed patches to the website
can be added to https://trac.torproject.org/ with the Website category
assigned.

Thanks for getting this started! I suggested a separate thread though,
this one is a bit out of control and I bet many will have set their mail
clients to ignore it by now.

-- 
Moritz Bartl
https://www.torservers.net/
-- 
tor-talk mailing list - tor-talk@lists.torproject.org
To unsubscribe or change other settings go to
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk

Re: [tor-talk] Tor Exit Operator convicted in Austrian lower court

2014-07-05 Thread Zenaan Harkness

On 7/5/14, Moritz Bartl mor...@torservers.net wrote:
 On 07/05/2014 07:30 AM, Zenaan Harkness wrote:

 HE WAS NOT CONVICTED BECAUSE OF RUNNING AN EXIT.

 Every single character of any of the emails in this thread are PURELY
 ASSUMPTIONS.

Thanks.


 - Node operators (relays, entries and exits) are advised to be
 especially careful with their exercise of their right to free speech
 in all public forums. A healthy paranoia is recommended in such public
 circumstances.

 Sorry: bullshit.

Sure. Just as well I did not start editing my ideas straight into the
wiki then eh?

:)


 - Consider that everything you say in public (and everything on the
 internet is public) will most likely be held against you in a court of
 law, should you (in the extreme case) find yourself as a Defendant in
 a court case where your activities are related to Tor.

 That is true for whatever you do, and in no way special to Tor.

Sure, that's a good sentence to add. Some things, when written/read
appear as self evident common sense (to some of us), yet it is evident
that some such things are not self evident and are not just common
sense to some people. At least not until they read them :)


 Don't get me wrong: disclaimers and appropriate cautions are good things.

 Sorry, but especially the United States is way beyond crazy when it
 comes to disclaimers. Not before long and underwear comes with a DON'T
 SHIT IN YOUR PANTS label.

Agreed. The state of (lack of) self-responsibility within our laws is
a blight upon the human race. Nearly every mug who could get out of
a (most often unjust) parking fine or speeding fine or jaywalking or
public incitement or _ _ _ charge, by blaming someone else (the
government, the police, the courts etc), has done so, and so has
contributed to the degeneration of our laws with respect to self
responsibility, of conscience, of inner authority etc... Of course
those unjust laws themselves are also direct contributors to the
ongoing degeneration. We more and more become subservient to the
external authority of an 'almighty' statute law.

Sad indeed.


 Sorry, I'm ranting now...

 Yeah, me, too. Sorry.

 Is it ok to prompt and suggest and debate potential FAQ/site
 enhancements here on tor-talk?

 Sure! That's where they everything except code developemnt is supposed
 to be discussed! Final, discussed and reviewed patches to the website
 can be added to https://trac.torproject.org/ with the Website category
 assigned.

 Thanks for getting this started! I suggested a separate thread though,
 this one is a bit out of control and I bet many will have set their mail
 clients to ignore it by now.

Thanks.

Some one else who's still reading - please step up to start a new
thread, picking out the possbily useful FAQ additions in this thread
(adding your own personal magic as you are able).

Regards all,
Zenaan
-- 
tor-talk mailing list - tor-talk@lists.torproject.org
To unsubscribe or change other settings go to
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk

Re: [tor-talk] Tor Exit Operator convicted in Austrian lower court

2014-07-05 Thread Benedikt Gollatz

On 07/05/2014 05:28 AM, Joe Btfsplk wrote:
 On 7/4/2014 3:02 PM, no.thing_to-h...@cryptopathie.eu wrote:
 -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
 Hash: SHA1

 Hello Tor!

 Running an internal relay in Graz since 7/2013, where William Weber's
 appartment was raided in 2012, when some idiot misused his exit for
 illegal stuff, I became interested in his case. But I know it only
 from the newspapers.

 The raid took place on Wed, 2012-11-28 (1). William did intensive
 blogging afterwards (2)(3), the legal process started, and ended this
 week Mon, 2014-06-30, with 3 y probation. I found a German article
 which provides a good summary (4, Google Translate).
 He was not convicted for operating an exit (!!), what is legal in
 Austria. But, according to the opinion of the judges, for
 contribution to delinquency ('Beitragstaeterschaft' in German):
 (...) that he answered in an interview to the question whether he was
 aware that Tor could be used for distribution of child pornography,
 responded at a conference: I do not give a fuck.(...)
 (...) that the prosecutor quoted from chat logs in which he for
 anonymous hosting of everything, including child pornography,
 recommended Tor (...) (4)
 - -- The proofs for such an attitude are not really helpful when
 getting to court.

 Interesting.  Taking that account at face value, then apparently at
 times, the rule of law is as subjective in Austria as it is in many
 countries.
 
 What do we take away from Weber's conviction?  That it's illegal (or at
 least punishable) to speak your mind in Austria?
 Unless there's more to the story, I would think that judge believed he
 pulled a fast one, by giving Mr. Weber probation for something that's
 not against the law.

IANAL, but here is how his lawyer and the ISPA lawyer explained it at
the meeting (I'm going to translate German legal terms as best I can, so
probably incorrectly):

If someone downloads child pornography through your exit node, you have
objectively facilitated the distribution of child pornography. That in
itself is however not criminal, you also have to act intentionally.

There are three types of intent: you could be acting deliberately (I'm
going to run an exit node so people can download child pornography),
you could be acting knowingly (Hey, I'm gonna use your exit node to
download child pornography. -- OK, fine.), or you could act
acceptingly (I don't care if someone downloads child pornography
through my exit relay.) -- dolus eventualis.

Because of the chat logs that were found on the confiscated equipment,
the judge found that the defendant's actions amounted to dolus eventualis.

However, even given both objective facts and intent, that makes an
action not automatically criminal. Additionally, possible legal grounds
of justification have to be considered, and in William's lawyer's
opinion §13 ECG would be such a legal ground of justification (which
grants exemption from liability to operators of communication
networks, an unfortunately not too clearly defined term). The judge,
not being familiar with the technical details and generally just
presiding over a lower court, did not go to the trouble of considering
any possible such grounds.

In order to force legal clarity, we would have to find a cooperative
Austrian exit node operator through whose exit node someone has
downloaded child pornography (not something you would actively want to
be looking for) and whose actions would also satisfy the criteria for
dolus eventualis. Only then would a court be forced to consider §13 ECG
as legal grounds of justification. This seems difficult.

Benedikt
-- 
tor-talk mailing list - tor-talk@lists.torproject.org
To unsubscribe or change other settings go to
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk

Re: [tor-talk] Tor Exit Operator convicted in Austrian lower court

2014-07-04 Thread Moritz Bartl

On 07/03/2014 07:14 PM, Joe Btfsplk wrote:
 Perhaps out of fear of legal liability, Tor Project doesn't seem to have
 what would be very helpful for relay operators - guides, documents -
 even access to basic legal advice,  of how to best avoid legal issues to
 begin with.

https://www.torproject.org/eff/tor-legal-faq.html.en
https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/wiki/doc/TorExitGuidelines#Legal

 I know nothing of legalities surrounding that, but people starting a
 relay w/o proper guidance on how to avoid legal problems as much as
 possible, *doesn't quite seem right.*

If you have any specific ideas on how to improve the material, please
contribute!

We do whatever possible to support relay operators, both in regard to
organizing a lawyer as well as funding the legal battle. A generic Tor
relay operator legal fund is not simple to set up, especially if the
case involves other allegations than just running a relay. We have to be
careful.

I have talked to multiple lawyers, and this case would be very easy to
defend against. William was sadly unable or unwilling to communicate
properly, and he's not willing/able to put it to a fight. It is a sad
situation overall, but it does not change the clear legal status of
relay operation. All lawyers I talked to expect this case to be more
complicated than it looks, and it makes no sense to discuss this purely
based on what we have right now, which is some lawman's blog post.

-- 
Moritz Bartl
https://www.torservers.net/
-- 
tor-talk mailing list - tor-talk@lists.torproject.org
To unsubscribe or change other settings go to
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk

Re: [tor-talk] Tor Exit Operator convicted in Austrian lower court

2014-07-04 Thread MacLemon

Hi!

On 04 Jul 2014, at 15:31, Moritz Bartl mor...@torservers.net wrote:
 I have talked to multiple lawyers, and this case would be very easy to
 defend against. William was sadly unable or unwilling to communicate
 properly, and he's not willing/able to put it to a fight. It is a sad
 situation overall, but it does not change the clear legal status of
 relay operation. All lawyers I talked to expect this case to be more
 complicated than it looks, and it makes no sense to discuss this purely
 based on what we have right now, which is some lawman's blog post.

I've talked to William's lawyer in person as well as the ISPA jurist (Austrian 
Inter Service Provider's Association) who both joined our Tor-ops meeting in 
Vienna yesterday (2014-07-03).

What I can sum up:
It is not illegal to run a Tor relay/exit/bridge in Austria.
We can not take William's case any further.
Doing so would neither help William nor help to clear up the legal 
status of running relays in Austria.
William's lawyer said he personally considers the court judgement to be wrong.

The Austrian Tor-Community is working to form an official association (Verein) 
to get a better standing. Goals shall be education about anonymity, better 
communication with law enforcement, better communication with ISPs as well as 
the usual technical mumble to build secure and high bandwidth relays.
Building up a legal defense fund and getting a clear statement on whether 
Tor-networks fall under the legal term of „communications network“ as defined 
in ECG §13 is also part of that.


So if you're in Austria and run a relay/exit/bridge, please get in touch, join 
our Mailinglist (yes another one) at torservers.at to see if you can help and 
to stay in the loop.

Best regards
MacLemon
-- 
tor-talk mailing list - tor-talk@lists.torproject.org
To unsubscribe or change other settings go to
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk

Re: [tor-talk] Tor Exit Operator convicted in Austrian lower court

2014-07-04 Thread no . thing_to-hide

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

Hello Tor!

