RE: William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if you can.
In any event, I'm pretty sure that I'd rather get hit with tampering with evidence versus them retrieving data that may incriminate me. I believe this may be a the lesser of two evils game. -Original Message- From: Kyle Creyts [mailto:kyle.cre...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, December 17, 2012 2:52 PM To: Jeroen van Aart Cc: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if you can. In most jurisdictions, wouldn't using a de-gaussing ring in the door frame to wipe any equipment being removed constitute tampering with evidence or interfering with an investigation if the authority in question is in possession of a warrant/subpoena? On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 11:33 AM, Jeroen van Aart jer...@mompl.net wrote: On 11/30/2012 02:02 PM, Naslund, Steve wrote: OK, there must be a lot more paranoid people out there than I thought for awhile? I am sure he will let you out to go to the bank, get your stuff, and leave town. I think you have seen way to many movies. So if the cops show up at his door tomorrow and say Here's all your stuff back, there was no evidence of a crime., you are OK with this guys keeping the defense fund? I for one vote for installing a de-gauging ring in your door frame. any removal of equipment you don't approve of will be wiped. That and encryption possibly combined with hiding the real OS (truecrypt can do that). Greetings, Jeroen -- Earthquake Magnitude: 5.1 Date: Monday, December 17, 2012 17:46:48 UTC Location: central East Pacific Rise Latitude: -3.9682; Longitude: -104.0375 Depth: 15.70 km -- Kyle Creyts Information Assurance Professional BSidesDetroit Organizer smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
Re: William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if you can.
On 11/30/2012 02:02 PM, Naslund, Steve wrote: OK, there must be a lot more paranoid people out there than I thought for awhile? I am sure he will let you out to go to the bank, get your stuff, and leave town. I think you have seen way to many movies. So if the cops show up at his door tomorrow and say Here's all your stuff back, there was no evidence of a crime., you are OK with this guys keeping the defense fund? I for one vote for installing a de-gauging ring in your door frame. any removal of equipment you don't approve of will be wiped. That and encryption possibly combined with hiding the real OS (truecrypt can do that). Greetings, Jeroen -- Earthquake Magnitude: 5.1 Date: Monday, December 17, 2012 17:46:48 UTC Location: central East Pacific Rise Latitude: -3.9682; Longitude: -104.0375 Depth: 15.70 km
Re: William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if you can.
In most jurisdictions, wouldn't using a de-gaussing ring in the door frame to wipe any equipment being removed constitute tampering with evidence or interfering with an investigation if the authority in question is in possession of a warrant/subpoena? On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 11:33 AM, Jeroen van Aart jer...@mompl.net wrote: On 11/30/2012 02:02 PM, Naslund, Steve wrote: OK, there must be a lot more paranoid people out there than I thought for awhile? I am sure he will let you out to go to the bank, get your stuff, and leave town. I think you have seen way to many movies. So if the cops show up at his door tomorrow and say Here's all your stuff back, there was no evidence of a crime., you are OK with this guys keeping the defense fund? I for one vote for installing a de-gauging ring in your door frame. any removal of equipment you don't approve of will be wiped. That and encryption possibly combined with hiding the real OS (truecrypt can do that). Greetings, Jeroen -- Earthquake Magnitude: 5.1 Date: Monday, December 17, 2012 17:46:48 UTC Location: central East Pacific Rise Latitude: -3.9682; Longitude: -104.0375 Depth: 15.70 km -- Kyle Creyts Information Assurance Professional BSidesDetroit Organizer
Re: William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if you can.
Drifting a big off topic for NANOG (but hey, that happens every /pi/ days anyways!), but I'll toss this in... Like every other legal incident, it would be unique to your own situation. Keep in mind that, should any of the charges you mentioned go to court, the prosecution would have to prove /mens rea/ (intent). They would have to prove that you intended to cause the drives to be wiped specifically because you did not want them admitted as evidence. If you weren't even home at the time the warrant was executed, the worst lawyer in the world would be able to argue that you have the system in place to prevent sensitive data from leaving in the event of common theft, and that it's not your fault the police triggered it (and suggest that maybe they should add scan for an intense EM field to their standard procedures when dealing with computer equipment :p ). If you were home at the time (or knew that a warrant was being executed, e.g. if the police show up at your workplace to inform you), things would be a lot dicier. Actively hitting the turn on the system button would definitely be bad news for you. However, simply not turning it off as the officers are walking out the door, well... it was a VERY stressful situation for you, with all the police running all over your house, and you simply forgot about the system until much later (or so your lawyer could argue). There would definitely be some unhappy people with the situation regardless, and either way you'll be contributing to buying your lawyer a new car. ;) Now, having said all that... I'm not sure I'd want to pay the electricity bill for keeping that degausser running... :p - Pete On 12/17/2012 02:52 PM, Kyle Creyts wrote: In most jurisdictions, wouldn't using a de-gaussing ring in the door frame to wipe any equipment being removed constitute tampering with evidence or interfering with an investigation if the authority in question is in possession of a warrant/subpoena? On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 11:33 AM, Jeroen van Aart jer...@mompl.net wrote: On 11/30/2012 02:02 PM, Naslund, Steve wrote: OK, there must be a lot more paranoid people out there than I thought for awhile? I am sure he will let you out to go to the bank, get your stuff, and leave town. I think you have seen way to many movies. So if the cops show up at his door tomorrow and say Here's all your stuff back, there was no evidence of a crime., you are OK with this guys keeping the defense fund? I for one vote for installing a de-gauging ring in your door frame. any removal of equipment you don't approve of will be wiped. That and encryption possibly combined with hiding the real OS (truecrypt can do that). Greetings, Jeroen -- Earthquake Magnitude: 5.1 Date: Monday, December 17, 2012 17:46:48 UTC Location: central East Pacific Rise Latitude: -3.9682; Longitude: -104.0375 Depth: 15.70 km
Re: William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if you can.
On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 16:28:28 -0500, Peter Kristolaitis said: Now, having said all that... I'm not sure I'd want to pay the electricity bill for keeping that degausser running... :p An EMP device doesn't have to chew power all the time... And of course, there's this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8vxEimC3HME pgpm0HZGq5JYb.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if you can.
In message 34925.1355780...@turing-police.cc.vt.edu, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu writes: --==_Exmh_1355780734_2398P Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 16:28:28 -0500, Peter Kristolaitis said: Now, having said all that... I'm not sure I'd want to pay the electricity bill for keeping that degausser running... :p An EMP device doesn't have to chew power all the time... And of course, there's this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8vxEimC3HME I suspect you would fine that such a ring would illegal as it is a potential man trap. There are reasons hospitals have big warning signs around similar equipment used for medical imaging. Mark -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: ma...@isc.org
Re: William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if you can.
On 12/17/12, Mark Andrews ma...@isc.org wrote: In message 34925.1355780...@turing-police.cc.vt.edu, On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 16:28:28 -0500, Peter Kristolaitis said: Yeah... degaussing rings consume a lot of energy you shouldn't need to consume. If you _must_ be able to protect data from extreme physical threats: keep it encrypted end to end at all times,and concentrate on Information assurance for the key itself, and making the equipment tamper resistant, to prevent eavesdropping, for example: by incorporating computer chassis into the support structure of the building, with, EM shielding, plate steel vault doors and relocking mechanisms;just as you'd want to safeguard other physical valuables. Encryption keys are short, and easy to store on small tamper-resistant smartcards, which can be burned up or erased in a second by a low voltage circuit; possibly one triggered automatically if the incorrect PIN is entered, or the correct 3rd or 4th (easily accidentally lost, or left at some other place) SIM Card/Micro-sim shapped parts containing enough other shares of the encryption key aren't inserted in a partner module shortly after powerup. As long as the crypto algorithm was sound, reliable destruction of the key should make the data as hard (or harder) to be recovered, than if media had been degaussed. And of course, there's this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8vxEimC3HME I suspect you would fine that such a ring would illegal as it is a potential man trap. There are reasons hospitals have big warning signs around similar equipment used for medical imaging. Mark -- -JH
Re: William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if you can.
On 12-12-17 21:45, Jimmy Hess wrote: Yeah... degaussing rings consume a lot of energy you shouldn't need to consume. Now now, you clearly have not watched enough scient fiction/action movies... Clearly, you have a mechanism which triggers the degaussing (or neutron bomb in the basement the minute a hard drive is disconnected from the server/disk array :-) And you just need to put up a sign warning, this building is protected with a giant degaussing magnet to protect against data theft, remove all rings from your body parts if you intend to steal from this building :-) Note that they used this trick in Breaking Bad with a giant magnet in a van parked right next to where evidence room and they managed to zap the laptop that contained evidence against them. Of course, the laws of physics don't apply in Hollywood so it is not clear whether this is realistic or not.
Re: William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if you can.
On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 20:45:04AM -0600, Jimmy Hess wrote: If you _must_ be able to protect data from extreme physical threats: keep it encrypted end to end at all times, Physical threat is somewhat different than seizure by law enforcement, though. Although mooted when authorities decrypted an evidentiary laptop themselves, the idea of encryption as a shield against law enforcement is not yet a settled issue in the US; see the Fricosu case. A nice explanation: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/03/tale-two-encryption-cases -- Henry Yen Aegis Information Systems, Inc. Senior Systems Programmer Hicksville, New York
Re: William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if you can.
On 12/18/12, Henry Yen he...@aegisinfosys.com wrote: On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 20:45:04AM -0600, Jimmy Hess wrote: Physical threat is somewhat different than seizure by law enforcement, though. I'm not so sure about that. It's a kind of physical threat; the set of all physical threats includes a subset of threats that are LEO threats involving authorities and are related to (quasi-)legal threats. The law enforcement personnel may have been paid off by a rogue party in the first place, to seize and misplace the data (E.g. deny the legitimate principal access to it for the purposes of competitive advantage), or to seize and accidentally leak the data to overseas entity attempting to gain the data for economic advantage, by taking advantage of insufficient security controls of the law enforcement entity. the idea of encryption as a shield against law enforcement is not yet a settled issue in the US; see the Fricosu case. A nice explanation: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/03/tale-two-encryption-cases It obviously wouldn't work for all kinds of data, but; even if it's not a 5th amendment issue; E.g. required to reveal your keys and allow the data to be decrypted;the POSSIBILITY has to exist that that you can in fact know or recover the keys. You can't testify against yourself, if you had your memory permanently wiped in some manner, so that you are incapable of ever recalling, because there's nothing there to present --- it doesn't matter if there was no 5th amendment, the fact your memory was wiped, erased the possibility of ever testifying. If an automatic response to the security breach results in complete reliable destruction of physical and logical devices absolutely required to be fully intact to recover the keys and execute decryption activity, then there is inherently nothing to provide, once that occured; the remaining option would be for the LEO to dedicate massive computing resources over a sufficient hundred years, to discover the key through brute force key space search of 10^77+ keys. That's assuming no backups of the key devices. -- Henry Yen Aegis Information Systems, -- -JH
Re: William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if
On 12/5/12, Jutta Zalud j...@netzwerklabor.at wrote: Technically you are right. But then: what is the difference to ISPs? They offer routing- and DNS- and mail- and other services on various infrastructure. ISPs typically have a customer.They know their customer, they retain sufficient information to identify their customer, such as name, billing address, physical location, telephone number, and have a signed agreement to provide the service. They collect consideration from their customer; usually in the form of cash. The customer of an ISP is normally expected to adhere to some sort of AUP or TOU, providing terms of their use of the service. Typically including some provisions, such as 'customer is responsible for activities that are performed while dialed into their account', 'no illegal activities', ' no sending spam', conducting other network abuses. For consumer ISPs, sometimes activities such as running internet servers, reselling, or providing ISP access to 3rd parties, might be restricted (restrictions incompatible with running a TOR exit node on that service). An end user operating a TOR exit node, or wide open Wireless AP, intentionally allows other people to connect to their infrastructure and the internet whom they have no relationship with or prior dealings with, in spite of the possibility of network abuse or illegal activities,they choose to allow connectivity without first gathering information required to hold the 3rd party responsible for their activity. An intentional anonymizer which is in contrast to what an ISP does. The operator of an ordinary anonymizer service is subject to the possibility of court-ordered intercept upon future use. If the operator of the Tor node believes that criminal intent is the most likely use of the TOR exit node.the degree of intentional ignorance might be considered so severe, that it becomes a situation in which they are considered culpable. E.g. the Tor exit node operator might possibly be considered an accessory, to the activity occuring on their node, that they are harboring / allowing to occur anonymously. Not to say whether Tor node operators are possibly guilty of anything or not. But they are definitely different from ISPs in a number of important ways. Any similarity between Open AP/Tor Exit node operator and ISP are highly superficial. jutta -- -JH
Re: William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if
On Dec 5, 2012, at 12:38 AM, Jimmy Hess mysi...@gmail.com wrote: On 12/5/12, Jutta Zalud j...@netzwerklabor.at wrote: Technically you are right. But then: what is the difference to ISPs? They offer routing- and DNS- and mail- and other services on various infrastructure. ISPs typically have a customer.They know their customer, they retain sufficient information to identify their customer, such as name, billing address, physical location, telephone number, and have a signed agreement to provide the service. They collect consideration from their customer; usually in the form of cash. What if it's a free open wireless ISP where all you have to do is click an assent to a basic TOS agreement? What if it's a free open wireless ISP (such as any Apple store) where all you have to do is get within range and connect? No contract or click-thru at all? The customer of an ISP is normally expected to adhere to some sort of AUP or TOU, providing terms of their use of the service. Typically including some provisions, such as 'customer is responsible for activities that are performed while dialed into their account', 'no illegal activities', ' no sending spam', conducting other network abuses. In many cases, but not all. However I do have to wonder what makes you think a civil contract would be a deterrent to someone willing to commit a criminal act? For consumer ISPs, sometimes activities such as running internet servers, reselling, or providing ISP access to 3rd parties, might be restricted (restrictions incompatible with running a TOR exit node on that service). But such restrictions are not all that common and aren't particularly relevant to this discussion. An end user operating a TOR exit node, or wide open Wireless AP, intentionally allows other people to connect to their infrastructure and the internet whom they have no relationship with or prior dealings with, in spite of the possibility of network abuse or illegal activities,they choose to allow connectivity without first gathering information required to hold the 3rd party responsible for their activity. I find it amusing that you feel the need to continuously repeat an end user operating a TOR exit node. Is there some reason that it makes a difference whether the entity operating the TOR exit node or open Wireless AP is an end user or an ISP? Of course, I would argue that operating an open Wireless AP or a TOR node makes you a form of ISP whether you recognize the fact or not. An intentional anonymizer which is in contrast to what an ISP does. The operator of an ordinary anonymizer service is subject to the possibility of court-ordered intercept upon future use. So is the operator of a TOR node. The primary difference being that TOR is specifically engineered to make such an intercept virtually useless. So it seems your real criticism here is simply that TOR is a more effective anonymizer. If the operator of the Tor node believes that criminal intent is the most likely use of the TOR exit node.the degree of intentional ignorance might be considered so severe, that it becomes a situation in which they are considered culpable. This assumes a whole lot of facts not in evidence. If I were to put up a TOR exit node, I would assume that the most likely intent would be free speech which is not illegal in my jurisdiction. I don't consider that I am responsible for the myriad jurisdictions that may exist at the entry and/or transit points prior to reaching said exit node. Do you have any data to support your conclusion that criminal intent is the most likely use of TOR exit nodes? E.g. the Tor exit node operator might possibly be considered an accessory, to the activity occuring on their node, that they are harboring / allowing to occur anonymously. Very hard to prove that intent beyond a reasonable doubt in my opinion. Not to say whether Tor node operators are possibly guilty of anything or not. But they are definitely different from ISPs in a number of important ways. You have yet to show one yet. You've shown how they're different from some ISPs, but there are many ISPs operating today which don't fit your model of what constitutes an ISP, so I remain unconvinced. I'm further unconvinced that your proposed distinctions are actually meaningful from a legal perspective. Perhaps the lawyer that chimed in earlier will come back and address this question. Any similarity between Open AP/Tor Exit node operator and ISP are highly superficial. I guess this depends almost entirely on what properties it is that you believe define an ISP. Given the number of ISPs that don't have customers, don't collect data on their customers, and operate free open public access networks, I don't think that the properties you suggest above can be used in said definition. As I said, given that Apple Computer operates such networks quite intentionally in all of their stores as
Re: William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if
An end user operating a TOR exit node, or wide open Wireless AP, intentionally allows other people to connect to their infrastructure and the internet whom they have no relationship with or prior dealings with, in spite of the possibility of network abuse or illegal activities,they choose to allow connectivity without first gathering information required to hold the 3rd party responsible for their activity. Oh please. I don't know where you've been hiding out for the last half a decade or so, but around here, every McDonalds, Starbucks, Sam's Club, Home Depot, Lowe's, and most libraries, hotels, hospitals, and laundromats offer WiFi, and those are just the ones I can readily think of. The level of wishful-thinking implied by the quoted text about how the Internet works is mind-boggling. ... JG -- Joe Greco - sol.net Network Services - Milwaukee, WI - http://www.sol.net We call it the 'one bite at the apple' rule. Give me one chance [and] then I won't contact you again. - Direct Marketing Ass'n position on e-mail spam(CNN) With 24 million small businesses in the US alone, that's way too many apples.