Running an internal relay in Graz since 7/2013, where William Weber's
appartment was raided in 2012, when some idiot misused his exit for
illegal stuff, I became interested in his case. But I know it only
from the newspapers.

The raid took place on Wed, 2012-11-28 (1). William did intensive
blogging afterwards (2)(3), the legal process started, and ended this
week Mon, 2014-06-30, with 3 y probation. I found a German article
which provides a good summary (4, Google Translate).
He was not convicted for operating an exit (!!), what is legal in
Austria. But, according to the opinion of the judges, for
contribution to delinquency ('Beitragstaeterschaft' in German):
(...) that he answered in an interview to the question whether he was
aware that Tor could be used for distribution of child pornography,
responded at a conference: I do not give a fuck.(...)
(...) that the prosecutor quoted from chat logs in which he for
anonymous hosting of everything, including child pornography,
recommended Tor (...) (4)
- -- The proofs for such an attitude are not really helpful when
getting to court.

Anyway, if you would like to help him with his lawyer costs, he takes
Bitcoin donations (5).

Perhaps next time it's you, or me, or ...

Best regards

Anton

1)
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/11/tor-operator-charged-for-child-porn-transmitted-over-his-servers
2) http://raided4tor.cryto.net
3) http://rdns.im
4)
https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=detl=enjs=yprev=_thl=enie=UTF-8u=http%3A%2F%2Ffuturezone.at%2Fnetzpolitik%2Fstrafe-fuer-tor-betreiber-grazer-urteil-wirft-fragen-auf%2F73.173.618%2Fprintedit-text=
5) http://raided4tor.cryto.net/donate

- --
no.thing_to-hide at cryptopathie dot eu
0x30C3CDF0, RSA 2048, 24 Mar 2014
0FF8 A811 8857 1B7E 195B 649E CC26 E1A5 30C3 CDF0
Bitmessage (no metadata): BM-2cXixKZaqzJmTfz6ojiyLzmKg2JbzDnApC

On 04/07/14 19:11, MacLemon wrote:
Hi!

On 04 Jul 2014, at 15:31, Moritz Bartl mor...@torservers.net
wrote:
I have talked to multiple lawyers, and this case would be very
easy to defend against. William was sadly unable or unwilling to
communicate properly, and he's not willing/able to put it to a
fight. It is a sad situation overall, but it does not change the
clear legal status of relay operation. All lawyers I talked to
expect this case to be more complicated than it looks, and it
makes no sense to discuss this purely based on what we have right
now, which is some lawman's blog post.

I've talked to William's lawyer in person as well as the ISPA
jurist (Austrian Inter Service Provider's Association) who both
joined our Tor-ops meeting in Vienna yesterday (2014-07-03).

What I can sum up: It is not illegal to run a Tor relay/exit/bridge
in Austria. We can not take William's case any further. Doing so
would neither help William nor help to clear up the legal status of
running relays in Austria. William's lawyer said he personally
considers the court judgement to be wrong.

The Austrian Tor-Community is working to form an official
association (Verein) to get a better standing. Goals shall be
education about anonymity, better communication with law
enforcement, better communication with ISPs as well as the usual
technical mumble to build secure and high bandwidth relays.
Building up a legal defense fund and getting a clear statement on
whether Tor-networks fall under the legal term of „communications
network“ as defined in ECG §13 is also part of that.

So if you're in Austria and run a relay/exit/bridge, please get in
touch, join our Mailinglist (yes another one) at torservers.at to
see if you can help and to stay in the loop.

Best regards MacLemon

-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJTtwhVAAoJEMwm4aUww83w+1oIAI80jAQj4mOpwsiYdnJGstA4
A25lb+2wDpI/zgKhttkJk1t6I1Ff3/+F5lmU7Eh6nO1RlgcPUVzZJtex1pAZ0P+z
AIo9FnsF2UJbkPU/CR2hC96yfb8cw0lEyo+zUVCi5YcrZyDbKpgiJvFB2uIuM98P
3/8XP5NteqhmBQ+WPSWAo9A7EoCuzFpSpGRhfj+osgjRWIwR75CGJErLLmSYZqP0
unSji6zJycbb6u3NOtUlVijLBGBdoXt+oQBKf8tttB3yK+WTBpMZ8P9qVb5IuKCW
/hJeqX1a2MmPG+jSjpunY/W1oBVHeDooYp4qdNIYAeVsZDVm8LSbD1g7r4aFk/o=
=0Zsp
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
--
tor-talk mailing list - tor-talk@lists.torproject.org
To unsubscribe or change other settings go to
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk

Re: [tor-talk] Tor Exit Operator convicted in Austrian lower court

2014-07-04 Thread Joe Btfsplk

On 7/3/2014 2:23 PM, C B wrote:

I agree that collecting stories about why/how I use Tor is useful, but I disagree
that any special education or warning should be needed before setting up an exit node. Setting up
an exit node is simply providing another IP that can be used for traffic and nothing else.

Holy... they may not have a clue what danger lies ahead, Batman.
We're going to have to agree to disagree, that at least some basic info
on potential dangers be supplied, if only links.
We've all seen several people conversing on tor-talk now, that were run
through the ringer, for running Tor relays.

I don't think any of them thought they'd be fighting for their freedom;
spending a huge part of savings to defend themselves or going through
extended, true mental anguish of wondering if they'd lose their freedom
family.

Maybe Tor Project itself isn't the one that should be doing the
educating in this case - dunno.
Though I don't like the thought of people going through hell on Earth,
because they didn't understand the dangers, I also understand it's not
in Tor Project's best interest to scare off relay operators.

One issue is, every Tor user is encouraged to run a relay. Kind of like
the US Army commercials promoting adventure visiting foreign lands,
instead of bullets grenades coming at you.

Moritz,
I'm not sure if the 1st FAQ at the link
https://www.torproject.org/eff/tor-legal-faq.html.en

portrays an accurate picture of potential dangers:

Has anyone ever been sued or prosecuted for running Tor?

*No*, we aren't aware of anyone being sued or prosecuted in the United
States just for running a Tor relay. Further, we believe that running a
Tor relay --- including an exit relay that allows people to anonymously
send and receive traffic --- is legal under U.S. law.

That may need a bit of revision. :D Maybe no one has been prosecuted in
the US (I don't know), but people in other countries sure have.
And being investigated or going through court hearings trials - maybe
for months or yrs, can destroy a person.

It can be devastating, even if you're never formally charged.

Many people who've never gone through something like that can't fully
understand the incredible stress of being investigated threatened.

The concept of, No one's been *prosecuted* in the US, therefore running
Tor relays has no potentially serious legal ramifications, is glossing
over the dangers.

Running a relay may not be *the* most dangerous activity, but it sure
carries significant risk. Many that get tor-talk regularly have read that.
But some potential relay operators might not read tor-talk every day for
months, to read about someone that got in serious legal trouble, before
they decide to / not to run a relay.

--
tor-talk mailing list - tor-talk@lists.torproject.org
To unsubscribe or change other settings go to
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk

Re: [tor-talk] Tor Exit Operator convicted in Austrian lower court

2014-07-04 Thread no . thing_to-hide

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

I fully agree with Joe!

Even the simple use of Tor is not w/o risk for everyday use:
https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=enie=UTF8prev=_tsl=detl=enu=http://www.heise.de/ct/heft/2013-20--2248651.html%3Fview%3Dprint

I think one should have at least some basic knowledge about what the
Internet, SSL certificates, browsers, scripting and plugins are and
how they work.

Best regards

Anton
- --
no.thing_to-hide at cryptopathie dot eu
0x30C3CDF0, RSA 2048, 24 Mar 2014
0FF8 A811 8857 1B7E 195B 649E CC26 E1A5 30C3 CDF0
Bitmessage (no metadata): BM-2cXixKZaqzJmTfz6ojiyLzmKg2JbzDnApC

On 04/07/14 22:56, Joe Btfsplk wrote:
On 7/3/2014 2:23 PM, C B wrote:
I agree that collecting stories about why/how I use Tor is
useful, but I disagree that any special education or warning
should be needed before setting up an exit node. Setting up an
exit node is simply providing another IP that can be used for
traffic and nothing else.

One issue is, every Tor user is encouraged to run a relay. Kind of
like the US Army commercials promoting adventure visiting foreign
lands, instead of bullets grenades coming at you.

Moritz, I'm not sure if the 1st FAQ at the link
https://www.torproject.org/eff/tor-legal-faq.html.en portrays an
accurate picture of potential dangers:

Has anyone ever been sued or prosecuted for running Tor?

Many people who've never gone through something like that can't
fully understand the incredible stress of being investigated
threatened.

The concept of, No one's been *prosecuted* in the US, therefore
running Tor relays has no potentially serious legal ramifications,
is glossing over the dangers.

-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)

Re: [tor-talk] Tor Exit Operator convicted in Austrian lower court

2014-07-04 Thread Zenaan Harkness

On 7/5/14, no.thing_to-h...@cryptopathie.eu
no.thing_to-h...@cryptopathie.eu wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

Hello Tor!

Contribution to delinquency it seems he was charged with.

Evidently one must demonstrate one _does_ indeed
give a fuck (care for), at least for the law.

- -- The proofs for such an attitude are not really helpful when
getting to court.

Undoubtedly.

Anyway, if you would like to help him with his lawyer costs, he takes
Bitcoin donations (5).

Perhaps next time it's you, or me, or ...

Best regards

Anton

- --
no.thing_to-hide at cryptopathie dot eu
0x30C3CDF0, RSA 2048, 24 Mar 2014
0FF8 A811 8857 1B7E 195B 649E CC26 E1A5 30C3 CDF0
Bitmessage (no metadata): BM-2cXixKZaqzJmTfz6ojiyLzmKg2JbzDnApC

On 04/07/14 19:11, MacLemon wrote:
Hi!