Re: William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if
On 12/5/2012 8:35 AM, Joe Greco wrote: An end user operating a TOR exit node, or wide open Wireless AP, intentionally allows other people to connect to their infrastructure and the internet whom they have no relationship with or prior dealings with, in spite of the possibility of network abuse or illegal activities,they choose to allow connectivity without first gathering information required to hold the 3rd party responsible for their activity. Oh please. I don't know where you've been hiding out for the last half a decade or so, but around here, every McDonalds, Starbucks, Sam's Club, Home Depot, Lowe's, and most libraries, hotels, hospitals, and laundromats offer WiFi, and those are just the ones I can readily think of. The level of wishful-thinking implied by the quoted text about how the Internet works is mind-boggling. ... JG Yes, but THAT free WiFi is offered by responsible businesses. We certainly can't trust lowly citizens with such things. It would be chaos! The sky would fall, the world would end, and puppies would be kicked. No, such power should only be in the hands of those we trust. - Pete smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Re: William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if
Does it matter if an anomysing service advertises itself as allowing free speech to users in countries where free speech is censored, compared to a service that advertises itself as catering to the mafias of the world, ensuring their crimes are untraceable ? In the later case, it makes it very easy to think of the sercice operator as an accomplice to crime. But if the primary purpose of a service is legitimate, should the service operator be held liable if there is *some* misuse which cannot be prevented by the service operator ? In my opinion, the operator should remain immune until the police shows up with a warrant and the operator refuses to cooperate. Tor exit nodes are not that different from payphones or disposable pre-paid cellular service where the wireless operator has no verifiable identity/address for the purchasor of the service. Are phone companies held liable because the mafia uses a payphone to plan their crimes knowing that they can't trace calls to an individual ?
Re: William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if
I seriously doubt many TOR exit nodes have the political clout to be considered a common carrier. In a related note, I wonder if the six-strike rule would violate the ISP's safe harbor, as it's clearly content inspection. Nick On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 2:44 PM, Jordan Michaels jor...@viviotech.netwrote: On 12/03/2012 03:31 AM, Rich Kulawiec wrote: On Mon, Dec 03, 2012 at 08:49:24AM +, Warren Bailey wrote: Can you imagine an email thread that lasted longer than an entire weekend? Yes, I can. I've participated in some that went on for months. It's simply a matter of effectiveness and attention span. This email needs to be murdered, because it is completely out of control. I disagree, strongly, as this is an issue of unfortunate timely relevance to the community. +1 I strongly disagree as well. I am very interested to see how this case evolves in and out of court. Are Tor exit-node operators going to be given the same rights as ISP's who's networks are used for illegal purposes? I would hope so, but it doesn't seem like that has happened in this case, so I am very interested to hear how the situation pans out. It is extremely relevant to the Internet community and to free speech in general. Kind regards, Jordan Michaels Vivio Technologies
RE: [tor-talk] William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if you can.
Already dealt with that at an airport once. One look at my picture and his cleared that right up and they put a note in the entry system that says I am not this guy. High tech huh. Sometimes the system works. By the way we have different middle initials and different SSNs. I have an original DDN TAC Access card, installed BBN nodes for the US Air Force, and worked for quite a few ISPs, and now work for large global corporation. Sorry I did not meet you at NSF net, I worked more on the DoD side of things. Steven Naslund -Original Message- From: William Allen Simpson [mailto:william.allen.simp...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, November 30, 2012 9:20 PM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: [tor-talk] William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if you can. On 11/30/12 5:15 PM, Naslund, Steve wrote: Well, in that case I am really worried that the cops might charge me with a crime. They took my computers and are looking at them. I did not do anything wrong but just in case they decide to charge me with a crime, please send me some money. As well you could be, because you appear to have the same name as a registered sex offender: http://www.sexoffenderin.com/reg110698/steven_w_naslundmugshot.htm On 11/29/12 6:39 PM, Naslund, Steve wrote: # As a long time service provider ... # # my many years of experience in engineering ARPANET, MILNET, and the # Internet I would have to guess that most Tor servers are used for no # good much more than they are protecting anyone's privacy. I'm surprised that medline.com is offering network access as an ISP? Admittedly, you began posting to NANOG in 2002 as: Network Engineering Manager Hosting.com - Chicago While I was involved in engineering NSFnet and the Internet and was an original member of NANOG, but I don't remember you. Of course, I'm notoriously bad with names. OTOH, I have met, remember, and greatly respect the Tor engineers.
Re: William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if
On 12-12-03 14:44, Jordan Michaels wrote: case evolves in and out of court. Are Tor exit-node operators going to be given the same rights as ISP's who's networks are used for illegal purposes? Perhaps if Tor exit node were called Tor exit Router, politicians/policemen would have a better understanding that this service provides no indexing of data, no storage of data and is just a networking service that is agnostic to whatever data flows through it. If they declare illegal any part of the internet which makes police investigations hard due to lack of traceability/logs then they can go after any NAT router, Tor exit nodes, VPN servers etc.
RE: William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if
I know I'm going to get flamed and excoriated, but here goes snip case evolves in and out of court. Are Tor exit-node operators going to be given the same rights as ISP's who's networks are used for illegal purposes? I would hope so, but it doesn't seem like that has happened in this case, so I am very interested to hear how the situation pans out. This is a misleading statement. ISP's (Common carriers) do not provide a knowingly illegal offering, AND they do provide the PHYSICAL infrastructure for packets to be passed and interconnected to other PHYSICAL networks. TOR exit/entrance nodes provide only the former. The lack of providing a physical infrastructure is crucial. Also, most ISP's (US specifically) are required by Law (under subpoena) to provide details to law enforcement. I really hate this idea of privacy on the Internet. If you really think you have the right to use the public infrastructure (to whatever extent you want to label the Internet as such) and be completely anonymous, I have a bridge to sell you. Network operators may treat your packets to whatever level of scrutiny that they may find necessary to determine if they want to pass your packets, keeping in mind that good operators want the Internet to work. I'm waiting for the next hot application to use a widely known bad port and see what happens. :) It is extremely relevant to the Internet community and to free speech in general. I'm actually in agreement that law enforcement may have overstepped here if the only reason was the TOR exit point, but having a TOR exit point to me, seems to be condoning the actions/statements/packets used through the exit point. You are knowingly hiding information that your local government may require you to disclose. Short answer... don't use TOR. It's not a bad thing, but it's not a good thing either. - Brian
Re: William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if
On Tue, 04 Dec 2012 17:32:01 +, Brian Johnson said: This is a misleading statement. ISP's (Common carriers) do not provide a knowingly illegal offering, ... TOR exit/entrance nodes provide only the former. This is also a misleading statement. Explain the difference between a consumer ISP selling you a cable Internet plan knowing that NN% of the traffic will be data with questionable copyright status, and 1 of of 5 or so will be a botted box doing other illegal stuff, and a TOR node providing transit knowing that NN% will be similarly questionable etc etc etc. In other words, if TOR exit nodes provide a knowingly illegal offering, then Comcast is doing exactly the same thing... (Also, feel free to cite actual statute or case law that says TOR is by *definition* or finding of fact, a knowingly illegal offering in and of itself - distinct from what uses the user thereof may do with it. Absent that, it's not a knowingly illegal offering the same way that some sites have ended up in court for contributory copyright infringement.) pgp20OHLScWaW.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if
This is a misleading statement. ISP's (Common carriers) do not provide a knowingly I'm trying to remember when ISP's became common carriers... illegal offering, ... TOR exit/entrance nodes provide only the former. This is also a misleading statement. Explain the difference between a consumer ISP selling you a cable Internet plan knowing that NN% of the traffic will be data with questionable copyright status, and 1 of of 5 or so will be a botted box doing other illegal stuff, and a TOR node providing transit knowing that NN% will be similarly questionable etc etc etc. Great point. The question might also revolve around this issue, restored from the previous msg: AND they do provide the PHYSICAL infrastructure for packets to be passed and interconnected to other PHYSICAL networks. Well, an ISP does do that, but so does an end user's network. So if I put a Tor node on an ethernet (PHYSICAL infrastructure) and then connect that to an ISP (other PHYSICAL networks), that doesn't make for a real good way to differentiate between an ISP, a commercial ISP customer who gets routed IP networks via BGP, or an end user who has an ethernet behind a NAT gateway. ... JG -- Joe Greco - sol.net Network Services - Milwaukee, WI - http://www.sol.net We call it the 'one bite at the apple' rule. Give me one chance [and] then I won't contact you again. - Direct Marketing Ass'n position on e-mail spam(CNN) With 24 million small businesses in the US alone, that's way too many apples.
Re: William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if
On Dec 4, 2012, at 09:32 , Brian Johnson bjohn...@drtel.com wrote: I know I'm going to get flamed and excoriated, but here goes snip case evolves in and out of court. Are Tor exit-node operators going to be given the same rights as ISP's who's networks are used for illegal purposes? I would hope so, but it doesn't seem like that has happened in this case, so I am very interested to hear how the situation pans out. This is a misleading statement. ISP's (Common carriers) do not provide a knowingly illegal offering, AND they do provide the PHYSICAL infrastructure for packets to be passed and interconnected to other PHYSICAL networks. TOR exit/entrance nodes provide only the former. The lack of providing a physical infrastructure is crucial. Also, most ISP's (US specifically) are required by Law (under subpoena) to provide details to law enforcement. I strongly disagree with you. TOR exit nodes provide a vital physical infrastructure to free speech advocates who live in jurisdictions where strong forces are aligned against free speech. I'm sure most TOR exit node operators would happily provide all the details they have if presented with an appropriate subpoena. I really hate this idea of privacy on the Internet. If you really think you have the right to use the public infrastructure (to whatever extent you want to label the Internet as such) and be completely anonymous, I have a bridge to sell you. Network operators may treat your packets to whatever level of scrutiny that they may find necessary to determine if they want to pass your packets, keeping in mind that good operators want the Internet to work. I really cherish this idea of privacy on the internet. It's a strong tool for enabling democracy and freedom of speech. First, the internet hasn't been public infrastructure for a very long time. It's a loose collection of privately owned networks with very few pieces still owned by government institutions. I don't think anyone has asserted a right to use that infrastructure, but, I certainly value that there are people who choose to provide it. I think society benefits from having such infrastructure available. I like free speech. I like that there are people making free speech possible in places where it is strongly discouraged. While I think it is a shame that child pornographers and other nefarious users are able to abuse this infrastructure to the detriment of society, the reality is that it is like any other tool. It has beneficial uses and harmful uses. Going after the tool is counterproductive and harmful. I'm waiting for the next hot application to use a widely known bad port and see what happens. :) What's a bad port? 80? 443? 25? 587? Most of the malware these days uses one or more of those. It is extremely relevant to the Internet community and to free speech in general. I'm actually in agreement that law enforcement may have overstepped here if the only reason was the TOR exit point, but having a TOR exit point to me, seems to be condoning the actions/statements/packets used through the exit point. You are knowingly hiding information that your local government may require you to disclose. Having a TOR exit point is making an effort to provide a service. It doesn't condone the nefarious uses of the service any more than running an ISP condones running a warez site that happens to get transit services from said ISP. Running a TOR exit node isn't hiding any information. It's simply not collecting the information in the first place. You can't hide information you never had. Short answer... don't use TOR. It's not a bad thing, but it's not a good thing either. I strongly disagree. TOR is a tool. It's a very good thing in its ability to enable democratization of communications and freedom of speech. It also has some nefarious uses. Guess what... So do hammers. I don't see anyone calling for a ban on the sale of hammers or encouraging carpenters to stop using them. Owen
Re: William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if
In countries where the law does not dictate that all carriers maintain extensive logs, this is fairly simple. Whether you are a Tor node or a normal ISP, you do nothig until you get a court ordered warrant, at which point you collect information passing through your network and hand it over to authorities. So the Tor service remain anonymous until the police suspect illegal data passing through it, at which point they snoop what passes through and work they way up to find the true origin of the data. In countries where log files must be created and retained by law, this is less simple. Is a Tor node covered by the law ? If so, then it is non compliant of it fails to colect the law mandated logs. If the Tor node is not covered by the law, then law enforcment cannot complain if there are no logs to analyse.