I've talked to William's lawyer in person as well as the ISPA
jurist (Austrian Inter Service Provider's Association) who both
joined our Tor-ops meeting in Vienna yesterday (2014-07-03).

So if you're in Austria and run a relay/exit/bridge, please get in
touch, join our Mailinglist (yes another one) at torservers.at to
see if you can help and to stay in the loop.

Best regards MacLemon
--
tor-talk mailing list - tor-talk@lists.torproject.org
To unsubscribe or change other settings go to
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk

Re: [tor-talk] Tor Exit Operator convicted in Austrian lower court

2014-07-04 Thread Joe Btfsplk


On 7/4/2014 3:02 PM, no.thing_to-h...@cryptopathie.eu wrote:

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

Hello Tor!

Running an internal relay in Graz since 7/2013, where William Weber's
appartment was raided in 2012, when some idiot misused his exit for
illegal stuff, I became interested in his case. But I know it only
from the newspapers.

The raid took place on Wed, 2012-11-28 (1). William did intensive
blogging afterwards (2)(3), the legal process started, and ended this
week Mon, 2014-06-30, with 3 y probation. I found a German article
which provides a good summary (4, Google Translate).
He was not convicted for operating an exit (!!), what is legal in
Austria. But, according to the opinion of the judges, for
contribution to delinquency ('Beitragstaeterschaft' in German):
(...) that he answered in an interview to the question whether he was
aware that Tor could be used for distribution of child pornography,
responded at a conference: I do not give a fuck.(...)
(...) that the prosecutor quoted from chat logs in which he for
anonymous hosting of everything, including child pornography,
recommended Tor (...) (4)
- -- The proofs for such an attitude are not really helpful when
getting to court.

Interesting.  Taking that account at face value, then apparently at 
times, the rule of law is as subjective in Austria as it is in many 
countries.


What do we take away from Weber's conviction?  That it's illegal (or at 
least punishable) to speak your mind in Austria?
Unless there's more to the story, I would think that judge believed he 
pulled a fast one, by giving Mr. Weber probation for something that's 
not against the law.


Answered in an interview ... that he didn't give a ...?  Was that an 
interview with the Pope or something?
There's no freedom of speech in Austria?  Or is cursing during 
interviews a possible felony?
If attitude or personal opinion were against the law, half the people in 
the world would be in jail.


I understand (completely) Mr. Weber's decision - right now - not to want 
to go through an appeal, but I'm concerned that after he's had some much 
needed rest  time to reflect, that he may regret accepting a guilty 
plea for something that apparently isn't against the law, even in 
Austria.  But it is his decision.

--
tor-talk mailing list - tor-talk@lists.torproject.org
To unsubscribe or change other settings go to
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk

Re: [tor-talk] Tor Exit Operator convicted in Austrian lower court

2014-07-04 Thread Moritz Bartl

On 07/04/2014 10:56 PM, Joe Btfsplk wrote:
 *No*, we aren't aware of anyone being sued or prosecuted in the United
 States just for running a Tor relay. Further, we believe that running a
 Tor relay --- including an exit relay that allows people to anonymously
 send and receive traffic --- is legal under U.S. law.
 That may need a bit of revision. :D  Maybe no one has been prosecuted in
 the US (I don't know)

Not that I know of. We also can't simply edit that page, since it was
produced as is by the EFF. We can revise the pages, yes, but we need
help with that. You can't possibly expect a magic somebody to do it.
Everyone is free to submit a patch!

, but people in other countries sure have.

sure have? I know of no other case that got not immediately dropped.
With the exception of William, whose, sorry I must say this, behavior
and combining circumstances didn't exactly help. We could have easily
fought this, and we would have organized and paid a lawyer, if he didn't
overall act as bad as he did. And that something like a raid, seizure
and potential _prosecution_ (not: conviction) that happen, yes, that is
something every exit operator should be aware of.

The legal FAQ is a legal FAQ. It is still completely legal in all
countries we know of. It is not the how you should behave and what is
the worst case scenario FAQ: That is
https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/wiki/doc/TorExitGuidelines . A
legal FAQ in my eyes should mention that a lot of cases already proved
the legality of Tor exit relays. You can't expect this document to be up
to date by the minute. It also clearly states that it is something
written by the EFF for United States only: Tor cannot give legal advice,
US entities seem to have to be very careful about that.

Sorry for sounding a bit rude, but yes, to say it frankly, I am pissed
off because of this case. There was no reason for making this public
before the written statement other to scare away other Tor relay
operators. As if Tor didn't already have enough bad press, some fuckup
THAT HAS NO LEGAL CONSEQUENCES FOR OTHER TOR RELAYS WHATSOEVER and WHERE
THERE IS NOT EVEN A WRITTEN STATEMENT YET TO BASE ANY CONSTRUCTIVE
DISCUSSION ON is not helpful. Pleaaase, everyone, you don't have to jump
on everything on the Internet that some dude posted to a blog and waste
your time discussing THINGS THAT NOBODY KNOWS ANYTHING ABOUT YET. If you
want to be constructive, think about how we can properly design a legal
fund. WE DO HAVE MONEY FOR THIS.

No, I do NOT plan on throwing 3 Euro to waste just because the
operator didn't want our help and handled the whole case completely
wrong. YES, I feel bad about this and we wanted to help him all this
time. I understand it is not his fault, but sadly there is nothing we
can do if the accused does not want our help.

Please, understand that we have an active interest in updating the
website, providing a legal fund, organizing lawyers and all that.
Several of you make it sound like it's the Tor project's fault, and
demand that magically someone writes elaborate and brilliant guides
for the website and from one day to another sets up an international
legal fund. You're all invited to investigate options and write guides,
but just ranting on a mailinglist is not getting us anywhere.

I will pick up this thread only after we have seen a written statement
by the court. Please start separate threads if you have good and
well-thought ideas about how we can organize a legal fund, send a patch
for the website if you have good writing skills, and edit the Tor Exit
Guidelines page if you think it is wrong. It is a wiki, wikis are there
to be edited.

 The concept of, No one's been *prosecuted* in the US, therefore running
 Tor relays has no potentially serious legal ramifications, is glossing
 over the dangers.

I agree.

-- 
Moritz Bartl
https://www.torservers.net/
-- 
tor-talk mailing list - tor-talk@lists.torproject.org
To unsubscribe or change other settings go to
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk

Re: [tor-talk] Tor Exit Operator convicted in Austrian lower court

2014-07-03 Thread C B

When Edith Windsor approached Roberta Kaplan to take her case after she had 
been forced to pay $363,053 in estate taxes only because she had been married 
to a woman, instead of a man, she offered to pay for the defense, and Roberta 
immediately agreed to take the case and immediately said, no we will take it 
pro bono - you don't understand - and the defense in United States v. Windsor 
ended up costing $3 million, but helped millions of homosexuals who had been 
affected by DOMA. Legal cases are expensive but important to fight.
 
--
Christopher Booth



 From: Roman Mamedov r...@romanrm.net
To: tor-talk@lists.torproject.org 
Sent: Wednesday, July 2, 2014 11:33 PM
Subject: Re: [tor-talk] Tor Exit Operator convicted in Austrian lower court
 

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On Thu, 03 Jul 2014 03:54:32 +0300
s7r s...@sky-ip.org wrote:

 In the blockchain I saw a pretty good fed of BTC to his donation
 address - folks in the community didn't turn back on this. With that
 sum donated there he could arrange for a top lawyer, minimum. I don't
 know what was the exact rate when he cashed those into FIAT anyway but
 still it was something.

...261.91743313 in bitcoin donations which is worth almost $170,000 today

Yes, this is correct. Back then i sold them (entirely) for around 5000EUR via
Virwox and BTC24.

For clarification: My lawyer costs 250EUR / hour, this 1EUR total
(Paypal+BTC) funded (with tax i paid ignored, else around 30) 40 hours of my
lawyer which obviously in such a case is not enough by far. I myself invested
more than this in the case.

http://lowendtalk.com/discussion/comment/644383/#Comment_644383

- -- 
With respect,
Roman
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAlO0zvIACgkQTLKSvz+PZwhSqwCbB3oT+50Bumm/+XC1g41PrYh/
e48An0Yor/YePh+nBb95fjECUoCJVmi8
=sJ+g

-END PGP SIGNATURE-
-- 
tor-talk mailing list - tor-talk@lists.torproject.org
To unsubscribe or change other settings go to
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk
-- 
tor-talk mailing list - tor-talk@lists.torproject.org
To unsubscribe or change other settings go to
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk

Re: [tor-talk] Tor Exit Operator convicted in Austrian lower court

2014-07-03 Thread Lunar

MacLemon:
 German language Austrian Legalese background:
 Austrian E-Commerce Law §15: Ausschluss der Verantwortlichkeit bei
 Zwischenspeicherungen http://j.mp/1iYdg4L
 
 § 15. Ein Diensteanbieter, der von einem Nutzer eingegebene
 Informationen in einem Kommunikationsnetz übermittelt, ist für eine
 automatische, zeitlich begrenzte Zwischenspeicherung, die nur der
 effizienteren Gestaltung der auf Abruf anderer Nutzer erfolgenden
 Informationsübermittlung dient, nicht verantwortlich, sofern er
   
   1. die Information nicht verändert,
   2. die Bedingungen für den Zugang zur Information beachtet,
   3. die Regeln für die Aktualisierung der Information, die in
  allgemein anerkannten und verwendeten Industriestandards
  festgelegt sind, beachtet,
   4. die zulässige Anwendung von Technologien zur Sammlung von
  Daten über die Nutzung der Information, die in allgemein
  anerkannten und verwendeten Industriestandards festgelegt sind,
  nicht beeinträchtigt und
   5. unverzüglich eine von ihm gespeicherte Information entfernt
  oder den Zugang zu ihr sperrt, sobald er tatsächliche Kenntnis
  davon erhalten hat, dass die Information am ursprünglichen
  Ausgangsort der Übertragung aus dem Netz entfernt oder der
  Zugang zu ihr gesperrt wurde oder dass ein Gericht oder eine
  Verwaltungsbehörde die Entfernung oder Sperre angeordnet hat.
 