Re: William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if
Owen DeLong wrote: I strongly disagree with you. TOR exit nodes provide a vital physical infrastructure to free speech advocates who live in jurisdictions where strong forces are aligned against free speech. I'm sure most TOR exit node operators would happily provide all the details they have if presented with an appropriate subpoena. I really cherish this idea of privacy on the internet. It's a strong tool for enabling democracy and freedom of speech. [snip] Isn't William's problem because he used an IP address that was registered to him on the Polish server? If not, what am I missing? SANS has chimed in via their latest Newsbites: --TOR Operator Charged For Content Sent Through His Servers (November 29 30, 2012) An Austrian man who operated TOR servers has been charged with distributing child pornography. Authorities detected the images passing through the servers maintained by the man. Police seized 20 computers and other equipment from William Weber's home. TOR is an acronym for The Onion Router, a project developed by the US Naval Research Laboratory that allows people surf the web anonymously. It is often used by political dissidents, journalists, and law enforcement officers, and has also been used by criminals. The offending images were being distributed by a server in Poland and sent through Weber's servers. Weber operated exit servers; traffic from these nodes can be traced back to the servers' IP addresses. While the authorities became friendlier after understanding where the images came from, there is a precedent for holding TOR operators liable for content that passes through servers they operate. The Electronic Frontier Foundations acknowledges the risk that accompanies operating exit nodes and advises that it's best not to run your exit relay in your home or using your home Internet connection. http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/11/tor-operator-charged-for-child-porn-transmitted-over-his-servers/ http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-20554788 http://www.zdnet.com/austrian-man-raided-for-operating-tor-exit-node-708133/ [Editor's Note (Ullrich): IMHO, the TOR operator acted like a transit ISP/NSP in this case. (Hoan): In many countries it is not illegal to run a Tor exit node. However, for anyone considering, or are already, running a Tor exit node you should familiarise yourself with the Electronic Frontier Foundation's Legal FAQ on the topic at https://www.eff.org/torchallenge/legal-faq/]
Re: William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if
On Dec 4, 2012, at 1:36 PM, Brian Johnson bjohn...@drtel.com wrote: -Original Message- From: Owen DeLong [mailto:o...@delong.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2012 2:22 PM To: Brian Johnson Cc: Jordan Michaels; nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if On Dec 4, 2012, at 09:32 , Brian Johnson bjohn...@drtel.com wrote: I know I'm going to get flamed and excoriated, but here goes snip case evolves in and out of court. Are Tor exit-node operators going to be given the same rights as ISP's who's networks are used for illegal purposes? I would hope so, but it doesn't seem like that has happened in this case, so I am very interested to hear how the situation pans out. This is a misleading statement. ISP's (Common carriers) do not provide a knowingly illegal offering, AND they do provide the PHYSICAL infrastructure for packets to be passed and interconnected to other PHYSICAL networks. TOR exit/entrance nodes provide only the former. The lack of providing a physical infrastructure is crucial. Also, most ISP's (US specifically) are required by Law (under subpoena) to provide details to law enforcement. I strongly disagree with you. TOR exit nodes provide a vital physical infrastructure to free speech advocates who live in jurisdictions where strong forces are aligned against free speech. I'm sure most TOR exit node operators would happily provide all the details they have if presented with an appropriate subpoena. TOR is not vital. It is political. I view this not as an issue of morals or political action. It is an issue of a technical nature. A TOR is a way to hide who you are. If I am hiding who you are from someone else and there is a law broken, who do you go after? Merely because something is political does not exclude it from being vital. There are opportunities for free speech which would be diminished or eliminated if TOR were eliminated. As such, yes, it is, in fact a vital political tool. It was a technical issue until people started having their civil rights potentially infringed. At that point, it became political and moral also. If you are hiding who I am from someone else and I am breaking a law, I presume they would come to you asking (or even demanding) what you know about my identity. However, that's not what a TOR exit node does. The TOR exit node operator isn't hiding the identity of the sender. You can't hide what you never knew. I really hate this idea of privacy on the Internet. If you really think you have the right to use the public infrastructure (to whatever extent you want to label the Internet as such) and be completely anonymous, I have a bridge to sell you. Network operators may treat your packets to whatever level of scrutiny that they may find necessary to determine if they want to pass your packets, keeping in mind that good operators want the Internet to work. I really cherish this idea of privacy on the internet. It's a strong tool for enabling democracy and freedom of speech. First, the internet hasn't been public infrastructure for a very long time. It's a loose collection of privately owned networks with very few pieces still owned by government institutions. I don't think anyone has asserted a right to use that infrastructure, but, I certainly value that there are people who choose to provide it. I think society benefits from having such infrastructure available. I like free speech. I like that there are people making free speech possible in places where it is strongly discouraged. While I think it is a shame that child pornographers and other nefarious users are able to abuse this infrastructure to the detriment of society, the reality is that it is like any other tool. It has beneficial uses and harmful uses. Going after the tool is counterproductive and harmful. This is ridiculous. Owen you damn well know that if you send packets from a source, that source can be tracked back. Add a subpoena, privacy hereby destroyed. Other countries are generally less protective of the citizen than the US and as such... what was your argument again. Oh yeah. I'll be hiding behind my packets. ;P If you send packets from a source, they can be tracked back in some cases. However, if you send your packets to someone nearby, anyone outside of that path probably can't easily track them back. If they then rewrite the packets and forward them to another who repeats that process and this process is repeated a few times, then if the person attempting to do the track-back isn't aware of the packets until the very far end, it can, in fact, be virtually impossible to track them back to the originator. This, combined with some obfuscation of the actual content along the way and a lack of logging is basically how TOR works. Providing an effective cloak of anonymity has repeatedly been shown to allow important
Re: William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if
I suspect that the 'free speech' part of the total tor traffic volume is pretty small(?). Something like tor doesn't work if it is all traffic that's free speech regarding the regime of whatever country the user lives in. If it were, it'd be just as sensible to set a DETAIN_AND_TORTURE_ME bit on your IP traffic instead. ... JG -- Joe Greco - sol.net Network Services - Milwaukee, WI - http://www.sol.net We call it the 'one bite at the apple' rule. Give me one chance [and] then I won't contact you again. - Direct Marketing Ass'n position on e-mail spam(CNN) With 24 million small businesses in the US alone, that's way too many apples.
Re: William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if
Speaking of torture.. Can you imagine an email thread that lasted longer than an entire weekend? This email needs to be murdered, because it is completely out of control. In other words, the shit has been mercilessly beat out of this horse. From my Galaxy Note II, please excuse any mistakes. Original message From: Joe Greco jgr...@ns.sol.net Date: 12/03/2012 12:24 AM (GMT-08:00) To: Joakim Aronius joa...@aronius.se Cc: NANOG list nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if I suspect that the 'free speech' part of the total tor traffic volume is pretty small(?). Something like tor doesn't work if it is all traffic that's free speech regarding the regime of whatever country the user lives in. If it were, it'd be just as sensible to set a DETAIN_AND_TORTURE_ME bit on your IP traffic instead. ... JG -- Joe Greco - sol.net Network Services - Milwaukee, WI - http://www.sol.net We call it the 'one bite at the apple' rule. Give me one chance [and] then I won't contact you again. - Direct Marketing Ass'n position on e-mail spam(CNN) With 24 million small businesses in the US alone, that's way too many apples.
Re: William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if you can.
On 3 December 2012 07:19, Joakim Aronius joa...@aronius.se wrote: I am all for providing anonymized access to help free speech. Perhaps its better with anon access to specific applications like twitter, fb etc and not general internet access. I suspect that the 'free speech' part of the total tor traffic volume is pretty small(?). I agree. I can understand that people need to be anonymous when they are going to publicly stand against an oppressive regime, or expose corporate corruption etc. What I'm not sure I believe as strongly is the justification for anonymity in private, closed communication - this is the use case for paedophiles and terrorists organising their crimes. So in my view, anonymous + public = OK, anonymous + private = doubtful. This isn't a solution to the troll or hate crimes problem (anonymous people making statements that are distasteful on public forums) but at least we can all see this going on and develop other solutions. Aled
Re: William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if
On Mon, Dec 03, 2012 at 08:49:24AM +, Warren Bailey wrote: Can you imagine an email thread that lasted longer than an entire weekend? Yes, I can. I've participated in some that went on for months. It's simply a matter of effectiveness and attention span. This email needs to be murdered, because it is completely out of control. I disagree, strongly, as this is an issue of unfortunate timely relevance to the community. However, if you, personally, grow tired of the discussion then of course you can use your email client to ignore all messages in the thread -- all superior mail clients make that a trivial exercise. (I recommend mutt, possibly supplemented by procmail. Both tools are suitable for professionals: stable, mature, portable, and extremely efficient.) ---rsk
Re: William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if
The crime of routing somebody else traffic in the wrong iso layer. -- -- ℱin del ℳensaje.
Fwd: [tor-talk] William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if you can.
Hi! Forwarding my answer to tor-talk list. Mitar -- Forwarded message -- From: Mitar mmi...@gmail.com Date: Sat, Dec 1, 2012 at 12:29 AM Subject: Re: [tor-talk] William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if you can. To: tor-t...@lists.torproject.org Cc: nanog@nanog.org Hi! On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 2:09 PM, Naslund, Steve snasl...@medline.com wrote: Remember, they did not raid the Tor exit node. They raided the home of the guy running the Tor exit node. Way different. I can probably explain that. We were running a Tor exit node in Slovenia (neighboring country of Austria, EU too). We had Tor exit node on collocation at local ISP and the collocation was on friend's name (not on some legal entity). Twice they came to his home in early hours with warrant for all computer equipment he has at home. Once because somebody was using Tor for blackmailing, the second time for child pornography. Why they came to his home? I believe the reason is simple: they have IP, they write to ISP something like Who is your client who had that and that IP at that and that time? ISP responds: This is X Y, living there and there and + some other personal information they have on who this person is. Criminal investigators go to the judge and say We need a warrant for this and this person at this and this location. They get one and they come to visit you in early morning hours. In both cases he just had to explain that: 1) this IP is at collocation and not at that location and 2) that it is a Tor exit node and we do not keep any logs of activity through it. 1) tells makes their warrant invalid and you move from being a suspect (they had in mind that you are using your own home connection to do something illegal, this is the highest probability based on their information) to a witness (you are server admin and it is higher probability that some your user did something illegal). 2) tells them that even if you are a witness, you are worthless witness: you do not have typical users and services, and you are not even logging anything. For most services you are not really required to log anything. Running Tor is not illegal. Having logs for it also not required. They left without taking anything and he hasn't heard from them afterwards (this was few years ago). It might be because both cases were international (Interpol) so for local investigators it was the easiest to just write: it was Tor exit nodes, no logs possible to obtain, case closed. And move on with their lives. If it would be some local thing with a very motivated investigator they might not believe him and would still confiscate equipment. But from a point when they discover that their warrant is probably wrong they are on thin ice as obviously IP was physically somewhere else. It might be that in this case of a guy from Austria he didn't know that it raid is for Tor node but he thought that it might be for something else and just later on discovered that. Or that they simply didn't listen to or believe him. Probably it depends on how you communicate with investigators and your language skills. Mitar
Re: Legal Crap [was: William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if you can.]
I think one error being made here is discussing the culpability of law enforcement per se. That's like blaming the UPS delivery person because something you bought from Amazon was misleading. Or praising him/her because it was great. One way of asserting authority over any property is making very visible arrests and similar (shutdowns, etc.) If you follow the Internet Governance sphere a lot of what is going on is a frantic power grab by various players, particularly govts but also NGOs, for control of the internet. This is being heightened by the competitiveness involved, if one player grabs it before you do then you LOST THE GAME! Even when they haven't a clue (or only barely) what they're fighting over surely they can understand that it is bad to LOSE THE GAME! Particularly to players you don't much like or trust. As the great VP Dan Quayle was once quoted as saying: If we don't succeed then we run the risk of failure!* And that these players are finally figuring out just how powerful the internet is, at least potentially. Yeah you can say this has been going on for (insert your own professional life time in years which is what people do.) Heck, the whole thing was basically started by the US Dept of Defense, end of argument, talk about a power player! But that's sort of like saying that people were trying to capitalize on the internet for years before the dot com bubble of the late 90s. It misses the point. Yes you can find examples, no you can't find the kind of activity and earnestness we're seeing of late. * If you try to debate, confirm, etc that quote you're a loutish bore, it stand on its own :-) -- -Barry Shein The World | b...@theworld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 800-THE-WRLD| Dial-Up: US, PR, Canada Software Tool Die| Public Access Internet | SINCE 1989 *oo*
Re: William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if you can.
On 11/29/12 23:18 , Joakim Aronius wrote: I am all for being anonymous on the net but I seriously believe that we still need to enforce the law when it comes to serious felonies like child pr0n, organized crime etc, we can't give them a free pass just by using Tor. I dont think it should be illegal to operate a Tor exit node but what just happened could be a consequence of doing it. The seriousness of crimes that can be committed using anonymization services should not be diminished. That said the motive I had for running a tor exit when I did was that speech, and in particular political organization (dare we call it sedition) are in fact very serious crimes in many places. R.g. they can result in indefinite imprisonment, torture, judicial or extra-legal execution and so forth, I don't consider that unserious.. The internet is potentially quite a useful tool for getting your message out so long as using it isn't holding a gun to your own head. While we site here with the convenient idea of some legal arbitrage which allows me to do something which isn't illegal in my own domain to facilitate something that is quite illegal elsewhere, the fact of the matter is if you run a service like this you don't get to pick and choose.
Re: William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if you can.
Joel jaeggli wrote: The internet is potentially quite a useful tool for getting your message out so long as using it isn't holding a gun to your own head. While we site here with the convenient idea of some legal arbitrage which allows me to do something which isn't illegal in my own domain to facilitate something that is quite illegal elsewhere, the fact of the matter is if you run a service like this you don't get to pick and choose. In your opinion, would it make *any* kind of semse to engage in child pron AND run an exit node? Thanks, --Michael
Re: William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if you can.
On 2012-12-02 22:44, Michael Painter wrote: Joel jaeggli wrote: The internet is potentially quite a useful tool for getting your message out so long as using it isn't holding a gun to your own head. While we site here with the convenient idea of some legal arbitrage which allows me to do something which isn't illegal in my own domain to facilitate something that is quite illegal elsewhere, the fact of the matter is if you run a service like this you don't get to pick and choose. In your opinion, would it make *any* kind of semse to engage in child pron AND run an exit node? It makes a little. Last I checked (granted: years ago), a user can steer their traffic to a given exit node; by doing so, they could pick one that they know to have no internal scrutiny (i.e., by the person managing the exit node), while maintaining plausible deniability as to whether the traffic originating from that exit node was theirs, in the event of external scrutiny (as was the case here). I suspect running a middle node (not an exit, not an entrance) would provide a similar or greater degree of plausible deniability, albeit without the assurance of no internal scrutiny of the exit node. Jima
Re: William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if you can.
* Joel jaeggli (joe...@bogus.com) wrote: On 11/29/12 23:18 , Joakim Aronius wrote: I am all for being anonymous on the net but I seriously believe that we still need to enforce the law when it comes to serious felonies like child pr0n, organized crime etc, we can't give them a free pass just by using Tor. I dont think it should be illegal to operate a Tor exit node but what just happened could be a consequence of doing it. The seriousness of crimes that can be committed using anonymization services should not be diminished. That said the motive I had for running a tor exit when I did was that speech, and in particular political organization (dare we call it sedition) are in fact very serious crimes in many places. R.g. they can result in indefinite imprisonment, torture, judicial or extra-legal execution and so forth, I don't consider that unserious.. The internet is potentially quite a useful tool for getting your message out so long as using it isn't holding a gun to your own head. While we site here with the convenient idea of some legal arbitrage which allows me to do something which isn't illegal in my own domain to facilitate something that is quite illegal elsewhere, the fact of the matter is if you run a service like this you don't get to pick and choose. I agree. I was about to set up a tor node a few years ago but never got around to it. I send cash to orgs working for human rights in countries with oppressive regimes. I am all for providing anonymized access to help free speech. Perhaps its better with anon access to specific applications like twitter, fb etc and not general internet access. I suspect that the 'free speech' part of the total tor traffic volume is pretty small(?). Cheers, /Joakim
Legal Crap [was: William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if you can.]
On Nov 30, 2012, at 20:25 , Randy Bush ra...@psg.com wrote: Not a lawyer. than stfu with the legal crap It amazes me how people feel free to opine on things like networking without a certification, but if you don't have a law degree, suddenly they believe you are incapable of understanding anything regarding the law. As for the legal crap, most of what is posted is not on-topic here. There are laws legal implications which are operational, though. And even though I am not a lawyer, I need to understand them or I cannot do my job. My lawyer is not going to pick which datacenter to lease, even if he knows a metric-ass-ton more about indemnification than I ever will (at least I hope than I ever will - that shit is BOORING). I appreciate people who have researched and understand the topic giving their insights - just like I do regarding BGP, MPLS, IPv6... okay, no jokes about IPv6. :) And, just like with networking topics, I do not appreciate people taking up 10K+ of their not-so-closest-friends' time with half-baked ideas from people who have not taken the time to understand the subject matter. However, I do not believe the only way to go from the latter group into the former is to pass the bar. (And if so, in what state/country? what specialty? etc., etc.) I guess this is a long-winded way of saying: If all you have to say is STFU, maybe you should take your own advice? -- TTFN, patrick
Re: William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if you can.
The BBC has an article about a similar issue on a Tor exit node in Austria: Austrian police raid privacy network over child porn http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-20554788 ## Austrian police have seized servers that were part of a global anonymous browsing system, after images showing child sex abuse were found passing through them. Many people use the Tor network to conceal their browsing activity. Police raided the home of William Weber, who ran the servers, and charged him with distributing illegal images. ## It is unfortunate that systems in place to allow free speech end up being abused for the wrong purposes. The same applies to anonymous remailers which have been used to stalk and harass/bully people often using forged email addresses (since those remailers allow one to forge the sender's email address instead of forcing an Anonymous sender email. If Tor servers are just glorified routers then they could be considered more as transit providers and not responsible for content transiting through them. However, if a transit service goes out of its way to hide the identity of the sender of a packet to make it untraceable, then it becomes more than a simpler carrier.
Re: William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if
Those who do not remember history... On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 5:23 PM, goe...@anime.net wrote: http://www.sjgames.com/SS/ Those who do not remember history... what, exactly? We're doomed to repeat this over and over even if we remember it. Even if we were to assume that there are no bad actors in law enforcement, what happens when someone is simply faced with something so complex that they don't really understand it? The conventional wisdom is to seize it and let experts work it out. But there is the possibility of there being so much data, and such complexity in modern systems. What happens when you've got a Mac and you're running VMware Fusion and you've got VM images sitting on a NAS device? Ten or twenty years ago, nab all the media was pretty straightforward in the average case, but these days, it's pretty easy even for Joe Sixpack to have some sophistication and to be storing stuff on a NAS device. If you have an iomega ix2-dl with two 4TB hard drives in it, and the thing only reads out at ~60MB/sec, how do you effectively deal with that? You can either seize it or not. You can't realistically analyze the whole thing on site. You can't realistically copy it in place (two days to read it all!). So you seize it. And what happens when it is reliant on other stuff on the local network? And what happens when the police can't quite figure out the way everything worked together? Heaven help us when we start talking about tech-sophisticated users who employ things like encryption and run multiple levels of abstractions. And that brings us to Tor... The flip side to the coin is that there is such little disincentive to be aggressive in seizures. There are any number of examples of overreach, and since there is virtually no personal risk to the authorities responsible, even if the company is successful in filing suit (see SJ Games). The authorities have one hell of a problem going forward. I hope that part is obvious. ... JG -- Joe Greco - sol.net Network Services - Milwaukee, WI - http://www.sol.net We call it the 'one bite at the apple' rule. Give me one chance [and] then I won't contact you again. - Direct Marketing Ass'n position on e-mail spam(CNN) With 24 million small businesses in the US alone, that's way too many apples.
Re: William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if
On Sat, Dec 01, 2012 at 10:36:56AM -0600, Joe Greco wrote: Even if we were to assume that there are no bad actors in law enforcement, what happens when someone is simply faced with something so complex that they don't really understand it? The conventional wisdom is to seize it and let experts work it out. There is another problem with that approach. Actually, two, one that affects us, one that bears on the root cause. We all know, or should know, that there are a couple hundred million zombies (aka bots) out there. Nobody knows exactly how many, of course, because it's impossible to know. But any estimate under 100M should be discarded immediately, and I think numbers in the 200M to 300M are at least plausible, if not probable. Those systems are pretty much EVERYWHERE. The thing is, we don't know specifically where until either (a) they do something that's externally observable that indicates they're zombies AND someone in a position to observe it makes the observation or (b) someone does a forensic-grade examination of them -- which is often what it takes to find some of the more devious malware. There is nothing at all that stops child porn types from leasing zombies or creating their own. There is also nothing stopping them from setting those systems up to transmit/receive child porn via HTTP/S or SMTP or FTP or any other protocol. Or through a VPN or whatever. No Tor required. So -- five minutes from now -- you (generic you) could suddenly be in a position where what happened to this guy is happening to you, because 7 zombies on your network just went active and started shovelling child porn. And you probably won't know it because the traffic will be noise buried in all the other noise. That is, until the authorities, whoever they are wherever you are, show up and confiscate everything, including desktops, laptops, servers, tablets, phones, printers, everything with a CPU. And why shouldn't they? Do you think you're immune to this? Why should you be? Because you're an ISP? A Fortune 500 company? A major university? Joe's Donut Shop? Why should *you* get a pass from this treatment? My point, which I suppose I should get to, is this: This tactic (confiscating everything) is simply not a sensible response by any law enforcement agency. It's bad police work. It's lazy. It's stupid. And worse than any of THAT, it *helps* the child porn types do their thing. (Why? Because it clearly signals the nature and location and time of a security breach. This helps them avoid capture and provides useful intelligence that can be used to design the next operation.) The right tactic is to keep all that gear exactly where it is and doing exactly what it's doing. The children who have already been horribly, tragically exploited will not be any more so if those systems keep running: that damage is done and unplugging computers won't fix it. But keeping that stuff in place and figuring how to start tracing the purveyors and producers, THAT will attack the root cause of the problem, so that maybe other children will be spared, and the people responsible brought to justice. I know it's unfashionable for police to, you know, actually engage in police work any more. It's tedious, boring, and doesn't make headlines. It's much easier to hold self-congratulory press conferences, torture helpless people with tasers, and try to out-do Stasi by setting up a surveillance state. But it would be nice if someone with a clue got them to stop supporting child porn by virtue of being so damn lazy, ignorant and incompetent. TL;DR: try a rapier rather than a bludgeon. ---rsk
Re: Legal Crap [was: William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if you can.]
On Sat, Dec 1, 2012 at 4:21 AM, Patrick W. Gilmore patr...@ianai.net wrote: It amazes me how people feel free to opine on things... Actually, what really bugs/amazes me about that thread is that the person whom this thread was originally about IS NOT EVEN FROM THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. CALEA, DMCA, yadda, yadda, yadda have nothing at all to do with the original problem. -- Jeff Ollie
Re: Legal Crap [was: William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if you can.]
On Dec 1, 2012, at 10:37 AM, Jeffrey Ollie j...@ocjtech.us wrote: On Sat, Dec 1, 2012 at 4:21 AM, Patrick W. Gilmore patr...@ianai.net wrote: It amazes me how people feel free to opine on things... Actually, what really bugs/amazes me about that thread is that the person whom this thread was originally about IS NOT EVEN FROM THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. CALEA, DMCA, yadda, yadda, yadda have nothing at all to do with the original problem. True, but false. The original incident in Austria was being used as an argument against anonymous networks in the US or elsewhere. For US persons the relevant laws here are relevant to that followup discussion. George William Herbert Sent from my iPhone
Re: Legal Crap [was: William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if you can.]
On 12/1/12, Patrick W. Gilmore patr...@ianai.net wrote: On Nov 30, 2012, at 20:25 , Randy Bush ra...@psg.com wrote: As for the legal crap, most of what is posted is not on-topic here. There are laws legal implications which are operational, though. And even though I am not a lawyer, I need to understand them or I cannot do my job. My lawyer is not going to pick which datacenter to lease, even if he knows a Laws and legal ramifications are a driving force impacting design and policy for network operations, because they have financial implications, and finance matters. For example, if you or your orgs' staff are denied access to your equipment or data and critical servers are seized or offlined, while a police investigation is ongoing, due to a breach of PII confidentiality (eg Stolen social security numbers of staff members used by an ID thief), for example, there is possible hardship for the org, even if you or your org fully exercised due care and went well beyond the minimum: with a responsible well-thought security program, and the offender is an outsider,you might soon not have a network, due to bankruptcy. In this case you might not have any liability or guilt for the breach, but you have major costs, regardless. Anyone, including people off the street, can have opinions about the Law, and opinions about networks. Would you be willing to rely some stranger off the street, with no qualifications, or positive background whatsoever, to start recommending a new network design, or give them a CLI with directions that they can start making whatever changes they like to your core router? Would you ask how to configure an AP to be secure, on a network law discussion list? Opinions are one thing; but a large amount of legal mumbo jumbo, and attempting to suggest you have exactly what a court would find, or what the exact and only issues are, that list members can't responsibly rely on anyways (DUE to its importance not its non-importance), is a waste of bits,and there might be a more appropriate place to discuss law itself. :) -- -JH
Re: Legal Crap [was: William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if you can.]
On 12/1/2012 11:01 AM, Jimmy Hess wrote: Anyone, including people off the street, can have opinions about the Law, and opinions about networks. Would you be willing to rely some stranger off the street, with no qualifications, or positive background whatsoever, to start recommending a new network design, quite possibly. strangers off the street sometimes demonstrate superior insight than credentialed 'experts'. not typically, of course, but sometimes. an essential point is how much work i want to do to assess the credibility of the comments from either source. folks who rely on their credentials for credibility tend to lose it with me. anyone who makes a point by clearly providing a solid basis for it tends to gain it. but i agree that clarity about the purpose of this thread would be helpful... d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net
Re: William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if you can.
Example of an actual warrant: https://www.eff.org/sites/default/files/filenode/inresearchBC/EXHIBIT-A.pdf Please also keep in mind, if it's relevant, that *no warrant* is required for data that is stored by a third-party. Data on a server, TOR or otherwise, would by definition be data that is stored by a third party. Which means that if there is a person of interest (POI), it would not be terribly hard to get at personal information about the POI that is not on their own private machines. (Here is an article we wrote about that: http://www.theinternetpatrol.com/no-warrant-necessary-for-law-enforcement-to-access-data-stored-in-the-cloud/ ) Not a lawyer. Is a lawyer, but hasn't been following this thread. That said, if there are specific questions, I'd be happy to answer them if I can. Anne Anne P. Mitchell, Esq CEO/President Institute for Social Internet Public Policy http://www.ISIPP.com Member, Cal. Bar Cyberspace Law Committee
Re: William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if you can.
The BBC has an article about a similar issue on a Tor exit node in Austria: Austrian police raid privacy network over child porn http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-20554788 actually it is not a similar case but the case of William W. that BBC reported. Though with some mistakes: the servers were not seized, the hardware (drives etc) at his home was seized, William was not charged (he says), police is just investigating. http://www.lowendtalk.com/discussion/6283/raided-for-running-a-tor-exit-accepting-donations-for-legal-expenses/p5 And so far only the police know if images showing child sex abuse were actually found passing through them as BBC writes. The warrent posted at arstechnica.net http://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Beschluss.png mentions section 207a, para 2, 2nd case, and para 4 no 2, lit b of Austrian Criminal Code, which would be possession of a a pornographic depiction of a minor person over 14, showing their genitals in an obscene manner. (the text of the relevant section in German: http://www.ris.bka.gv.at/Dokumente/Bundesnormen/NOR40105143/NOR40105143.html) The warrent does not mention anything that refers to distribution or transport of pornographic images. So, either police and judge were not aware that it was a TOR server or they have/had a suspicion that's not related to running a TOR server. Or the made a mistake and quoted the wrong section. We simply don't know at present. regards, jutta am Samstag, 01. Dezember 2012 um 17:10 schrieb nanog@nanog.org: The BBC has an article about a similar issue on a Tor exit node in Austria: Austrian police raid privacy network over child porn http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-20554788 ## Austrian police have seized servers that were part of a global anonymous browsing system, after images showing child sex abuse were found passing through them. ...
Re: William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if you can.
* Will Hargrave (w...@harg.net) wrote: On 29 Nov 2012, at 20:53, George Herbert george.herb...@gmail.com wrote: The assertion being made here, that it's somehow illegal (or immoral, or scary) for there to be not-completely-traceable internet access in the US, is absurd. The real issue here is *not* the legality of the act of providing a Tor exit node, or an open access point, or anything else. In sensible countries that is perfectly legal. The problem here is the reality of undergoing a criminal investigation. It could also be the case that they think the person running the Tor exit node is the actual perpetrator, i.e. its needed to seize all HW to get the kiddie pr0n. Is it even possible for a network sniffer to distinguish between Tor exit traffic and his own traffic? Hopefully he will get it all back but it will most liklely cost both time and money to explain Tor to the Austrian judical system. Think carefully about the impact of having everything in your life which runs an operating system taken away. Phones. Tablet. Laptop. Servers. All portable drives, data. If you rely on that hardware for your income (and who doesn't?) you're going to have to buy all of that again. And restore your data, if you are able. Fully agree. /J
Re: William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if you can.
On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 08:04:02AM -0500, Chris quoted (William): Yes, it happened to me now as well - Yesterday i got raided for someone sharing child pornography over one of my Tor exits. Question: what evidence has been published -- that is, placed somewhere that we can all see it -- that substantiates the claim that child porn traversed the node in question? Followup question 1: if no such evidence has been produced, then why should we believe that it exists? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Followup question 2: if the goal is to identify and apprehend the perpetrators of child porn (and that's a good goal) then why would the police raid this operation? Would it not make far more sense to take advantage of the operator's knowledge and experience and quietly ask for his/her cooperation *while leaving the node running*? Followup question 3: what evidence in front of us allows us to clearly discern that this is what it purports to be and not simply an attempt to shut down a Tor node (and intimidate the operators of others) by using a plausible excuse based on a universal hot-button issue? ---rsk
Re: William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if you can.
On 2012-11-30 13:51 , Joakim Aronius wrote: * Will Hargrave (w...@harg.net) wrote: On 29 Nov 2012, at 20:53, George Herbert george.herb...@gmail.com wrote: The assertion being made here, that it's somehow illegal (or immoral, or scary) for there to be not-completely-traceable internet access in the US, is absurd. The real issue here is *not* the legality of the act of providing a Tor exit node, or an open access point, or anything else. In sensible countries that is perfectly legal. The problem here is the reality of undergoing a criminal investigation. It could also be the case that they think the person running the Tor exit node is the actual perpetrator, i.e. its needed to seize all HW to get the kiddie pr0n. Is it even possible for a network sniffer to distinguish between Tor exit traffic and his own traffic? Not easily, this as TCP connections originate from the box itself. Hopefully he will get it all back but it will most liklely cost both time and money to explain Tor to the Austrian judical system. According to http://raided4tor.cryto.net/ he at least got a full list of what was confiscated including the various weapons in his possession, that in combo with the owning of a safe deposit box (which was not searched) with amongst others cash is an interesting part in personal security IMHO though ;) Think carefully about the impact of having everything in your life which runs an operating system taken away. Phones. Tablet. Laptop. Servers. All portable drives, data. If you rely on that hardware for your income (and who doesn't?) you're going to have to buy all of that again. And restore your data, if you are able. Actually they did not take anything away that was really related to the what was detected. The IP that the connection to the (apparently monitored or owned by the $investigators) CP website came from was a rented server in Poland. He apparently was notified that that exit node was being used for abuse and thus 'closed it because of the hacking through it' (which really is not helping when you still run others and looks a lot like you have something to hide to me...) All the other servers he apparently runs in the US and Hong Kong etc are still up and running too. Thus the computer things confiscated where effectively unrelated to the IP that triggered them to look at it. On 2012-11-30 13:58 , Rich Kulawiec wrote: On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 08:04:02AM -0500, Chris quoted (William): Yes, it happened to me now as well - Yesterday i got raided for someone sharing child pornography over one of my Tor exits. Question: what evidence has been published -- that is, placed somewhere that we can all see it -- that substantiates the claim that child porn traversed the node in question? The moment you can see that it is real CP you have seen CP. Do not ask for that. There are special people who have legally signed documents and agreements that investigate this. Followup question 1: if no such evidence has been produced, then why should we believe that it exists? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. What likely is the case, from what I understand, is that the server hosting the CP was being either monitored or operated by $investigators. Followup question 2: if the goal is to identify and apprehend the perpetrators of child porn (and that's a good goal) then why would the police raid this operation? Because they maybe think he originated it, see also the note above of closing the Tor exit that (allegedly) sourced the request(s). Would it not make far more sense to take advantage of the operator's knowledge and experience and quietly ask for his/her cooperation *while leaving the node running*? He already closed the node, apparently due to hacking happening through it. But that would not help anyway, as it is Tor, thus unless you are really really good there is nothing to see there as you'll never find out who originated the connection through Tor. Followup question 3: what evidence in front of us allows us to clearly discern that this is what it purports to be and not simply an attempt to shut down a Tor node (and intimidate the operators of others) by using a plausible excuse based on a universal hot-button issue? The owner (the William person this is about) shut it down himself. See the blog mentioned above for more details from his side. Greets, Jeroen
William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if you can.