 
 
 IANAL Paraphrased:
 ==
 A service provider who transmits user-input over a
 communications-network is not liable for a automated, time restricted
 caching which only purpose is to more effectively provide information
 requested by a user given that:
   1. the information is not altered
   2. access requirements are honored
   3. commonly accepted rules and industry standards for updating are 
 honored
   4. the lawful application of technology to collect data about
  the usage of information as defined in commonly accepted and
  applied industry standards is not harmed
   5. recorded information is immediately deleted or access to that
  recorded information is denied as soon as they are informed of
  the fact that the information has been deleted at it's point of
  origin, access has been denied or in case a court or
  regulatory-body(?) has ordered the blocking.

For the record, this is the transcription of Article 12 of the european
directive 2000/31/CE of 8 June 2000 which defines the “mere conduit”
status.
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32000L0031:En:HTML

Unless I'm mistaken, this means that this can also be appealed at the
european level.

-- 
Lunar lu...@torproject.org


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
-- 
tor-talk mailing list - tor-talk@lists.torproject.org
To unsubscribe or change other settings go to
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk

Re: [tor-talk] Tor Exit Operator convicted in Austrian lower court

2014-07-03 Thread Anders Andersson

On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 5:53 AM, Moritz Bartl mor...@torservers.net wrote:
 On 07/02/2014 11:00 PM, Anders Andersson wrote:
 Unfortunately he doesn't seem to want to take this further, so the
 ruling will stand. It's his choice, but it could be a very bad
 deterrent to other potential exit node operators in Austria.

 We are in contact with William, and quite possibly there is the option
 of following this further with another Austrian operator who
 self-reports himself, with our help. Please everyone give us time to
 look into this together with some lawyers.

Thank you! That's amazing! I'm quite sure that the support you get
from the Tor community when running an exit node really helps in
giving people the courage to do so.
-- 
tor-talk mailing list - tor-talk@lists.torproject.org
To unsubscribe or change other settings go to
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk

Re: [tor-talk] Tor Exit Operator convicted in Austrian lower court

2014-07-03 Thread Geoff Down


 On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 5:53 AM, Moritz Bartl mor...@torservers.net
 wrote:
  On 07/02/2014 11:00 PM, Anders Andersson wrote:
  Unfortunately he doesn't seem to want to take this further, so the
  ruling will stand. It's his choice, but it could be a very bad
  deterrent to other potential exit node operators in Austria.
 
  We are in contact with William, and quite possibly there is the option
  of following this further with another Austrian operator who
  self-reports himself, with our help. Please everyone give us time to
  look into this together with some lawyers.

And if there is some trustworthy way of contributing to William's legal
fund, I'm sure many here would do so who have not previously.
GD

-- 
http://www.fastmail.fm - Access your email from home and the web

-- 
tor-talk mailing list - tor-talk@lists.torproject.org
To unsubscribe or change other settings go to
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk

Re: [tor-talk] Tor Exit Operator convicted in Austrian lower court

2014-07-03 Thread s7r

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On 7/3/2014 4:16 PM, Anders Andersson wrote:
 On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 5:53 AM, Moritz Bartl
 mor...@torservers.net wrote:
 On 07/02/2014 11:00 PM, Anders Andersson wrote:
 Unfortunately he doesn't seem to want to take this further, so
 the ruling will stand. It's his choice, but it could be a very
 bad deterrent to other potential exit node operators in
 Austria.
 
 We are in contact with William, and quite possibly there is the
 option of following this further with another Austrian operator
 who self-reports himself, with our help. Please everyone give us
 time to look into this together with some lawyers.
 
 Thank you! That's amazing! I'm quite sure that the support you get 
 from the Tor community when running an exit node really helps in 
 giving people the courage to do so.
 

You will be amazed of the quality of some important people inside Tor
community and torservers.net organization, and the kind of help they
are willing to offer, regardless if it's financial, legal, technical
or you name it.

- -- 
s7r
PGP Fingerprint: 7C36 9232 5ABD FB0B 3021 03F1 837F A52C 8126 5B11
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (MingW32)

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJTtWvoAAoJEIN/pSyBJlsRxGkIAIQ5xARuiA5J0U0PSwBn9yvS
06r7VRUt6y4F5shL6XU1+5OnNVzbiGLY0g5UwiaQp7Wvpx0XSrO8emQrlQMTNCZf
cfVccmHA11gXMZHOjCSC+wpX0IWbmvmUOSqN+kzveWh54CRod1QbCysis0v4A57K
8O/lDGNmdm2o+Na/NSD5Zq2/c3kcSegs5/dLzPD1+O2tLPmj8XJ8+gJhavhGeQ6o
zjWTl23cglkk/mQ3yXDcxa+GuMtVyzWDLb/U+I04Zq0mYT1X+NqP7VatlVGWSVb0
XKMCsACQrHgOYXCv+ApdnOhn8YoNsMLjOVd2B8oCAPkbBdQ+6PjVY5gJUMfOjWg=
=qYLI
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
-- 
tor-talk mailing list - tor-talk@lists.torproject.org
To unsubscribe or change other settings go to
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk

Re: [tor-talk] Tor Exit Operator convicted in Austrian lower court

2014-07-03 Thread Zenaan Harkness

(Thread start:
https://lists.torproject.org/pipermail/tor-talk/2014-July/033573.html
)

On 7/3/14, Anders Andersson pipat...@gmail.com wrote:
 On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 5:53 AM, Moritz Bartl mor...@torservers.net wrote:
 On 07/02/2014 11:00 PM, Anders Andersson wrote:
 Unfortunately he doesn't seem to want to take this further, so the
 ruling will stand. It's his choice, but it could be a very bad
 deterrent to other potential exit node operators in Austria.

 We are in contact with William, and quite possibly there is the option
 of following this further with another Austrian operator who
 self-reports himself, with our help. Please everyone give us time to
 look into this together with some lawyers.

 Thank you! That's amazing! I'm quite sure that the support you get
 from the Tor community when running an exit node really helps in
 giving people the courage to do so.

Agreed, great news.

In hindsight, it is clear that we as a community have an interest to
build a resource of amicus curiae briefs - friend of the court briefs.
So PLEASE make moves in the direction of contributing and collecting
documents which may be relevant to future cases - at the least a
simple collection of legal docs.

We have an interest in protecting our free-speech networks (Tor, I2P
etc), legally as well as technologically and politically. The
Torproject.org website does a good job IMHO of presenting the social
case for free-speech networks.

No matter the circumstances of a particular case (a particular free
speech node operator), we the global free-speech promoting and
free-speech facilitating community, have an interest to advise the
courts regarding matters of technology and free speech, in order to
maximise the sanity of the outcomes brought about by our courts (and
yes, another operators courts are as good as mine, in terms of global
impact). For example a tor-network node operator charged for actual
illegal activity, should not cause legal suppression of free-speech
networks in general.

To kick things off, here's the gist of what I have in mind (this is in
no way directly responsive to the case that started this thread, which
I know nothing about):


In this matter an individual has been charged with a [criminal] offence.

The case of a matter of an individual committing a proven criminal
defamation or incitement must not be used by the court to suppress
free speech generally by way of the court's power of judicial
sanction.

Similarly in this case the [Defendant] was the operator of a 'digital
communications facility' which facility was a node in a free-speech
network, in particular the [Tor|I2P} free speech network;

where the operator is found by this court to have committed unlawful
acts, then this court must only  target those unlawful acts when it
makes its determinations, by way of this court's power of judicial
sanction exercised according to law;

and this court must not reach beyond those unlawful acts in its
determinations/ rulings/ sanctions;

if the court exercises its power in reaching beyond those unlawful
acts then such exercise of judicial power is likely to undermine
confidence in the court by all other operators of the free-speech
network and by users of the free speech network.

A ruling by this court will be seen by many humans around the world,
both operators of free speech nodes in the free speech networks, as
well as by users and by potential users of free speech networks around
the world.

In this case, the rulings of this court are visible globally, and
shall be watched by many;
there is therefore a great burden upon this court in this case, and
this court therefore has a special duty of care when it makes its
rulings/ determinations, to be conservative and cautious, in
particular regarding any general deterrents this court might
ordinarily be minded to create by its rulings which deterrents might
unintentionally dampen confidence in this court and/ or confidence in
the courts generally to protect our human rights including freedom of
communication.

This court must be especially careful in its rulings in this matter,
since the court is in a position to bring about chilling effects upon
the liberties of not only those humans within its immediate
jurisdictions, but also upon the broader global community.


(A glosary, localisation, much enhancement and other legal polishing
would be required of course, along with subroutined/ separate
submissions regarding each relevant law, and regarding each relevant
precedent in the jurisdiction in question and/ or in jurisdictions
relevant (some cases/precedents are so poignant, so timeless, that
they apply all over the world, e.g. the Credit River Decision, as well
as the trial of William Penn).)


Such advice or briefs to the court are ideally tailored to each
particular country/jurisdiction.

However, even a brief prepared for some country other than the country
at issue, is likely to be useful to those attempting to create a brief
for a particular case in

Re: [tor-talk] Tor Exit Operator convicted in Austrian lower court

2014-07-03 Thread Joe Btfsplk



On 7/3/2014 10:34 AM, Zenaan Harkness wrote:

Agreed, great news.