I think if they took the cash registers too the Starbucks lawyer would be in court an hour later with a motion to quash in one hand and an offer of full cooperation in the other. Regards, Bill Herrin The standard, in the U.S., is any electronic device capable of storing data.
Re: William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if you can.
On November 29, 2012 at 11:50 george.herb...@gmail.com (George Herbert) wrote: On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 11:18 AM, Tom Beecher tbeec...@localnet.com wrote: Assuming it's true, it was bound to happen. Running anything , TOR or otherwise, that allows strangers to do whatever they want is just folly. Such as, say, an Internet Service Provider business? Or a wi-fi hotspot that only requires clicking Accept, no id involved? -- -Barry Shein The World | b...@theworld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 800-THE-WRLD| Dial-Up: US, PR, Canada Software Tool Die| Public Access Internet | SINCE 1989 *oo*
Re: William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if you can.
On November 30, 2012 at 08:18 joa...@aronius.se (Joakim Aronius) wrote: I am all for being anonymous on the net but I seriously believe that we still need to enforce the law when it comes to serious felonies like child pr0n, organized crime etc, we can't give them a free pass just by using Tor. I dont think it should be illegal to operate a Tor exit node but what just happened could be a consequence of doing it. Yeah, next they'll let just anyone walk down the sidewalk without identifying themselves. And those are public sidewalks paid for by tax dollars! Or drop a few coins in a public telephone (I know, a little dated, but they exist) w/o id and commit some crime! I think some here need to reflect on what they're saying. Sure, it'd be better to stop bad guys, but this has always been the problem in a free society, you can't just put draconian rules on everyone else because otherwise some bad guy might not be immediately and easily identified. This was the sort of reasoning they used in the Soviet Union to make it very difficult to get access to a photocopy machine (ask someone who lived there, it was practically like buying a firearm in the US.) We're all (well most of us) glad that law enforcement does its job, but even the US Constitution (3rd amendment) bothered to state: No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law. It's only an analogy but I think it's clear, if we're protected from being forced to provide food shelter directly to soldiers presumably defending our lives and country the principle as it pertains to being required to do whatever law enforcement dreams up to catch bad guys is pretty clear. As a principle -- Note: I am NOT making a legal point! Ok, grab onto that manner prescribed by law, but remember that it said in time of war. None of what we're discussing is relevant to any war (except as politicians toss around the war on this or that.) Of course they might not know abot Tor and believes that it is Mr Williams that is the bad guy. /J Sure, but I assume he told them that :-) -- -Barry Shein The World | b...@theworld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 800-THE-WRLD| Dial-Up: US, PR, Canada Software Tool Die| Public Access Internet | SINCE 1989 *oo*
Re: William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if you can.
Barry Shein wrote: On November 30, 2012 at 08:18 joa...@aronius.se (Joakim Aronius) wrote: I am all for being anonymous on the net but I seriously believe that we still need to enforce the law when it comes to serious felonies like child pr0n, organized crime etc, we can't give them a free pass just by using Tor. I dont think it should be illegal to operate a Tor exit node but what just happened could be a consequence of doing it. Yeah, next they'll let just anyone walk down the sidewalk without identifying themselves. And those are public sidewalks paid for by tax dollars! Or drop a few coins in a public telephone (I know, a little dated, but they exist) w/o id and commit some crime! I think some here need to reflect on what they're saying. Sure, it'd be better to stop bad guys, but this has always been the problem in a free society, you can't just put draconian rules on everyone else because otherwise some bad guy might not be immediately and easily identified. Well put Barry. Or, as Ben Franklin put it: They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. Miles Fidelman* * -- In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is. Yogi Berra
Re: William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if you can.
On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 12:48 PM, Barry Shein b...@world.std.com wrote: Yeah, next they'll let just anyone walk down the sidewalk without identifying themselves. And those are public sidewalks paid for by tax dollars! If you hang out with criminals, sooner or later you'll encounter a situation where there is a reasonable suspicion that you committed a crime. Not because you hung out with criminals but because something criminal happened while you were hanging out with the criminals and with only a partial set of facts it appears likely that you did it. It takes extraordinary diligence to hang out with criminals yet remain personally above reproach. It's a tightrope many news reporters have to walk. I have yet to see such diligence practiced in the operation of a Tor node. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William D. Herrin her...@dirtside.com b...@herrin.us 3005 Crane Dr. .. Web: http://bill.herrin.us/ Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
Re: William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if you can.
On Nov 30, 2012, at 4:58 AM, Rich Kulawiec r...@gsp.org wrote: On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 08:04:02AM -0500, Chris quoted (William): Yes, it happened to me now as well - Yesterday i got raided for someone sharing child pornography over one of my Tor exits. Question: what evidence has been published -- that is, placed somewhere that we can all see it -- that substantiates the claim that child porn traversed the node in question? Followup question 1: if no such evidence has been produced, then why should we believe that it exists? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. I don't find the claim all that extraordinary. I think it was only a matter of time before the kiddie-pr0n distributors figured out TOR as a perfect way to distribute anonymously. Followup question 2: if the goal is to identify and apprehend the perpetrators of child porn (and that's a good goal) then why would the police raid this operation? Would it not make far more sense to take advantage of the operator's knowledge and experience and quietly ask for his/her cooperation *while leaving the node running*? Sure, but law enforcement isn't exactly renowned for doing the smart things in such situations. Especially during their rather extensive learning curve. Followup question 3: what evidence in front of us allows us to clearly discern that this is what it purports to be and not simply an attempt to shut down a Tor node (and intimidate the operators of others) by using a plausible excuse based on a universal hot-button issue? None whatsoever. It's an entirely plausible alternate explanation. At this point, we can't rule either of them out. However, the basic theory Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by incompetence. says that the kiddie-pr0n story is more likely. Owen
RE: William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if you can.
-Original Message- From: Rich Kulawiec [mailto:r...@gsp.org] Sent: Friday, November 30, 2012 6:59 AM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if you can. On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 08:04:02AM -0500, Chris quoted (William): Yes, it happened to me now as well - Yesterday i got raided for someone sharing child pornography over one of my Tor exits. Question: what evidence has been published -- that is, placed somewhere that we can all see it -- that substantiates the claim that child porn traversed the node in question? The cops don't have to present evidence until there is a court case. Since this guy was not arrested, they have apparently not decided to charge him yet. The apparently had some evidence to get the seizure order. They have to convince a judge, not the public. Followup question 1: if no such evidence has been produced, then why should we believe that it exists? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Again, no evidence needed until a prosecution happens. Just enough for the cops to convince a judge to allow the evidence seizure. Followup question 2: if the goal is to identify and apprehend the perpetrators of child porn (and that's a good goal) then why would the police raid this operation? Would it not make far more sense to take advantage of the operator's knowledge and experience and quietly ask for his/her cooperation *while leaving the node running*? Maybe the cops think he is a perpetrator. It is not unthinkable that he set up a network to hide his own activities. Note that they seized his HOME storage devices, not the Tor server. Followup question 3: what evidence in front of us allows us to clearly discern that this is what it purports to be and not simply an attempt to shut down a Tor node (and intimidate the operators of others) by using a plausible excuse based on a universal hot-button issue? Since the individual indicates that the Tor node was already down and the police did not seize it, what makes you think that it was the target at all. The individual only indicated that the police asked about the IP address used by the Tor server during his questioning so it is possible they did not know it was a Tor node and maybe thought it was at his apartment. I have yet to see anything indicating that he is not allowed to bring his Tor node back online. I am not assuming this is only about the Tor node just because the cops asked him about it. I am a little concerned that this guy keeps a safe deposit box with a burner phone and cash around. Is he a CIA agent? :) Why would I donate to his legal defense when he has not been charged yet? A little premature, no? ---rsk Steven Naslund
RE: [tor-talk] William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if you can.
WAIT A SECOND HERE!?!? I just read below that this guy runs a large ISP in Austria. I thought his Tor node was hosted with an external provider. If he runs the ISP, why would he not host his own server in house? I suppose there are reasons but I can't think of one, especially if you feel so strongly about this being your right. He talks about moving it to another ISP in the article interviewing him. How about moving it to the large ISP you run? If he runs a large ISP he must not be very good at it if he needs our donations to help him defend himself from a crime he has not been charged with yet. Most of the guys I know that run large ISPs have legal guys available to them. They could also come up with 1EUR if necessary. What is he going to do with this money if no charges are filed and they give his gear back? If he believes that he is innocent of any crime then he should be confident they won't find anything to charge him with, right? If convicted i could face up to 6 years in jail, of course i do not want that and i also want to try to set a legal base for running Tor exit nodes in Austria or even the EU. Six years in jail for what? They didn't arrest you yet. How do you know what the charges are? The cops must not be too worried about the Tor node if they did not seize it. They seem a lot more interested in his personal storage devices. He seems to have a lot of data at home, not illegal (possibly) but I am wondering what it all might be. The cops have a lot of looking around ahead of them. Seems awful worried for a guy who claims to be innocent. I am wondering why he seems so sure he will be charged that he is building a legal defense fund before being arrested. Sadly we have nothing like the EFF here that could help me in this case by legal assistance, so i'm on my own and require a good lawyer. Thus i'm accepting donations for my legal expenses which i expect to be around 5000-1 EUR. So you know how much it costs to defend a case with unknown charges and without knowing if you will be arrested yet?!?!?! This whole thing sounds flakier with every new detail. Steven Naslund -Original Message- From: Eugen Leitl [mailto:eu...@leitl.org] Sent: Friday, November 30, 2012 1:25 AM To: NANOG list Subject: Re: [tor-talk] William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if you can. - Forwarded message from Asad Haider a...@asadhaider.co.uk - From: Asad Haider a...@asadhaider.co.uk Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2012 19:37:24 + To: tor-t...@lists.torproject.org Subject: Re: [tor-talk] William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if you can. Reply-To: tor-t...@lists.torproject.org William will be posting a statement soon which will explain everything that's happened and give a detailed account of events, along with evidence including pictures showing the aftermath of the raid in his apartment, as well as copies of the warrant and inventory of seized items. He runs a large ISP in Austria and is a well respected member of the community, a lot of us have already sent in donations. His blog is https://rdns.im/ and I'm guessing the statement will be posted on there, I'll send everyone a link once it's finished being written. On 29 November 2012 19:22, Eugen Leitl eu...@leitl.org wrote: - Forwarded message from Emily Ozols win...@team-metro.net - From: Emily Ozols win...@team-metro.net Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2012 01:14:08 +1100 To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if you can. Hi, I gotta ask and I'm sure someone would if I didn't, but how do we know this guy is legit? He's jumped up on a forum saying, Hey, police raided me, help. gib mone plz and failed to provide and reason as to how he's real and not just making it up. Maybe if there's a way to know this guy is legit, I'll help out if possible, but until then I'm just going to watch others with caution and I suggest others do as well. On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 12:04 AM, Chris cal...@gmail.com wrote: I'm not William and a friend pasted a link on IRC to me. I'm going to send him a few bucks because I know how it feels to get blindsided by the police on one random day and your world is turned upside down. Source: http://www.lowendtalk.com/discussion/6283/raided-for-running-a-tor-exi t-accepting-donations-for-legal-expenses From the URL: Yes, it happened to me now as well - Yesterday i got raided for someone sharing child pornography over one of my Tor exits. I'm good so far, not in jail, but all my computers and hardware have been confiscated. (20 computers, 100TB+ storage, My Tablets/Consoles/Phones) If convicted i could face up to 6 years in jail, of course i do not want that and i also want to try to set a legal base for running Tor exit nodes in Austria or even the EU. Sadly we have nothing like the EFF here that could help
Re: William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if you can.
On 11/29/12, William Herrin b...@herrin.us wrote: If the computer at IP:port:timestamp transmitted child porn, a warrant for all computers is also too broad. Computers which use said IP As you know, there may always be some uncertainty about which computer was using a certain IP address at a certain time -- the computer assigned that address might have been off, with a deviant individual spoofing MAC address and IP address of a certain computer, using different equipment still attached to the same physical LAN. Their warrant authors will probably not say all computers; they will more likely say something like all digital storage media, and equipment required for access. Which includes all hard drives, SSDs, CF cards, diskettes, CDRs, and all the computing equipment they are installed in (keyboard, monitor, mouse, etc) normally used to access the media. address or which employ forensic countermeasures which prevent a ready determination whether they employed said IP address. And have a DHCP? qualified technician on the search team, same as you would for any other material being searched. If they had a qualified technician, they probably wouldn't be raiding a TOR exit node in the first place; they would have investigated the matter more thoroughly, and saved precious time. -- -JH
Re: William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if you can.
On 11/30/2012 04:01 PM, Naslund, Steve wrote: I am a little concerned that this guy keeps a safe deposit box with a burner phone and cash around. Is he a CIA agent? :) Anyone who DOESN'T have such things stashed away somewhere is, IMHO, incredibly naive and taking on quite a large amount of risk. The likelihood (and hope) is that you'll never need it. But on the off chance that you get f***ed by the legal system because of some power hungry, mouth-breather cop who can't/won't understand that you've done nothing wrong -- or worse, that you're easily provably within the law, but he believes that you're not and drags you through the process anyways -- you'll be very happy that you stashed away that old unlocked cell phone, old laptop, change of clothes and cash. I'm a (legal) firearms owner... up here in Canada, where some previous governments enacted extreme anti-gun legislation, that pretty much means that if I so much as sneeze in a way that a cop doesn't like, I can have my life ruined pretty damned fast (not quite, but really close). I wouldn't bet against me having an excrement-hitting-the-oscillator stash like this guy does. ;) (Note: I don't mean to imply that all cops are power hungry mouth-breathers intent on destroying the lives of citizens. Most cops are fundamentally good people and do a great job. But like every other profession, there ARE bad cops out there, and it's within the realm of possibility that you'll deal with one of them one day.) Why would I donate to his legal defense when he has not been charged yet? A little premature, no? If you think that legal costs in a criminal case only start when you've been formally charged, you're grossly misinformed. At what point you personally decide to donate is one thing, but implying that someone doesn't need a defense fund prior to charges being laid is a bit naive about how the process works. - Pete
RE: William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if you can.
As a network professional do I not have a duty to protect my companies network from unauthorized access within my ability to do so? I think I do. If you lost all of your credit card and identity data because I left an open wifi hotspot on my network would you have a liability case? I sure think so. If I go into your building and plug in an open wifi hotspot that allows a hacker to gain access to your stuff, is that illegal? I think it is. In this case we are not talking about a civil claim of negligence at all. It is not even a civil case. Let's look at it more as the credibility of deniability. Grandma can claim in court that she had no idea that the neighborhood was using her wifi and be believable. I can't make that claim because it is easy to prove that I know better. Whether the act itself is legal is another matter, but the ability to deny knowledge of the act is the question. So, the way this translates is Sir, did you know that a large percentage of Tor use is for illegal activities? How does this guy answer no when he supposedly runs a large ISP? As far as the anonymous remailer, at that time sending anonymous email or spam was not yet illegal. Many ISPs began cracking down on open mail relays well before the CAN SPAM stuff came about because it was good business and most of the industry agreed that open mail relay was bad. What I find really interesting is that the ISP (in general, there are a few rogues) will immediately shut down access to an open mail relay being hosted by their customer because it enables SPAM, but would allow a Tor relay that allows lots of illegal activity. I can tell you exactly why this happens. Most network professionals hate spam, its inconvenience, its clogging of the systems we maintain, and we declared war on the spammers. Tor however enables a whole lot of gray area activities like media piracy, warez, and lots of other stuff that some of us are less concerned about (and some of us actually use). If the ISPs and engineers get concerned about any of this stuff, we are capable of killing it off easier than the law enforcement channels. We never eliminated SPAM but it was made a lot tougher. Unfortunately, the history of the public Internet shows that one of the technology drivers of higher and better connections are for things like media sharing and distribution which includes some not so savory or legal sharing and distribution and some not so nice media. Steven Naslund -Original Message- From: Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law [mailto:froom...@law.miami.edu] Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2012 6:30 PM To: Naslund, Steve Cc: NANOG Subject: RE: William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if you can. On Thu, 29 Nov 2012, Naslund, Steve wrote: [...] When it comes to running an open access point, I think the legal issue would be negligence. Is it negligence for the 90 year old grandma to have an open AP (probably not, just didn't know better)? Is it negligence for me to have an open AP (probably, I am a network professional and know how to secure a network). In order for there to be a civil claim of negligence there must be, inter alia, a breach of duty. What duty has been breached in your scenario? None. [...] This is certainly an interesting discussion and I think there are not a lot of concrete answers since this is on the edge of technology law. I Actually some of us have been teaching and writing about this stuff since the mid 1990s. These issues are far from new; we went through them in the early anonymous remailer days. relurk -- A. Michael Froomkin, http://www.law.tm Blog: http://www.discourse.net Laurie Silvers Mitchell Rubenstein Distinguished Professor of Law Editor, Jotwell: The Journal of Things We Like (Lots), jotwell.com U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA +1 (305) 284-4285 |+1 (305) 284-6506 (fax) | froom...@law.tm --It's warm here.--
RE: William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if you can.
OK, there must be a lot more paranoid people out there than I thought there were. I personally don't have a runaway kit stashed away. I will get right on that. So when that mouth breather cop won't believe you are innocent, your answer is to grab your stuff and go on the lamb for awhile? I am sure he will let you out to go to the bank, get your stuff, and leave town. I think you have seen way to many movies. So if the cops show up at his door tomorrow and say Here's all your stuff back, there was no evidence of a crime., you are OK with this guys keeping the defense fund? Steve -Original Message- From: Peter Kristolaitis [mailto:alte...@alter3d.ca] Sent: Friday, November 30, 2012 3:53 PM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if you can. On 11/30/2012 04:01 PM, Naslund, Steve wrote: I am a little concerned that this guy keeps a safe deposit box with a burner phone and cash around. Is he a CIA agent? :) Anyone who DOESN'T have such things stashed away somewhere is, IMHO, incredibly naive and taking on quite a large amount of risk. The likelihood (and hope) is that you'll never need it. But on the off chance that you get f***ed by the legal system because of some power hungry, mouth-breather cop who can't/won't understand that you've done nothing wrong -- or worse, that you're easily provably within the law, but he believes that you're not and drags you through the process anyways -- you'll be very happy that you stashed away that old unlocked cell phone, old laptop, change of clothes and cash. I'm a (legal) firearms owner... up here in Canada, where some previous governments enacted extreme anti-gun legislation, that pretty much means that if I so much as sneeze in a way that a cop doesn't like, I can have my life ruined pretty damned fast (not quite, but really close). I wouldn't bet against me having an excrement-hitting-the-oscillator stash like this guy does. ;) (Note: I don't mean to imply that all cops are power hungry mouth-breathers intent on destroying the lives of citizens. Most cops are fundamentally good people and do a great job. But like every other profession, there ARE bad cops out there, and it's within the realm of possibility that you'll deal with one of them one day.) Why would I donate to his legal defense when he has not been charged yet? A little premature, no? If you think that legal costs in a criminal case only start when you've been formally charged, you're grossly misinformed. At what point you personally decide to donate is one thing, but implying that someone doesn't need a defense fund prior to charges being laid is a bit naive about how the process works. - Pete
Re: William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if you can.
On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 4:46 PM, Jimmy Hess mysi...@gmail.com wrote: If they had a qualified technician, they probably wouldn't be raiding a TOR exit node in the first place; they would have investigated the matter more thoroughly, and saved precious time. And what if the TOR exit node was in the cloud? Are they going to confiscate millions of servers just because a few of them were hosting child pornography?? (I am a believer of Cloud Computing, and in fact earlier this month we had a 10,000-node Grid Engine HPC cluster running in Amazon EC2: http://blogs.scalablelogic.com/2012/11/running-1-node-grid-engine-cluster.html ) I believe most Cloud providers (Google, Amazon, IBM, etc) have some sort of disclaimer clause... but then one can get a VPN account easily too (there are many free ones as well)! So how could VPN, local coffee shops, and cloud providers protect themselves from this kind of non-sense?? Rayson == Open Grid Scheduler - The Official Open Source Grid Engine http://gridscheduler.sourceforge.net/ -- -JH
Re: [tor-talk] William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if you can.
On 11/30/2012 03:30 PM, Naslund, Steve wrote: WAIT A SECOND HERE!?!? I just read below that this guy runs a large ISP in Austria. I thought his Tor node was hosted with an external provider. If he runs the ISP, why would he not host his own server in house? I suppose there are reasons but I can't think of one, especially if you feel so strongly about this being your right. He talks about moving it to another ISP in the article interviewing him. How about moving it to the large ISP you run? If he runs a large ISP he must not be very good at it if he needs our donations to help him defend himself from a crime he has not been charged with yet. Most of the guys I know that run large ISPs have legal guys available to them. They could also come up with 1EUR if necessary. What is he going to do with this money if no charges are filed and they give his gear back? If he believes that he is innocent of any crime then he should be confident they won't find anything to charge him with, right? If convicted i could face up to 6 years in jail, of course i do not want that and i also want to try to set a legal base for running Tor exit nodes in Austria or even the EU. Six years in jail for what? They didn't arrest you yet. How do you know what the charges are? The cops must not be too worried about the Tor node if they did not seize it. They seem a lot more interested in his personal storage devices. He seems to have a lot of data at home, not illegal (possibly) but I am wondering what it all might be. The cops have a lot of looking around ahead of them. Seems awful worried for a guy who claims to be innocent. I am wondering why he seems so sure he will be charged that he is building a legal defense fund before being arrested. Sadly we have nothing like the EFF here that could help me in this case by legal assistance, so i'm on my own and require a good lawyer. Thus i'm accepting donations for my legal expenses which i expect to be around 5000-1 EUR. So you know how much it costs to defend a case with unknown charges and without knowing if you will be arrested yet?!?!?! This whole thing sounds flakier with every new detail. Steven Naslund -Original Message- From: Eugen Leitl [mailto:eu...@leitl.org] Sent: Friday, November 30, 2012 1:25 AM To: NANOG list Subject: Re: [tor-talk] William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if you can. - Forwarded message from Asad Haider a...@asadhaider.co.uk - From: Asad Haider a...@asadhaider.co.uk Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2012 19:37:24 + To: tor-t...@lists.torproject.org Subject: Re: [tor-talk] William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if you can. Reply-To: tor-t...@lists.torproject.org William will be posting a statement soon which will explain everything that's happened and give a detailed account of events, along with evidence including pictures showing the aftermath of the raid in his apartment, as well as copies of the warrant and inventory of seized items. He runs a large ISP in Austria and is a well respected member of the community, a lot of us have already sent in donations. His blog is https://rdns.im/ and I'm guessing the statement will be posted on there, I'll send everyone a link once it's finished being written. On 29 November 2012 19:22, Eugen Leitl eu...@leitl.org wrote: - Forwarded message from Emily Ozols win...@team-metro.net - From: Emily Ozols win...@team-metro.net Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2012 01:14:08 +1100 To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if you can. Hi, I gotta ask and I'm sure someone would if I didn't, but how do we know this guy is legit? He's jumped up on a forum saying, Hey, police raided me, help. gib mone plz and failed to provide and reason as to how he's real and not just making it up. Maybe if there's a way to know this guy is legit, I'll help out if possible, but until then I'm just going to watch others with caution and I suggest others do as well. On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 12:04 AM, Chris cal...@gmail.com wrote: I'm not William and a friend pasted a link on IRC to me. I'm going to send him a few bucks because I know how it feels to get blindsided by the police on one random day and your world is turned upside down. Source: http://www.lowendtalk.com/discussion/6283/raided-for-running-a-tor-exi t-accepting-donations-for-legal-expenses From the URL: Yes, it happened to me now as well - Yesterday i got raided for someone sharing child pornography over one of my Tor exits. I'm good so far, not in jail, but all my computers and hardware have been confiscated. (20 computers, 100TB+ storage, My Tablets/Consoles/Phones) If convicted i could face up to 6 years in jail, of course i do not want that and i also want to try to set a legal base for running Tor exit nodes in Austria or even the EU. Sadly we have nothing like the EFF here that could help me in this case by legal
RE: William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if you can.
From: Jimmy Hess [mailto:mysi...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, November 30, 2012 3:47 PM To: William Herrin Cc: NANOG list Subject: Re: William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if you can. On 11/29/12, William Herrin b...@herrin.us wrote: If the computer at IP:port:timestamp transmitted child porn, a warrant for all computers is also too broad. Computers which use said IP As you know, there may always be some uncertainty about which computer was using a certain IP address at a certain time -- the computer assigned that address might have been off, with a deviant individual spoofing MAC address and IP address of a certain computer, using different equipment still attached to the same physical LAN. Their warrant authors will probably not say all computers; they will more likely say something like all digital storage media, and equipment required for access. Funny thing is they hit his residence, not the location where the Tor server was located. Most likely they tracked the Tor server's IP to anaccount at the ISP that hosted it, that pointed at his residence. Strange that they did not seize the server itself according to the interview of the guy involved. Which includes all hard drives, SSDs, CF cards, diskettes, CDRs, and all the computing equipment they are installed in (keyboard, monitor, mouse, etc) normally used to access the media. Probably said all computing equipment and media on the premise. That is extremely common language for these warrants. I have never, ever, heard of a seizure that only involved a single IP address. The cops know that media moves around. address or which employ forensic countermeasures which prevent a ready determination whether they employed said IP address. And have a DHCP? qualified technician on the search team, same as you would for any other material being searched. If they had a qualified technician, they probably wouldn't be raiding a TOR exit node in the first place; they would have investigated the matter more thoroughly, and saved precious time. Remember, they did not raid the Tor exit node. They raided the home of the guy running the Tor exit node. Way different. -- -JH Steven Naslund
RE: William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if you can.
-Original Message- From: Peter Kristolaitis [mailto:alte...@alter3d.ca] Sent: Friday, November 30, 2012 4:53 PM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if you can. (Note: I don't mean to imply that all cops are power hungry mouth-breathers intent on destroying the lives of citizens. Most cops are fundamentally good people and do a great job. But like every other profession, there ARE bad cops out there, and it's within the realm of possibility that you'll deal with one of them one day.) Power corrupts and cops have power.What scares me is that there is no way *I* can tell the difference between a cop who accepts free coffee from the local café and a cop who will lie to get what they want.
Re: [tor-talk] William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if you can.
When is the last time you were arrested, or even in a legal situation which required your attention as a defendant? It seems pretty straight forward, but I can assure you this guy is getting very little sleep and his heart is beating out of his chest. Granted this entire situation is taking place in a legal venue which I have no understanding of (The EU obviously does things differently). I think it was pretty risky to consider running a Tor node, much less being involved in running multiple nodes. This entire situation is beginning to read like a Kim DotCom (or Schmitz for those of us who worked for him at some point) novel, where an outside force directed a local LEA to perform some kind of raid to get someone's attention. This was obviously not a helicopter raid with SWAT, ala RapidShare, but I hope you get the point. This guy is sweating bullets because he has no idea what is going to happen next (in my humble opinion), so his rational thought process and/or even discussing when he will return the funds donated is a pre-mature at best. Just my .02. On 11/30/12 1:30 PM, Naslund, Steve snasl...@medline.com wrote: WAIT A SECOND HERE!?!? I just read below that this guy runs a large ISP in Austria. I thought his Tor node was hosted with an external provider. If he runs the ISP, why would he not host his own server in house? I suppose there are reasons but I can't think of one, especially if you feel so strongly about this being your right. He talks about moving it to another ISP in the article interviewing him. How about moving it to the large ISP you run? If he runs a large ISP he must not be very good at it if he needs our donations to help him defend himself from a crime he has not been charged with yet. Most of the guys I know that run large ISPs have legal guys available to them. They could also come up with 1EUR if necessary. What is he going to do with this money if no charges are filed and they give his gear back? If he believes that he is innocent of any crime then he should be confident they won't find anything to charge him with, right? If convicted i could face up to 6 years in jail, of course i do not want that and i also want to try to set a legal base for running Tor exit nodes in Austria or even the EU. Six years in jail for what? They didn't arrest you yet. How do you know what the charges are? The cops must not be too worried about the Tor node if they did not seize it. They seem a lot more interested in his personal storage devices. He seems to have a lot of data at home, not illegal (possibly) but I am wondering what it all might be. The cops have a lot of looking around ahead of them. Seems awful worried for a guy who claims to be innocent. I am wondering why he seems so sure he will be charged that he is building a legal defense fund before being arrested. Sadly we have nothing like the EFF here that could help me in this case by legal assistance, so i'm on my own and require a good lawyer. Thus i'm accepting donations for my legal expenses which i expect to be around 5000-1 EUR. So you know how much it costs to defend a case with unknown charges and without knowing if you will be arrested yet?!?!?! This whole thing sounds flakier with every new detail. Steven Naslund -Original Message- From: Eugen Leitl [mailto:eu...@leitl.org] Sent: Friday, November 30, 2012 1:25 AM To: NANOG list Subject: Re: [tor-talk] William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if you can. - Forwarded message from Asad Haider a...@asadhaider.co.uk - From: Asad Haider a...@asadhaider.co.uk Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2012 19:37:24 + To: tor-t...@lists.torproject.org Subject: Re: [tor-talk] William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if you can. Reply-To: tor-t...@lists.torproject.org William will be posting a statement soon which will explain everything that's happened and give a detailed account of events, along with evidence including pictures showing the aftermath of the raid in his apartment, as well as copies of the warrant and inventory of seized items. He runs a large ISP in Austria and is a well respected member of the community, a lot of us have already sent in donations. His blog is https://rdns.im/ and I'm guessing the statement will be posted on there, I'll send everyone a link once it's finished being written. On 29 November 2012 19:22, Eugen Leitl eu...@leitl.org wrote: - Forwarded message from Emily Ozols win...@team-metro.net - From: Emily Ozols win...@team-metro.net Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2012 01:14:08 +1100 To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if you can. Hi, I gotta ask and I'm sure someone would if I didn't, but how do we know this guy is legit? He's jumped up on a forum saying, Hey, police raided me, help. gib mone plz and failed to provide and reason as to how he's real and not just making it up.
RE: [tor-talk] William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if you can.