In hindsight, it is clear that we as a community have an interest to
build a resource of amicus curiae briefs - friend of the court briefs.
So PLEASE make moves in the direction of contributing and collecting
documents which may be relevant to future cases - at the least a
simple collection of legal docs.

Definitely!  /An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure./ - Ben 
Franklin.


Perhaps out of fear of legal liability, Tor Project doesn't seem to have 
what would be very helpful for relay operators - guides, documents - 
even access to basic legal advice,  of how to best avoid legal issues to 
begin with.


I know nothing of legalities surrounding that, but people starting a 
relay w/o proper guidance on how to avoid legal problems as much as 
possible, *doesn't quite seem right.*


In a worst case scenario, running relays can be truly *life 
destroying.*  It seems volunteers need better preparation  education 
about potential ramifications.  If after being educated, they still 
choose to run relays (especially exit), that's fine.


However, it would seem wrong to not make reasonably complete education 
materials available to potential relay operators, to prepare them  warn 
them of potential downside.
Without relay operators, there won't be much left (unless independent 
volunteers no longer handle that function).


Accused persons dealing w/ problems like this after the fact, is far, 
far worse than even an extraordinary amount of time spent on preventing 
/ avoiding them.
If LEAs / judicial system actively investigates someone (throwing around 
terms like child porn), or indicts a person, the mental stress alone is 
enough to ruin one's life.  That is no exaggeration.


If you've never been falsely accused of something  had to defend 
yourself - even before it goes to trial (or never does), the stress is 
incredible.

--
tor-talk mailing list - tor-talk@lists.torproject.org
To unsubscribe or change other settings go to
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk

Re: [tor-talk] Tor Exit Operator convicted in Austrian lower court

2014-07-03 Thread C B

I agree that collecting stories about why/how I use Tor is useful, but I 
disagree that any special education or warning should be needed before setting 
up an exit node. Setting up an exit node is simply providing another IP that 
can be used for traffic and nothing else. It is useful to provide warnings 
about protecting your own traffic, and protecting your own computer against 
attack from traffic to your exit node. For a while I was able to set up an exit 
node and run it for about 4 days at a time before Windows got clogged up and I 
needed to reboot to keep the computer from locking up. The only thing I had to 
do was change my IP address, as whatever IP address I was using for Tor gets 
tagged and blocked by many sites (unreasonably, but still done).

But then I started receiving immediate attacks that shut down the node. I am 
not sure if those were coming from my ISP or from outside, and I am not 
interested in notifying my ISP that I am operating an exit node - what I do 
with my Internet connection is my business, not theirs. I am not the least bit 
concerned of any legal issues associated with operating an exit node, because 
any concerns are blatantly unreasonable. Basically Tor, and https, are just 
necessary mechanisms for using the Internet, and nothing else. Boo hoo that no 
one can see what you are doing. That is just too bad. Everyone has the right to 
privacy. I list public key cryptography as the most important invention of the 
20th century, because it allows privacy in the digital world. The same privacy 
that was obtained centuries earlier by sealing a letter with hot wax and a 
monogram seal.
 
--
Christopher Booth



 From: Joe Btfsplk joebtfs...@gmx.com
To: tor-talk@lists.torproject.org 
Sent: Thursday, July 3, 2014 1:14 PM
Subject: Re: [tor-talk] Tor Exit Operator convicted in Austrian lower court
 


On 7/3/2014 10:34 AM, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
 Agreed, great news.

 In hindsight, it is clear that we as a community have an interest to
 build a resource of amicus curiae briefs - friend of the court briefs.
 So PLEASE make moves in the direction of contributing and collecting
 documents which may be relevant to future cases - at the least a
 simple collection of legal docs.

Definitely!  /An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure./ - Ben 
Franklin.

Perhaps out of fear of legal liability, Tor Project doesn't seem to have 
what would be very helpful for relay operators - guides, documents - 
even access to basic legal advice,  of how to best avoid legal issues to 
begin with.

I know nothing of legalities surrounding that, but people starting a 
relay w/o proper guidance on how to avoid legal problems as much as 
possible, *doesn't quite seem right.*

In a worst case scenario, running relays can be truly *life 
destroying.*  It seems volunteers need better preparation  education 
about potential ramifications.  If after being educated, they still 
choose to run relays (especially exit), that's fine.

However, it would seem wrong to not make reasonably complete education 
materials available to potential relay operators, to prepare them  warn 
them of potential downside.
Without relay operators, there won't be much left (unless independent 
volunteers no longer handle that function).

Accused persons dealing w/ problems like this after the fact, is far, 
far worse than even an extraordinary amount of time spent on preventing 
/ avoiding them.
If LEAs / judicial system actively investigates someone (throwing around 
terms like child porn), or indicts a person, the mental stress alone is 
enough to ruin one's life.  That is no exaggeration.

If you've never been falsely accused of something  had to defend 
yourself - even before it goes to trial (or never does), the stress is 
incredible.



-- 
tor-talk mailing list - tor-talk@lists.torproject.org
To unsubscribe or change other settings go to
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk
-- 
tor-talk mailing list - tor-talk@lists.torproject.org
To unsubscribe or change other settings go to
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk

Re: [tor-talk] Tor Exit Operator convicted in Austrian lower court

2014-07-02 Thread MacLemon

Hey!

On 02 Jul 2014, at 03:49, C B cb...@yahoo.com wrote:
 in no way makes Montblac, Southworth, or Smith's Stationary the least bit 
 responsible for the bank robbery. This ruling is a clear lack of 
 understanding of how the Internet and Tor work.

I totally agree. It contradicts Austrian legislation of the so called 
“Provider's privilege” which states that the operator or provider of a service 
is not liable for the data transmitted over said service.

Following that mis-ruling the Austrian Post Office would be liable for the 
goods they deliver (as well as any other delivery service, like packages, food, 
Amazon, or basically any ISP as well.)

We'll see how that continues.
Best regards
MacLemon
-- 
tor-talk mailing list - tor-talk@lists.torproject.org
To unsubscribe or change other settings go to
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk

Re: [tor-talk] Tor Exit Operator convicted in Austrian lower court

2014-07-02 Thread bauta



We'll see how that continues.


https://rdns.im/court-official-statement-part-1

Apparently the operator is in need of a substantial heads up and  
financial boost.


From what has been reported the judgement seems to be based on a  
misapplied article in order to justify a conviction.



--




-

VFEmail.net - http://www.vfemail.net
ONLY AT VFEmail! - Use our Metadata Mitigator to keep your email out of the 
NSA's hands!
$24.95 ONETIME Lifetime accounts with Privacy Features!  
15GB disk! No bandwidth quotas!
Commercial and Bulk Mail Options!  
--

tor-talk mailing list - tor-talk@lists.torproject.org
To unsubscribe or change other settings go to
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk

Re: [tor-talk] Tor Exit Operator convicted in Austrian lower court

2014-07-02 Thread s7r

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On 7/2/2014 2:54 PM, MacLemon wrote:
 Hey!
 
 On 02 Jul 2014, at 03:49, C B cb...@yahoo.com wrote:
 in no way makes Montblac, Southworth, or Smith's Stationary the
 least bit responsible for the bank robbery. This ruling is a
 clear lack of understanding of how the Internet and Tor work.
 
 I totally agree. It contradicts Austrian legislation of the so
 called “Provider's privilege” which states that the operator or
 provider of a service is not liable for the data transmitted over
 said service.
 
 Following that mis-ruling the Austrian Post Office would be liable
 for the goods they deliver (as well as any other delivery service,
 like packages, food, Amazon, or basically any ISP as well.)
 
 We'll see how that continues. Best regards MacLemon
 

The subject of this attracted my attention. Are we talking here about
a clear law, written black on white which states that it is illegal to
run Tor relays (or any kind of telecommunications proxy servers) and
that you are responsible for your user's actions, even if you provide
those services free of charge, therefor not required to collect any
data about your users? Is it actually a specific law which was
enforced here clearly stating that you cannot run Tor or open proxy
servers?


Or are we talking about just one decision from a judge who probably
didn't do a proper reading and analysis before applying this decision?
Or maybe the person charged with this was actually doing something
illegal? Anyone has more details?

If so, shouldn't the EU legislation protect you against such an abuse?
In some countries, quite a lot of them actually, there is even no
definition in the law whatsoever for open proxy servers or
telecommunications internet traffic. Internet is (from legal point of
view, no technical - new invention. Tor is newer and science fiction
for the vast majority of people). Does this mean in those countries
you can run anything you want? Or not run anything because you to to
jail for ANOTHER penal code, which makes vague reference about this too.

That is nonsense. Why not arrest the owners of a stainless steel blade
factory, because some people stab other people with those blades.

- -- 
s7r
PGP Fingerprint: 7C36 9232 5ABD FB0B 3021 03F1 837F A52C 8126 5B11
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (MingW32)

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJTtCutAAoJEIN/pSyBJlsRLD4H/0SePsnXDbbxxq2ulvLJDfLB
YqL/OYJaSMbldJJlIMt4soLxpIvRZYj2VHa8jnKfWg6z05jM3uUvBG/pyaAHzSy4
wptr+XGsLLkE8xFjMhy1Q5B+hLkWCYsTNp0XfRfBFiR/Y0mGiT8xNbKdUAGng54i
qtQL/D99N1yo5yvl+gzvDNHE2sJ+fFnwPCadUQE05JJtG8JY9p9yU4QCw3N0SqFI
kqs2k7q2N6VWzBJWy4GggTvMPlDaZqh6ssAGY0b2ZqY9S3mEqjEpJ8w43JJaJCOz
iCzUCqYbya3J78jvom9xYfPV+X+2YjkPA67RSv9JV+LOlDn+fh4Wn/hcqeGZvgk=
=sVoz
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
-- 
tor-talk mailing list - tor-talk@lists.torproject.org
To unsubscribe or change other settings go to
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk

Re: [tor-talk] Tor Exit Operator convicted in Austrian lower court

2014-07-02 Thread Michael O Holstein

That is nonsense. Why not arrest the owners of a stainless steel blade
factory, because some people stab other people with those blades.