Well, in that case I am really worried that the cops might charge me with a crime. They took my computers and are looking at them. I did not do anything wrong but just in case they decide to charge me with a crime, please send me some money. Thanks, Steven Naslund -Original Message- From: Warren Bailey [mailto:wbai...@satelliteintelligencegroup.com] Sent: Friday, November 30, 2012 4:12 PM To: Naslund, Steve; NANOG list Subject: Re: [tor-talk] William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if you can. When is the last time you were arrested, or even in a legal situation which required your attention as a defendant? It seems pretty straight forward, but I can assure you this guy is getting very little sleep and his heart is beating out of his chest. Granted this entire situation is taking place in a legal venue which I have no understanding of (The EU obviously does things differently). I think it was pretty risky to consider running a Tor node, much less being involved in running multiple nodes. This entire situation is beginning to read like a Kim DotCom (or Schmitz for those of us who worked for him at some point) novel, where an outside force directed a local LEA to perform some kind of raid to get someone's attention. This was obviously not a helicopter raid with SWAT, ala RapidShare, but I hope you get the point. This guy is sweating bullets because he has no idea what is going to happen next (in my humble opinion), so his rational thought process and/or even discussing when he will return the funds donated is a pre-mature at best. Just my .02. On 11/30/12 1:30 PM, Naslund, Steve snasl...@medline.com wrote: WAIT A SECOND HERE!?!? I just read below that this guy runs a large ISP in Austria. I thought his Tor node was hosted with an external provider. If he runs the ISP, why would he not host his own server in house? I suppose there are reasons but I can't think of one, especially if you feel so strongly about this being your right. He talks about moving it to another ISP in the article interviewing him. How about moving it to the large ISP you run? If he runs a large ISP he must not be very good at it if he needs our donations to help him defend himself from a crime he has not been charged with yet. Most of the guys I know that run large ISPs have legal guys available to them. They could also come up with 1EUR if necessary. What is he going to do with this money if no charges are filed and they give his gear back? If he believes that he is innocent of any crime then he should be confident they won't find anything to charge him with, right? If convicted i could face up to 6 years in jail, of course i do not want that and i also want to try to set a legal base for running Tor exit nodes in Austria or even the EU. Six years in jail for what? They didn't arrest you yet. How do you know what the charges are? The cops must not be too worried about the Tor node if they did not seize it. They seem a lot more interested in his personal storage devices. He seems to have a lot of data at home, not illegal (possibly) but I am wondering what it all might be. The cops have a lot of looking around ahead of them. Seems awful worried for a guy who claims to be innocent. I am wondering why he seems so sure he will be charged that he is building a legal defense fund before being arrested. Sadly we have nothing like the EFF here that could help me in this case by legal assistance, so i'm on my own and require a good lawyer. Thus i'm accepting donations for my legal expenses which i expect to be around 5000-1 EUR. So you know how much it costs to defend a case with unknown charges and without knowing if you will be arrested yet?!?!?! This whole thing sounds flakier with every new detail. Steven Naslund -Original Message- From: Eugen Leitl [mailto:eu...@leitl.org] Sent: Friday, November 30, 2012 1:25 AM To: NANOG list Subject: Re: [tor-talk] William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if you can. - Forwarded message from Asad Haider a...@asadhaider.co.uk - From: Asad Haider a...@asadhaider.co.uk Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2012 19:37:24 + To: tor-t...@lists.torproject.org Subject: Re: [tor-talk] William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if you can. Reply-To: tor-t...@lists.torproject.org William will be posting a statement soon which will explain everything that's happened and give a detailed account of events, along with evidence including pictures showing the aftermath of the raid in his apartment, as well as copies of the warrant and inventory of seized items. He runs a large ISP in Austria and is a well respected member of the community, a lot of us have already sent in donations. His blog is https://rdns.im/ and I'm guessing the statement will be posted on there, I'll send everyone a link once it's finished being written. On 29 November 2012
Re: William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if you can.
I didn't say anything about trying to run away. That probably won't accomplish a whole lot in the long run. But when all of your bank accounts and credit cards are frozen, and your house is a crime scene, at least you have the means to rent a hotel room, contact family/lawyers, etc. And no, I'm not OK with people keeping any money that was donated for a specific purpose in excess of what was actually used. You'd hope that he'd be a good guy about it and give back the portion that wasn't used, or clearly state that any excess will go to charity or something. However, there's no such guarantee (short of doing it through a trust fund with his lawyer), and just like any philanthropic venture, it's up to each donor choose when/if they'll help out. It's just like Kickstarter -- you hope to get something good out of it, but if it bombs, well... you pay your money and you take your chances. - Pete On 11/30/2012 05:02 PM, Naslund, Steve wrote: OK, there must be a lot more paranoid people out there than I thought there were. I personally don't have a runaway kit stashed away. I will get right on that. So when that mouth breather cop won't believe you are innocent, your answer is to grab your stuff and go on the lamb for awhile? I am sure he will let you out to go to the bank, get your stuff, and leave town. I think you have seen way to many movies. So if the cops show up at his door tomorrow and say Here's all your stuff back, there was no evidence of a crime., you are OK with this guys keeping the defense fund? Steve -Original Message- From: Peter Kristolaitis [mailto:alte...@alter3d.ca] Sent: Friday, November 30, 2012 3:53 PM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if you can. On 11/30/2012 04:01 PM, Naslund, Steve wrote: I am a little concerned that this guy keeps a safe deposit box with a burner phone and cash around. Is he a CIA agent? :) Anyone who DOESN'T have such things stashed away somewhere is, IMHO, incredibly naive and taking on quite a large amount of risk. The likelihood (and hope) is that you'll never need it. But on the off chance that you get f***ed by the legal system because of some power hungry, mouth-breather cop who can't/won't understand that you've done nothing wrong -- or worse, that you're easily provably within the law, but he believes that you're not and drags you through the process anyways -- you'll be very happy that you stashed away that old unlocked cell phone, old laptop, change of clothes and cash. I'm a (legal) firearms owner... up here in Canada, where some previous governments enacted extreme anti-gun legislation, that pretty much means that if I so much as sneeze in a way that a cop doesn't like, I can have my life ruined pretty damned fast (not quite, but really close). I wouldn't bet against me having an excrement-hitting-the-oscillator stash like this guy does. ;) (Note: I don't mean to imply that all cops are power hungry mouth-breathers intent on destroying the lives of citizens. Most cops are fundamentally good people and do a great job. But like every other profession, there ARE bad cops out there, and it's within the realm of possibility that you'll deal with one of them one day.) Why would I donate to his legal defense when he has not been charged yet? A little premature, no? If you think that legal costs in a criminal case only start when you've been formally charged, you're grossly misinformed. At what point you personally decide to donate is one thing, but implying that someone doesn't need a defense fund prior to charges being laid is a bit naive about how the process works. - Pete
Re: William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if you can.
On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 4:46 PM, Jimmy Hess mysi...@gmail.com wrote: On 11/29/12, William Herrin b...@herrin.us wrote: If the computer at IP:port:timestamp transmitted child porn, a warrant for all computers is also too broad. Computers which use said IP As you know, there may always be some uncertainty about which computer was using a certain IP address at a certain time -- the computer assigned that address might have been off, with a deviant Or more likely behind a NAT device where the address which presents is the NAT device. But the police won't know that until they search. Until they search they have no factual basis for the presumptions either that more than one computer was associated with the activity or that it isn't possible to readily identify which computer was involved. That Tor node was probably on a static IP address and was probably on the same static IP address at the time of the alleged activity. Reasonable suspicion doesn't mean Bob thinks you did it, it means that there's a trail of facts which lead *directly* to the evidence you seek permission to seize. The trail to child porn doesn't include the right to seize the stack of John Denver music and while it might include the right to search the shelf of DVDs it doesn't include the right to seize the ones produced by Disney. The right to search your computer and the right to seize it are not at all the same thing. Practically speaking, right now the police are going to seize all your computers. But keep watching. Some time in the next decade or two warrants will start to get quashed for failing to specify (by parameters) *which* computer they were looking for. As computers become more central to our lives it will probably come out that they have the right to duplicate your hard drives and other read/write media but don't have a right to take the originals unless they observe warrant-covered material *on* the computer while searching. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William D. Herrin her...@dirtside.com b...@herrin.us 3005 Crane Dr. .. Web: http://bill.herrin.us/ Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
RE: William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if you can.
Guess who has power over the networks and Internet. We do and power corrupts us too. There are some bad guy ISPs and engineers out there too. Just because you are running a Tor server to allow for privacy protection does not mean you were never doing anything illegal through it. I know this is not true in all cases but a lot of times the guy who screams the most about privacy has something to hide. Do you like getting phone calls with blocked callerID? Do you like getting anonymous SPAM? Do you mind having anonymously sourced pics of your kids going out over the internet? One guys privacy is sometimes an invasion of mine. If this guy is so distraught over this case maybe he should have ensured that he had the resources to defend himself before he put up the multiple exit nodes. There are test cases all the time, but if you want to be the test case you should be prepared. How many of us have killed an open mail relay (did you have a warrant before you interrupted that good Samaritan providing that free mail server to the poor downtrodden email-less masses...you are not even a cop and did not have a judge review your actions..how dare you...)? Steven Naslund -Original Message- From: Eric Wieling [mailto:ewiel...@nyigc.com] Sent: Friday, November 30, 2012 4:12 PM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: RE: William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if you can. -Original Message- From: Peter Kristolaitis [mailto:alte...@alter3d.ca] Sent: Friday, November 30, 2012 4:53 PM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if you can. (Note: I don't mean to imply that all cops are power hungry mouth-breathers intent on destroying the lives of citizens. Most cops are fundamentally good people and do a great job. But like every other profession, there ARE bad cops out there, and it's within the realm of possibility that you'll deal with one of them one day.) Power corrupts and cops have power.What scares me is that there is no way *I* can tell the difference between a cop who accepts free coffee from the local café and a cop who will lie to get what they want.
RE: William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if you can.
OK, I get it. I think my BS detector is set to high today. I am just really suspicious that this guy that runs an large ISP can't at least wait until there are charges before all the uproar. I think if the cops came and seized my home PCs right now I would probably give them the time to look at them, realize there is nothing there, and give them back to me before freaking out completely. I would be wondering what was going on but probably not raising a defense fund. Steve -Original Message- From: Peter Kristolaitis [mailto:alte...@alter3d.ca] Sent: Friday, November 30, 2012 4:21 PM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if you can. I didn't say anything about trying to run away. That probably won't accomplish a whole lot in the long run. But when all of your bank accounts and credit cards are frozen, and your house is a crime scene, at least you have the means to rent a hotel room, contact family/lawyers, etc. And no, I'm not OK with people keeping any money that was donated for a specific purpose in excess of what was actually used. You'd hope that he'd be a good guy about it and give back the portion that wasn't used, or clearly state that any excess will go to charity or something. However, there's no such guarantee (short of doing it through a trust fund with his lawyer), and just like any philanthropic venture, it's up to each donor choose when/if they'll help out. It's just like Kickstarter -- you hope to get something good out of it, but if it bombs, well... you pay your money and you take your chances. - Pete On 11/30/2012 05:02 PM, Naslund, Steve wrote: OK, there must be a lot more paranoid people out there than I thought there were. I personally don't have a runaway kit stashed away. I will get right on that. So when that mouth breather cop won't believe you are innocent, your answer is to grab your stuff and go on the lamb for awhile? I am sure he will let you out to go to the bank, get your stuff, and leave town. I think you have seen way to many movies. So if the cops show up at his door tomorrow and say Here's all your stuff back, there was no evidence of a crime., you are OK with this guys keeping the defense fund? Steve -Original Message- From: Peter Kristolaitis [mailto:alte...@alter3d.ca] Sent: Friday, November 30, 2012 3:53 PM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if you can. On 11/30/2012 04:01 PM, Naslund, Steve wrote: I am a little concerned that this guy keeps a safe deposit box with a burner phone and cash around. Is he a CIA agent? :) Anyone who DOESN'T have such things stashed away somewhere is, IMHO, incredibly naive and taking on quite a large amount of risk. The likelihood (and hope) is that you'll never need it. But on the off chance that you get f***ed by the legal system because of some power hungry, mouth-breather cop who can't/won't understand that you've done nothing wrong -- or worse, that you're easily provably within the law, but he believes that you're not and drags you through the process anyways -- you'll be very happy that you stashed away that old unlocked cell phone, old laptop, change of clothes and cash. I'm a (legal) firearms owner... up here in Canada, where some previous governments enacted extreme anti-gun legislation, that pretty much means that if I so much as sneeze in a way that a cop doesn't like, I can have my life ruined pretty damned fast (not quite, but really close). I wouldn't bet against me having an excrement-hitting-the-oscillator stash like this guy does. ;) (Note: I don't mean to imply that all cops are power hungry mouth-breathers intent on destroying the lives of citizens. Most cops are fundamentally good people and do a great job. But like every other profession, there ARE bad cops out there, and it's within the realm of possibility that you'll deal with one of them one day.) Why would I donate to his legal defense when he has not been charged yet? A little premature, no? If you think that legal costs in a criminal case only start when you've been formally charged, you're grossly misinformed. At what point you personally decide to donate is one thing, but implying that someone doesn't need a defense fund prior to charges being laid is a bit naive about how the process works. - Pete
RE: William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if you can.
I might be reading this the wrong way but it looked to me like the cops raided his home and the Tor server is hosted off site with an ISP. That is what is bugging me so much. The cops raided his house, not the location of the server. If they had tracked the server by its IP it would have led to the hoster, not his home. They could have gotten his address as the account holder but the ISP would have known that the Tor server was at their site not his home. The IP would not track to his residence. Something is not the full story here or I am misreading his interview. I have seen some of the warrants due to child porn cases. They tend to be very sweeping and usually specify recordable media and data processing equipment. That is admittedly broad but the cops usually do not have forensic computer guys on site so they try to grab it all. It is not right but that is how it currently works. Anything else requires the expertise on site to search the equipment where it is. Most cops don't know a PC from a router, from a switch. It all goes. Steven Naslund -Original Message- From: William Herrin [mailto:b...@herrin.us] Sent: Friday, November 30, 2012 4:21 PM To: Jimmy Hess Cc: NANOG list Subject: Re: William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if you can. On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 4:46 PM, Jimmy Hess mysi...@gmail.com wrote: On 11/29/12, William Herrin b...@herrin.us wrote: If the computer at IP:port:timestamp transmitted child porn, a warrant for all computers is also too broad. Computers which use said IP As you know, there may always be some uncertainty about which computer was using a certain IP address at a certain time -- the computer assigned that address might have been off, with a deviant Or more likely behind a NAT device where the address which presents is the NAT device. But the police won't know that until they search. Until they search they have no factual basis for the presumptions either that more than one computer was associated with the activity or that it isn't possible to readily identify which computer was involved. That Tor node was probably on a static IP address and was probably on the same static IP address at the time of the alleged activity. Reasonable suspicion doesn't mean Bob thinks you did it, it means that there's a trail of facts which lead *directly* to the evidence you seek permission to seize. The trail to child porn doesn't include the right to seize the stack of John Denver music and while it might include the right to search the shelf of DVDs it doesn't include the right to seize the ones produced by Disney. The right to search your computer and the right to seize it are not at all the same thing. Practically speaking, right now the police are going to seize all your computers. But keep watching. Some time in the next decade or two warrants will start to get quashed for failing to specify (by parameters) *which* computer they were looking for. As computers become more central to our lives it will probably come out that they have the right to duplicate your hard drives and other read/write media but don't have a right to take the originals unless they observe warrant-covered material *on* the computer while searching. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William D. Herrin her...@dirtside.com b...@herrin.us 3005 Crane Dr. .. Web: http://bill.herrin.us/ Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
Re: William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if
OK, I get it. I think my BS detector is set to high today. I am just really suspicious that this guy that runs an large ISP can't at least wait until there are charges before all the uproar. I think if the cops came and seized my home PCs right now I would probably give them the time to look at them, realize there is nothing there, and give them back to me before freaking out completely. I would be wondering what was going on but probably not raising a defense fund. You do realize that it is completely common for looking at them to take months. This is a big thing to people in this community, because the police will happily come and confiscate the tools you need to do your job, and not return them for months, years, or sometimes even ever, even in cases where it seems fairly straightforward to identify that the person has done nothing wrong. The police, and many of the policies surrounding this issue, often assume that the party is guilty, and also assume that seizure isn't a significant professional issue. ... JG -- Joe Greco - sol.net Network Services - Milwaukee, WI - http://www.sol.net We call it the 'one bite at the apple' rule. Give me one chance [and] then I won't contact you again. - Direct Marketing Ass'n position on e-mail spam(CNN) With 24 million small businesses in the US alone, that's way too many apples.
Re: William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if you can.