Okay .. try giving knives away anonymously out of the back of your garage and 
let us know how you make out.

tl;dr .. don't tell the world to use TOR for hosting kiddie porn while also 
running an exit node.

https://rdns.im/part-15

My 0.02

Michael Holstein
Cleveland State University
-- 
tor-talk mailing list - tor-talk@lists.torproject.org
To unsubscribe or change other settings go to
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk

Re: [tor-talk] Tor Exit Operator convicted in Austrian lower court

2014-07-02 Thread C B

This is an early report of the arrest. 
http://lowendtalk.com/discussion/6283/raided-for-running-a-tor-exit-accepting-donations-for-legal-expenses
 
 
--
Christopher Booth


 From: Runa A. Sandvik runa.sand...@gmail.com
To: tor-talk@lists.torproject.org 
Sent: Tuesday, July 1, 2014 9:00 PM
Subject: Re: [tor-talk] Tor Exit Operator convicted in Austrian lower court
 

On Tue, Jul 1, 2014 at 10:42 PM,  ba...@clovermail.net wrote:
 There are little details on this case:
 https://network23.org/blackoutaustria/2014/07/01/to-whom-it-may-concern-english-version/

 Does the Tor project has a defense support fund or a list of committed pro
 bono lawyers in different countries for such cases?

There's the Tor legal support directory from 2010, though not sure how
up to date it is:
https://blog.torproject.org/category/tags/tor-legal-support-directory
- your best bet, if you ever run into issues for operating a Tor node,
would be to contact the Tor Project directly.

-- 
Runa A. Sandvik

-- 
tor-talk mailing list - tor-talk@lists.torproject.org
To unsubscribe or change other settings go to
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk
-- 
tor-talk mailing list - tor-talk@lists.torproject.org
To unsubscribe or change other settings go to
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk

Re: [tor-talk] Tor Exit Operator convicted in Austrian lower court

2014-07-02 Thread Joe Btfsplk



On 7/2/2014 11:10 AM, Michael O Holstein wrote:

That is nonsense. Why not arrest the owners of a stainless steel blade
factory, because some people stab other people with those blades.

Okay .. try giving knives away anonymously out of the back of your garage and 
let us know how you make out.

tl;dr .. don't tell the world to use TOR for hosting kiddie porn while also 
running an exit node.

https://rdns.im/part-15

Except, comparing apples to apples, what typical Tor operators do is no 
different than what ISPs do.
Comparing handing out weapons to passing internet traffic through 
servers - while having no knowledge of its content, is an apples to 
oranges comparison.


Except that Tor operators (or any others like them) are little guys 
that a lot of LEAs don't like.
To be fair in applying the law, Austrian courts would *have to convict* 
the Austrian equivalent of say, ATT (ISP), if they were EVER found to 
have unknowingly transmitted illegal material through their servers.


Of course every huge ISP has transmitted illegal / stolen material, or 
plans to commit crimes through their servers - but not w/ their 
knowledge or blessing.
I've never heard of a single ISP being indicted, much less convicted 
over a case like this.

--
tor-talk mailing list - tor-talk@lists.torproject.org
To unsubscribe or change other settings go to
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk

Re: [tor-talk] Tor Exit Operator convicted in Austrian lower court

2014-07-02 Thread Martin Kepplinger

Am 2014-07-02 17:56, schrieb s7r:
 On 7/2/2014 2:54 PM, MacLemon wrote:
 Hey!
 
 On 02 Jul 2014, at 03:49, C B cb...@yahoo.com wrote:
 in no way makes Montblac, Southworth, or Smith's Stationary the
 least bit responsible for the bank robbery. This ruling is a
 clear lack of understanding of how the Internet and Tor work.
 
 I totally agree. It contradicts Austrian legislation of the so
 called “Provider's privilege” which states that the operator or
 provider of a service is not liable for the data transmitted over
 said service.
 
 Following that mis-ruling the Austrian Post Office would be liable
 for the goods they deliver (as well as any other delivery service,
 like packages, food, Amazon, or basically any ISP as well.)
 
 We'll see how that continues. Best regards MacLemon
 
 
 The subject of this attracted my attention. Are we talking here about
 a clear law, written black on white which states that it is illegal to
 run Tor relays (or any kind of telecommunications proxy servers) and
 that you are responsible for your user's actions, even if you provide
 those services free of charge, therefor not required to collect any
 data about your users? Is it actually a specific law which was
 enforced here clearly stating that you cannot run Tor or open proxy
 servers?
 
no
 
 Or are we talking about just one decision from a judge who probably
 didn't do a proper reading and analysis before applying this decision?
 Or maybe the person charged with this was actually doing something
 illegal? Anyone has more details?
yes
 
 If so, shouldn't the EU legislation protect you against such an abuse?
 In some countries, quite a lot of them actually, there is even no
 definition in the law whatsoever for open proxy servers or
 telecommunications internet traffic. Internet is (from legal point of
 view, no technical - new invention. Tor is newer and science fiction
 for the vast majority of people). Does this mean in those countries
 you can run anything you want? Or not run anything because you to to
 jail for ANOTHER penal code, which makes vague reference about this too.
 
 That is nonsense. Why not arrest the owners of a stainless steel blade
 factory, because some people stab other people with those blades.
 
 

-- 
tor-talk mailing list - tor-talk@lists.torproject.org
To unsubscribe or change other settings go to
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk

Re: [tor-talk] Tor Exit Operator convicted in Austrian lower court

2014-07-02 Thread s7r

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On 7/2/2014 7:10 PM, Michael O Holstein wrote:
 That is nonsense. Why not arrest the owners of a stainless steel
 blade factory, because some people stab other people with those
 blades.
 
 Okay .. try giving knives away anonymously out of the back of your
 garage and let us know how you make out.
 
That's a fine argument. You recommend me shutting down all my exit
relays? Or what should I understand out of that argument?

 tl;dr .. don't tell the world to use TOR for hosting kiddie porn
 while also running an exit node.
 
 https://rdns.im/part-15
Totally agree on this, but that is not what we were discussing.
If I use my direct internet connection to commit something illegal,
why not charge my ISP as well for offering me the infrastructure to do
what I did?

 
 My 0.02
 
 Michael Holstein Cleveland State University
 


- -- 
s7r
PGP Fingerprint: 7C36 9232 5ABD FB0B 3021 03F1 837F A52C 8126 5B11
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (MingW32)

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJTtDfpAAoJEIN/pSyBJlsRojIIAIElas2+MRRCvKCcW8jPppjZ
qGIeXR/u0lyDAt+9meSeDw/t8qiQ9JQHDIRb65Nfr+tPttCix8sdjuDv8rmjpXKJ
6/G9titaOaxC3Bh1Ymqz43Hiq8Vig3Gy0ptrRsfSoSDrvIn7WtUuNwC8FUOjwKvk
CXaZmoq0AADBuenatiErpIls/Sv7s4n7iYI0wrrk7/fZqXhKbZYwMv1tk53Z+6on
T4B+D/5FSF9r0gpkjC5egUfD2GDlD9+iC+pLsjoujOZRsZHiMG468J4EystUeTwO
vJ/dg1SUZ70F4LckvxJ5tNWcmSbkoJgIty+dayE2vtvVSICQGrJt5ubDrAvxP/c=
=VhA0
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
-- 
tor-talk mailing list - tor-talk@lists.torproject.org
To unsubscribe or change other settings go to
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk

Re: [tor-talk] Tor Exit Operator convicted in Austrian lower court

2014-07-02 Thread MacLemon

Hey!

On 02 Jul 2014, at 17:56, s7r s...@sky-ip.org wrote:

 Signed PGP part
 On 7/2/2014 2:54 PM, MacLemon wrote:
 The subject of this attracted my attention. Are we talking here about
 a clear law, written black on white which states that it is illegal to
 run Tor relays (or any kind of telecommunications proxy servers) and
 that you are responsible for your user's actions, even if you provide
 those services free of charge, therefor not required to collect any
 data about your users? Is it actually a specific law which was
 enforced here clearly stating that you cannot run Tor or open proxy
 servers?
No, absolutely NOT. Actually, the opposite is the reality. Austria has 
something commonly called the “Provider's Privilege” (non-legalese term) which 
states that a service provider is not liable for the data transported over said 
services. No matter if the service is a free or paid one.


There is no law that I have ever heard of that prohibits running a proxy server 
or a Tor node in general or in particular. Providing an online service in 
Austria is mostly regulated by the Telecommunications law, E-Commerce law and 
data-protection law.



German language Austrian Legalese background:
Austrian E-Commerce Law §15: Ausschluss der Verantwortlichkeit bei 
Zwischenspeicherungen http://j.mp/1iYdg4L

§ 15. Ein Diensteanbieter, der von einem Nutzer eingegebene Informationen in 
einem Kommunikationsnetz übermittelt, ist für eine automatische, zeitlich 
begrenzte Zwischenspeicherung, die nur der effizienteren Gestaltung der auf 
Abruf anderer Nutzer erfolgenden Informationsübermittlung dient, nicht 
verantwortlich, sofern er

1. die Information nicht verändert,
2. die Bedingungen für den Zugang zur Information beachtet,
3. die Regeln für die Aktualisierung der Information, die in allgemein 
anerkannten und verwendeten Industriestandards festgelegt sind, beachtet,
4. die zulässige Anwendung von Technologien zur Sammlung von Daten über 
die Nutzung der Information, die in allgemein anerkannten und verwendeten 
Industriestandards festgelegt sind, nicht beeinträchtigt und
5. unverzüglich eine von ihm gespeicherte Information entfernt oder den 
Zugang zu ihr sperrt, sobald er tatsächliche Kenntnis davon erhalten hat, dass 
die Information am ursprünglichen Ausgangsort der Übertragung aus dem Netz 
entfernt oder der Zugang zu ihr gesperrt wurde oder dass ein Gericht oder eine 
Verwaltungsbehörde die Entfernung oder Sperre angeordnet hat.



IANAL Paraphrased:
==
A service provider who transmits user-input over a communications-network is 
not liable for a automated, time restricted caching which only purpose is to 
more effectively provide information requested by a user given that:
1. the information is not altered
2. access requirements are honored
3. commonly accepted rules and industry standards for updating are 
honored
4. the lawful application of technology to collect data about the usage 
of information as defined in commonly accepted and applied industry standards 
is not harmed
5. recorded information is immediately deleted or access to that 
recorded information is denied as soon as they are informed of the fact that 
the information has been deleted at it's point of origin, access has been 
denied or in case a court or regulatory-body(?) has ordered the blocking.



Austrian E-Commerce Law §3.1: http://j.mp/1iYdIQw
Begriffsdefinitionen: Diensteanbieter
1. Dienst der Informationsgesellschaft: ein in der Regel gegen Entgelt 
elektronisch im Fernabsatz auf individuellen Abruf des Empfängers 
bereitgestellter Dienst (§ 1 Abs. 1 Z 2 Notifikationsgesetz 1999), insbesondere 
der Online-Vertrieb von Waren und Dienstleistungen, 
Online-Informationsangebote, die Online-Werbung, elektronische Suchmaschinen 
und Datenabfragemöglichkeiten sowie Dienste, die Informationen über ein 
elektronisches Netz übermitteln, die den Zugang zu einem solchen vermitteln 
oder die Informationen eines Nutzers speichern;

IANAL paraphrased:
==
Definition of Information-Service: A __commonly__ _paid-for_ provided service 
for individual use by the recipient, especially online-sales of goods and 
services, online information, onilne advertising, electronic search-engines and 
data-query as well as ___services that transport information over an electronic 
network or that provide access to such a network or that store a user's 
information__. (Emphasis mine)



 Or are we talking about just one decision from a judge who probably
 didn't do a proper reading and analysis before applying this decision?
 Or maybe the person charged with this was actually doing something
 illegal? Anyone has more details?
IANAL!

First instance courts in Austria have been traditionally problematic with 
highly technical cases since they usually lack technical expertise. Austria 
does not have case-law, so the danger of this becoming

Re: [tor-talk] Tor Exit Operator convicted in Austrian lower court

2014-07-02 Thread Moritz Bartl

On 07/02/2014 12:42 AM, ba...@clovermail.net wrote:
 There are little details on this case:
 https://network23.org/blackoutaustria/2014/07/01/to-whom-it-may-concern-english-version/
 
 
 Does the Tor project has a defense support fund or a list of committed
 pro bono lawyers in different countries for such cases?

If any Tor operator has any trouble, please contact Tor and
Torservers.net immediately so we help.

This particular case went bad because of multiple reasons. We strongly
believe that it can be easily challenged. While certainly shocking,
lower court ruling should not be taken too seriously, and this won't
necessarily mean that all Tor relays in Austria are now automatically
illegal. The ruling only happened two days ago, there is no written
statement from the court yet, so we should all be patient and wait for
that before we make any assumptions. We will definitely try and find
some legal expert in Austria and see what we can do to fight this.

-- 
Moritz Bartl
https://www.torservers.net/
-- 
tor-talk mailing list - tor-talk@lists.torproject.org
To unsubscribe or change other settings go to
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk

Re: [tor-talk] Tor Exit Operator convicted in Austrian lower court

2014-07-02 Thread Anders Andersson

Unfortunately he doesn't seem to want to take this further, so the
ruling will stand. It's his choice, but it could be a very bad
deterrent to other potential exit node operators in Austria.

On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 10:54 PM, Moritz Bartl mor...@torservers.net wrote:
 On 07/02/2014 12:42 AM, ba...@clovermail.net wrote:
 There are little details on this case:
 https://network23.org/blackoutaustria/2014/07/01/to-whom-it-may-concern-english-version/


 Does the Tor project has a defense support fund or a list of committed
 pro bono lawyers in different countries for such cases?

 If any Tor operator has any trouble, please contact Tor and
 Torservers.net immediately so we help.

 This particular case went bad because of multiple reasons. We strongly
 believe that it can be easily challenged. While certainly shocking,
 lower court ruling should not be taken too seriously, and this won't
 necessarily mean that all Tor relays in Austria are now automatically
 illegal. The ruling only happened two days ago, there is no written
 statement from the court yet, so we should all be patient and wait for
 that before we make any assumptions. We will definitely try and find
 some legal expert in Austria and see what we can do to fight this.

 --
 Moritz Bartl
 https://www.torservers.net/
 --
 tor-talk mailing list - tor-talk@lists.torproject.org
 To unsubscribe or change other settings go to
 https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk
-- 
tor-talk mailing list - tor-talk@lists.torproject.org
To unsubscribe or change other settings go to
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk

Re: [tor-talk] Tor Exit Operator convicted in Austrian lower court

2014-07-02 Thread C B

William is not planning on appealing but I strongly recommend that someone step 
in and take the case for him because of the bad precedent that it sets. Just 
because something could be used in a crime is absolutely no reason to not do 
something. Your action only must satisfy that a) it could be used for a 
lawful purpose, and b) your action was taken so that it could be used for 
those lawful purposes, instead of so that it could be used for illegal 
purposes. If certainly can not be proven that the node was only operated for 
the purpose of illegal purposes, because since I use Tor, and never use it for 
any illegal purpose, it is highly likely that on occasion my traffic was sent 
through the node William was operating, if I was using Tor at that time. Ditto 
for the overwhelming majority of other Tor users using Tor only for lawful 
purposes. Nobody queries me and says is this for an illegal purpose? If it is 
I can let it go through, but if it is for a
 lawful purpose I can not let it go through.

As a Tor user, I am dependent on and thankful for node operators such as 
William.
 
--
Christopher Booth



 From: MacLemon t...@maclemon.at
To: tor-talk@lists.torproject.org 
Sent: Wednesday, July 2, 2014 3:21 PM
Subject: Re: [tor-talk] Tor Exit Operator convicted in Austrian lower court
 

Hey!

On 02 Jul 2014, at 17:56, s7r s...@sky-ip.org wrote:

 Signed PGP part
 On 7/2/2014 2:54 PM, MacLemon wrote:
 The subject of this attracted my attention. Are we talking here about
 a clear law, written black on white which states that it is illegal to
 run Tor relays (or any kind of telecommunications proxy servers) and
 that you are responsible for your user's actions, even if you provide
 those services free of charge, therefor not required to collect any
 data about your users? Is it actually a specific law which was
 enforced here clearly stating that you cannot run Tor or open proxy
 servers?
No, absolutely NOT. Actually, the opposite is the reality. Austria has 
something commonly called the “Provider's Privilege” (non-legalese term) which 
states that a service provider is not liable for the data transported over said 
services. No matter if the service is a free or paid one.


There is no law that I have ever heard of that prohibits running a proxy server 
or a Tor node in general or in particular. Providing an online service in 
Austria is mostly regulated by the Telecommunications law, E-Commerce law and 
data-protection law.



German language Austrian Legalese background:
Austrian E-Commerce Law §15: Ausschluss der Verantwortlichkeit bei 
Zwischenspeicherungen http://j.mp/1iYdg4L

§ 15. Ein Diensteanbieter, der von einem Nutzer eingegebene Informationen in 
einem Kommunikationsnetz übermittelt, ist für eine automatische, zeitlich 
begrenzte Zwischenspeicherung, die nur der effizienteren Gestaltung der auf 
Abruf anderer Nutzer erfolgenden Informationsübermittlung dient, nicht 
verantwortlich, sofern er
    
    1. die Information nicht verändert,
    2. die Bedingungen für den Zugang zur Information beachtet,
    3. die Regeln für die Aktualisierung der Information, die in allgemein 
anerkannten und verwendeten Industriestandards festgelegt sind, beachtet,
    4. die zulässige Anwendung von Technologien zur Sammlung von Daten über die 
Nutzung der Information, die in allgemein anerkannten und verwendeten 
Industriestandards festgelegt sind, nicht beeinträchtigt und
    5. unverzüglich eine von ihm gespeicherte Information entfernt oder den 
Zugang zu ihr sperrt, sobald er tatsächliche Kenntnis davon erhalten hat, dass 
die Information am ursprünglichen Ausgangsort der Übertragung aus dem Netz 
entfernt oder der Zugang zu ihr gesperrt wurde oder dass ein Gericht oder eine 
Verwaltungsbehörde die Entfernung oder Sperre angeordnet hat.



IANAL Paraphrased:
==
A service provider who transmits user-input over a communications-network is 
not liable for a automated, time restricted caching which only purpose is to 
more effectively provide information requested by a user given that:
    1. the information is not altered
    2. access requirements are honored
    3. commonly accepted rules and industry standards for updating are honored
    4. the lawful application of technology to collect data about the usage of 
information as defined in commonly accepted and applied industry standards is 
not harmed
    5. recorded information is immediately deleted or access to that recorded 
information is denied as soon as they are informed of the fact that the 
information has been deleted at it's point of origin, access has been denied or 
in case a court or regulatory-body(?) has ordered the blocking.



Austrian E-Commerce Law §3.1: http://j.mp/1iYdIQw
Begriffsdefinitionen: Diensteanbieter
1. Dienst der Informationsgesellschaft: ein in der Regel gegen Entgelt 
elektronisch im Fernabsatz auf individuellen Abruf des Empfängers 
bereitgestellter Dienst (§ 1 Abs. 1 Z 2

Re: [tor-talk] Tor Exit Operator convicted in Austrian lower court

2014-07-02 Thread Joe Btfsplk



On 7/2/2014 2:21 PM, MacLemon wrote:

Hey!

On 02 Jul 2014, at 17:56, s7r s...@sky-ip.org wrote:


Signed PGP part
On 7/2/2014 2:54 PM, MacLemon wrote:
The subject of this attracted my attention. Are we talking here about
a clear law, written black on white which states that it is illegal to
run Tor relays (or any kind of telecommunications proxy servers) and
that you are responsible for your user's actions, even if you provide
those services free of charge, therefor not required to collect any
data about your users? Is it actually a specific law which was
enforced here clearly stating that you cannot run Tor or open proxy
servers?

No, absolutely NOT. Actually, the opposite is the reality. Austria has 
something commonly called the “Provider's Privilege” (non-legalese term) which 
states that a service provider is not liable for the data transported over said 
services. No matter if the service is a free or paid one.


There is no law that I have ever heard of that prohibits running a proxy server 
or a Tor node in general or in particular. Providing an online service in 
Austria is mostly regulated by the Telecommunications law, E-Commerce law and 
data-protection law.

Playing Devils' Advocate:  If Austria's laws are so protective of ISPs 
in general, why was this gentleman convicted?
Unless he ignored the advice I've seen so many times, not to commingle 
your own internet traffic w/ the Tor relay traffic.


Even then, I wonder about a conviction, unless he had the worst lawyer 
in the world (which he may have).


There also could be other info which wasn't divulged.  I'm not saying 
there is - just could be.
Unless there was a REALLY bad ruling, in which case an appeal might have 
a good chance? of over turning it.

But I know nothing of Austrian law.

However, it seems strange that if he only was running a server  neither 
he / a roommate / house guest did anything illegal on a computer, using 
the same relay, how it ever got to a conviction.


If he nor anyone using the physical computer running the relay did 
nothing illegal, and he was still convicted (not just questioned or 
charged), that would seem to spell doom to other operators.


If that's what can happen, people should think twice  a 3rd time before 
ever risk running one.

--
tor-talk mailing list - tor-talk@lists.torproject.org
To unsubscribe or change other settings go to
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk

Re: [tor-talk] Tor Exit Operator convicted in Austrian lower court

2014-07-02 Thread s7r

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On 7/3/2014 3:03 AM, Joe Btfsplk wrote:
 
 On 7/2/2014 2:21 PM, MacLemon wrote:
 Hey!
 
 On 02 Jul 2014, at 17:56, s7r s...@sky-ip.org wrote:
 
 Signed PGP part On 7/2/2014 2:54 PM, MacLemon wrote: The
 subject of this attracted my attention. Are we talking here
 about a clear law, written black on white which states that it
 is illegal to run Tor relays (or any kind of telecommunications
 proxy servers) and that you are responsible for your user's
 actions, even if you provide those services free of charge,
 therefor not required to collect any data about your users? Is
 it actually a specific law which was enforced here clearly
 stating that you cannot run Tor or open proxy servers?
 No, absolutely NOT. Actually, the opposite is the reality.
 Austria has something commonly called the “Provider's Privilege”
 (non-legalese term) which states that a service provider is not
 liable for the data transported over said services. No matter if
 the service is a free or paid one.
 
 
 There is no law that I have ever heard of that prohibits running
 a proxy server or a Tor node in general or in particular.
 Providing an online service in Austria is mostly regulated by
 the Telecommunications law, E-Commerce law and data-protection
 law.
 
 Playing Devils' Advocate:  If Austria's laws are so protective of
 ISPs in general, why was this gentleman convicted? Unless he
 ignored the advice I've seen so many times, not to commingle your
 own internet traffic w/ the Tor relay traffic.
 
 Even then, I wonder about a conviction, unless he had the worst
 lawyer in the world (which he may have).
In the blockchain I saw a pretty good fed of BTC to his donation
address - folks in the community didn't turn back on this. With that
sum donated there he could arrange for a top lawyer, minimum. I don't
know what was the exact rate when he cashed those into FIAT anyway but
still it was something.

Probably all was needed to be done was to explain to that (those)
judge(s) exactly how Tor works, what it is and how is it not different
than running an ISP or simply NOT securing your wi-fi at home with a
password. As it was said in previous messages, this case has gone
terribly wrong for many reasons - but could have been easily won
without spending huge amount of money and without any fancy lawyers. A
basic newbie lawyer could have won this.

 
 There also could be other info which wasn't divulged.  I'm not
 saying there is - just could be.
Be sure there is. I feel the same way, it has to be.

 Unless there was a REALLY bad ruling, in which case an appeal might
 have a good chance? of over turning it. But I know nothing of
 Austrian law.
 
 However, it seems strange that if he only was running a server 
 neither he / a roommate / house guest did anything illegal on a
 computer, using the same relay, how it ever got to a conviction.
If there was NOTHING on those servers except Tor, those would have
been returned to him long time ago, from my point of view. I am just
saying and asking myself out of curiosity, I am not making
suppositions nor accusations and is none of my business - this should
be irrelevant, period.

 
 If he nor anyone using the physical computer running the relay did 
 nothing illegal, and he was still convicted (not just questioned
 or charged), that would seem to spell doom to other operators.
 
If you are doing illegalities and use Tor to keep you anonymous, and
you want to give back and run a relay, when you are convicted or
prosecuted you are not so because of that relay. But if you are law
abiding citizen going to work or doing some business within the legal
and social limits, and running a relay to support free speech,
innovation and freedom of information it's hard to ever be charged
with anything (hopefully) - I sincerely hope this is a legal error
because of lack of communication and it will not create a precedent.

 If that's what can happen, people should think twice  a 3rd time
 before ever risk running one.
They should think how to add more relays to the network and make it
bigger, faster, safer. With each new relay operator all existing relay
operators are stronger.


- -- 
s7r
PGP Fingerprint: 7C36 9232 5ABD FB0B 3021 03F1 837F A52C 8126 5B11
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (MingW32)

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJTtKnIAAoJEIN/pSyBJlsRcDMH+gIV+YX6xzjYrBR0mICQ8hhR
38Br4cyRob+oPsEm7Jl20VYBQloyFBk/tu2jZny8ryNkmWl/s9S/U3MNuBHasa92
Vmm75WKty1IAJ76w6qJRv5LZZDD0H0leQsaP3qIEaB+eVRWy4zp553kK4plXnEw/
Zk0TkKccahOVN23j9JcIW+PdcJ1O5TKKmIfKexaVwgYLZd4qKq5yG4wgiQfmI6cX
GKhZuL4hle6Wpi2uB2J2ufHES0X+BI7qeSWh5lI+qvuss2L+LpYkXuiUykfZQT9o
wc6RYFPv+wFN/Kpw/8mmTB4elgSlCeSw7UzBNRrUZMWwws7VJTUPGRlZthvmhXI=
=d7ia
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
-- 
tor-talk mailing list - tor-talk@lists.torproject.org
To unsubscribe or change other settings go to
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk

Re: [tor-talk] Tor Exit Operator convicted in Austrian lower court

2014-07-02 Thread Moritz Bartl

On 07/02/2014 11:00 PM, Anders Andersson wrote:
 Unfortunately he doesn't seem to want to take this further, so the
 ruling will stand. It's his choice, but it could be a very bad
 deterrent to other potential exit node operators in Austria.

We are in contact with William, and quite possibly there is the option
of following this further with another Austrian operator who
self-reports himself, with our help. Please everyone give us time to
look into this together with some lawyers.

-- 
Moritz Bartl
https://www.torservers.net/
-- 
tor-talk mailing list - tor-talk@lists.torproject.org
To unsubscribe or change other settings go to
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk

Re: [tor-talk] Tor Exit Operator convicted in Austrian lower court

2014-07-01 Thread C B

While I am not currently operating an exit node this only makes me want to try 
again. I would certainly tell the court to stuff it. Just because a Montblanc 
pen is used to write a bankrobbery note on Southworth paper both of which were 
purchased from Smith's Stationary, in no way makes Montblac, Southworth, or 
Smith's Stationary the least bit responsible for the bank robbery. This ruling 
is a clear lack of understanding of how the Internet and Tor work. I believe 
that other court cases have gone a more reasonable direction, and said that the 
node operator had no responsibility for the traffic that was delivered.
 
--
Christopher Booth


 From: ba...@clovermail.net ba...@clovermail.net
To: tor-talk@lists.torproject.org 
Sent: Tuesday, July 1, 2014 6:42 PM
Subject: [tor-talk] Tor Exit Operator convicted in Austrian lower court
 

There are little details on this case:
https://network23.org/blackoutaustria/2014/07/01/to-whom-it-may-concern-english-version/

Does the Tor project has a defense support fund or a list of committed  
pro bono lawyers in different countries for such cases?



-

VFEmail.net - http://www.vfemail.net
ONLY AT VFEmail! - Use our Metadata Mitigator to keep your email out of the 
NSA's hands!
$24.95 ONETIME Lifetime accounts with Privacy Features!  
15GB disk! No bandwidth quotas!
Commercial and Bulk Mail Options!  
-- 
tor-talk mailing list - tor-talk@lists.torproject.org
To unsubscribe or change other settings go to
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk
-- 
tor-talk mailing list - tor-talk@lists.torproject.org
To unsubscribe or change other settings go to
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk

49 matches

Mail list logo