I can't help but wonder who would send money to same random person based on a story that may or may not be true. Were these people sucked in by Nigeria scams as well? Not only that, but the list of people who proclaimed their innocence only to be proven guilty is very long. I can't vouch for countries outside of the USA, but here at least we don't get subpoenas on a whim. They are usually part of a very long drawn-out investigation, and they usually are for a very good reason. Jason On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 4:37 PM, Naslund, Steve snasl...@medline.comwrote: OK, I get it. I think my BS detector is set to high today. I am just really suspicious that this guy that runs an large ISP can't at least wait until there are charges before all the uproar. I think if the cops came and seized my home PCs right now I would probably give them the time to look at them, realize there is nothing there, and give them back to me before freaking out completely. I would be wondering what was going on but probably not raising a defense fund. Steve -Original Message- From: Peter Kristolaitis [mailto:alte...@alter3d.ca] Sent: Friday, November 30, 2012 4:21 PM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if you can. I didn't say anything about trying to run away. That probably won't accomplish a whole lot in the long run. But when all of your bank accounts and credit cards are frozen, and your house is a crime scene, at least you have the means to rent a hotel room, contact family/lawyers, etc. And no, I'm not OK with people keeping any money that was donated for a specific purpose in excess of what was actually used. You'd hope that he'd be a good guy about it and give back the portion that wasn't used, or clearly state that any excess will go to charity or something. However, there's no such guarantee (short of doing it through a trust fund with his lawyer), and just like any philanthropic venture, it's up to each donor choose when/if they'll help out. It's just like Kickstarter -- you hope to get something good out of it, but if it bombs, well... you pay your money and you take your chances. - Pete On 11/30/2012 05:02 PM, Naslund, Steve wrote: OK, there must be a lot more paranoid people out there than I thought there were. I personally don't have a runaway kit stashed away. I will get right on that. So when that mouth breather cop won't believe you are innocent, your answer is to grab your stuff and go on the lamb for awhile? I am sure he will let you out to go to the bank, get your stuff, and leave town. I think you have seen way to many movies. So if the cops show up at his door tomorrow and say Here's all your stuff back, there was no evidence of a crime., you are OK with this guys keeping the defense fund? Steve -Original Message- From: Peter Kristolaitis [mailto:alte...@alter3d.ca] Sent: Friday, November 30, 2012 3:53 PM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if you can. On 11/30/2012 04:01 PM, Naslund, Steve wrote: I am a little concerned that this guy keeps a safe deposit box with a burner phone and cash around. Is he a CIA agent? :) Anyone who DOESN'T have such things stashed away somewhere is, IMHO, incredibly naive and taking on quite a large amount of risk. The likelihood (and hope) is that you'll never need it. But on the off chance that you get f***ed by the legal system because of some power hungry, mouth-breather cop who can't/won't understand that you've done nothing wrong -- or worse, that you're easily provably within the law, but he believes that you're not and drags you through the process anyways -- you'll be very happy that you stashed away that old unlocked cell phone, old laptop, change of clothes and cash. I'm a (legal) firearms owner... up here in Canada, where some previous governments enacted extreme anti-gun legislation, that pretty much means that if I so much as sneeze in a way that a cop doesn't like, I can have my life ruined pretty damned fast (not quite, but really close). I wouldn't bet against me having an excrement-hitting-the-oscillator stash like this guy does. ;) (Note: I don't mean to imply that all cops are power hungry mouth-breathers intent on destroying the lives of citizens. Most cops are fundamentally good people and do a great job. But like every other profession, there ARE bad cops out there, and it's within the realm of possibility that you'll deal with one of them one day.) Why would I donate to his legal defense when he has not been charged yet? A little premature, no? If you think that legal costs in a criminal case only start when you've been formally charged, you're grossly misinformed. At what point you personally decide to donate is one thing, but implying that someone
RE: William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if
I understand that they could look at them for many months. In the meantime, my life will go on. I don't believe there is a whole lot you can do about it. If they take too long, I will consider asking a lawyer to look into getting my stuff back but it would have to be expensive stuff to make the lawyer worthwhile. I am guessing I would buy a new PC (they did not seize this guys bank account or credit cards), I probably don't need 100 Terabytes of storage so my costs are not so bad. My message to the cops and my lawyer would be charge me or lets clear this up. There are laws to protect you from the government from taking your stuff in an unfair manner if you want to go that route. If there is a misunderstanding I will talk to the cops all they want. If I feel I need representation, I will get some. If I am really innocent, I doubt they could ask me too much that would upset me. My guess is they would rather move on in their case instead of spinning their wheels with me. I have thought it was rough on people to have all their stuff seized and I suppose you could try and collect some damages if you bought new gear while your stuff was being held (if for no reason) but I think that very often the cops seize the right stuff. I would really like a poll since we have a lot of network professionals on here, exactly how many of us have had something seized by the cops with NO CAUSE. Anybody, I would like to hear from a real life case. Sorry people...most cops want to put the right people in jail and are not trying to violate your rights. There are bad eggs but that is why we have judges. When I hear someone I don't know say they are innocent and the cops say they are guilty, I tend to believe the cop. Everyone in jail says he is innocent too. BTW - in this case, the cops have not even said this guy is guilty of anything yet. Steven Naslund -Original Message- From: Joe Greco [mailto:jgr...@ns.sol.net] Sent: Friday, November 30, 2012 4:49 PM To: Naslund, Steve Cc: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if OK, I get it. I think my BS detector is set to high today. I am just really suspicious that this guy that runs an large ISP can't at least wait until there are charges before all the uproar. I think if the cops came and seized my home PCs right now I would probably give them the time to look at them, realize there is nothing there, and give them back to me before freaking out completely. I would be wondering what was going on but probably not raising a defense fund. You do realize that it is completely common for looking at them to take months. This is a big thing to people in this community, because the police will happily come and confiscate the tools you need to do your job, and not return them for months, years, or sometimes even ever, even in cases where it seems fairly straightforward to identify that the person has done nothing wrong. The police, and many of the policies surrounding this issue, often assume that the party is guilty, and also assume that seizure isn't a significant professional issue. ... JG -- Joe Greco - sol.net Network Services - Milwaukee, WI - http://www.sol.net We call it the 'one bite at the apple' rule. Give me one chance [and] then I won't contact you again. - Direct Marketing Ass'n position on e-mail spam(CNN) With 24 million small businesses in the US alone, that's way too many apples.
Re: William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if you can.
Naslund, Steve wrote: I might be reading this the wrong way but it looked to me like the cops raided his home and the Tor server is hosted off site with an ISP. That is what is bugging me so much. The cops raided his house, not the location of the server. If they had tracked the server by its IP it would have led to the hoster, not his home. They could have gotten his address as the account holder but the ISP would have known that the Tor server was at their site not his home. The IP would not track to his residence. Something is not the full story here or I am misreading his interview. How about: Police have seen CP and have logs from Additionally, I was accused of sharing (and possibly producing) child pornography on a clearnet forum via an image hosting site that was probably tapped. Police look at IP addresses that have accessed the images for those that are within their jurisdiction. Police find an address within a block that is registered to Wiliam. Police raid William and receive an education on TOR exit nodes on servers in Poland. Maybe? Why wouldn't the IP address have led to William? --Michael
Re: William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if you can.
PROCEDURE FOR SEIZURE OF COMPUTERS AND RELATED DEVICES This search warrant covers and controls the procedure for searching: (1) electronic or computer devices, related equipment or media which has been authorized to be seized pursuant to this warrant on the basis that it is contraband or a direct instrumentality used to commit the crime, and (2) electronic or computer devices, related equipment or media for which seizure has not been specifically authorized. Agents are authorized to seize and remove from the premises such electronic or computer device, including computer system input/output (I/O) peripheral devices, software and media so that a qualified computer expert can accurately search for and retrieve the data in a laboratory or other controlled environment when this is necessary in order to search and retrieve the data or information authorized to be searched for and seized pursuant to this warrant. Agents and computer experts working with agents are authorized to seize the relevant system software (operating systems, interfaces and hardware drivers), any applications software which may have been used to create the data (whether stored on hard drives or on external media), as well as all related instruction manuals or other documentation and data security devices (including but not limited to passwords, keycards and dongles) in order to facilitate the authorized search. In addition, if necessary for data retrieval, they are authorized to reconfigure the system in order to accurately search for and retrieve the evidence stored therein. If, after inspecting the I/O devices, software, documentation and data security devices, the analyst determines that these items are no longer necessary to search for, retrieve and preserve the data, and if the software, documentation and devices have not been seized pursuant to the warrant as contraband or instrumentalities of the crime, the items shall be returned within a reasonable time. https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:HJ9PtsbdL3kJ:www.fjc.gov/public/pdf.nsf/lookup/ElecDi31.rtf/%24file/ElecDi31.rtf+cd=1hl=enct=clnkgl=us Example of an actual warrant: https://www.eff.org/sites/default/files/filenode/inresearchBC/EXHIBIT-A.pdf Not a lawyer. On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 6:25 PM, Randy Bush ra...@psg.com wrote: as this thread has moved firmly to legal opinions, i now scan it for postings by folk i know are actual lawyers and whack the rest. if you are a lawyer, but not well known as such, please say so right up front in your message. randy
RE: William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if
On Fri, 30 Nov 2012, Naslund, Steve wrote: My message to the cops and my lawyer would be charge me or lets clear this up. There are laws to protect you from the government from taking your stuff in an unfair manner if you want to go that route. If there is a misunderstanding I will talk to the cops all they want. If I feel I need representation, I will get some. If I am really innocent, I doubt they could ask me too much that would upset me. My guess is they would rather move on in their case instead of spinning their wheels with me. http://www.sjgames.com/SS/ -Dan
Re: William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if you can.
Not a lawyer. than stfu with the legal crap
Re: William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if you can.
Not only that, but the list of people who proclaimed their innocence only to be proven guilty is very long. I can't vouch for countries outside of the USA, but here at least we don't get subpoenas on a whim. They are usually part of a very long drawn-out investigation, and they usually are for a very good reason. Usually, but not always. I've seen a number of subpoenas and a few search warrants that were: Ridiculously broad Overreaching Really stretched the concept of probable cause As in all else, not all LEOs are good actors. Owen
Re: [tor-talk] William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if you can.
On 11/30/12 5:15 PM, Naslund, Steve wrote: Well, in that case I am really worried that the cops might charge me with a crime. They took my computers and are looking at them. I did not do anything wrong but just in case they decide to charge me with a crime, please send me some money. As well you could be, because you appear to have the same name as a registered sex offender: http://www.sexoffenderin.com/reg110698/steven_w_naslundmugshot.htm On 11/29/12 6:39 PM, Naslund, Steve wrote: # As a long time service provider ... # # my many years of experience in engineering ARPANET, MILNET, and the # Internet I would have to guess that most Tor servers are used for no # good much more than they are protecting anyone's privacy. I'm surprised that medline.com is offering network access as an ISP? Admittedly, you began posting to NANOG in 2002 as: Network Engineering Manager Hosting.com - Chicago While I was involved in engineering NSFnet and the Internet and was an original member of NANOG, but I don't remember you. Of course, I'm notoriously bad with names. OTOH, I have met, remember, and greatly respect the Tor engineers.
Re: [tor-talk] William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if you can.
As well you could be, because you appear to have the same name as a registered sex offender: ok children. can we pull ourselves up out of the mud, please? randy
Re: [tor-talk] William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if you can.
On Nov 30, 2012, at 7:20 PM, William Allen Simpson wrote: As well you could be, because you appear to have the same name as a registered sex offender: Hey, that's a fun game: http://www.sexoffenderin.com/reg77161/william_a_simpsonmugshot.htm
Re: William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if
Those who do not remember history... On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 5:23 PM, goe...@anime.net wrote: On Fri, 30 Nov 2012, Naslund, Steve wrote: My message to the cops and my lawyer would be charge me or lets clear this up. There are laws to protect you from the government from taking your stuff in an unfair manner if you want to go that route. If there is a misunderstanding I will talk to the cops all they want. If I feel I need representation, I will get some. If I am really innocent, I doubt they could ask me too much that would upset me. My guess is they would rather move on in their case instead of spinning their wheels with me. http://www.sjgames.com/SS/ -Dan -- -george william herbert george.herb...@gmail.com
Re: [tor-talk] William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if you can.
am Freitag, 30. November 2012 um 22:30 schrieb NANOG list: WAIT A SECOND HERE!?!? I just read below that this guy runs a large ISP in Austria. The info from tor-talk was somewhat misleading. William Weber is not the owner of the ISP. He works there as an administrator. So he runs it (maybe) technically, not economically. See eg: http://www.lowendtalk.com/discussion/2641/we-colo-your-rpi-for-free where his boss ExPl0ReR weighs in. And large is quite relative. This info http://edis.businesscard.at/ says they have 13 employees. It may be outdated though. Regards, Jutta
William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if you can.
I'm not William and a friend pasted a link on IRC to me. I'm going to send him a few bucks because I know how it feels to get blindsided by the police on one random day and your world is turned upside down. Source: http://www.lowendtalk.com/discussion/6283/raided-for-running-a-tor-exit-accepting-donations-for-legal-expenses From the URL: Yes, it happened to me now as well - Yesterday i got raided for someone sharing child pornography over one of my Tor exits. I'm good so far, not in jail, but all my computers and hardware have been confiscated. (20 computers, 100TB+ storage, My Tablets/Consoles/Phones) If convicted i could face up to 6 years in jail, of course i do not want that and i also want to try to set a legal base for running Tor exit nodes in Austria or even the EU. Sadly we have nothing like the EFF here that could help me in this case by legal assistance, so i'm on my own and require a good lawyer. Thus i'm accepting donations for my legal expenses which i expect to be around 5000-1 EUR. If you can i would appreciate if you could donate a bit (every amount helps, even the smallest) either by PayPal (any currency is ok): https://paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclickhosted_button_id=2Q4LZNBBD7EH4 Or by Bank Transfer (EUR only please): Holder: William Weber Bank: EasyBank AG (Vienna, Austria) Account: 20011351213 Bank sort number: 14200 IBAN: AT031420020011351213 BIC: EASYATW1 I will try to pay them back when i'm out of this (or even before) but i can obviously not guarantee this, please keep this in mind. This money will only be used for legal expenses related to this case. If you have any questions or want to donate by another way (MoneyBookers, Webmoney, Bitcoin, Liberty Reserve, Neteller) feel free to send me a mail (will...@william.si) or a PM, or contact me in LET IRC. Thanks! William -- --C The dumber people think you are, the more surprised they're going to be when you kill them. - Sir William Clayton
Re: William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if you can.
If you run Tor, then you should probably accept that it might be used for activity that you don't approve of or even is in violation of the law. I'm not saying Tor is good or bad, just that if you're using it you probably know what you're getting into. In order to catch someone in a criminal case, most law enforcement will certainly take whatever they think could be used as evidence, perform forensic analysis on it, and retain it as long as they think necessary. Depending on how well your laws are written, you might be not be protected from them discovering other activity that is outside the scope and bringing a separate criminal case against you directly. Got any pirated music or movies? On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 8:04 AM, Chris cal...@gmail.com wrote: I'm not William and a friend pasted a link on IRC to me. I'm going to send him a few bucks because I know how it feels to get blindsided by the police on one random day and your world is turned upside down. Source: http://www.lowendtalk.com/discussion/6283/raided-for-running-a-tor-exit-accepting-donations-for-legal-expenses From the URL: Yes, it happened to me now as well - Yesterday i got raided for someone sharing child pornography over one of my Tor exits. I'm good so far, not in jail, but all my computers and hardware have been confiscated. (20 computers, 100TB+ storage, My Tablets/Consoles/Phones) If convicted i could face up to 6 years in jail, of course i do not want that and i also want to try to set a legal base for running Tor exit nodes in Austria or even the EU. Sadly we have nothing like the EFF here that could help me in this case by legal assistance, so i'm on my own and require a good lawyer. Thus i'm accepting donations for my legal expenses which i expect to be around 5000-1 EUR. If you can i would appreciate if you could donate a bit (every amount helps, even the smallest) either by PayPal (any currency is ok): https://paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclickhosted_button_id=2Q4LZNBBD7EH4 Or by Bank Transfer (EUR only please): Holder: William Weber Bank: EasyBank AG (Vienna, Austria) Account: 20011351213 Bank sort number: 14200 IBAN: AT031420020011351213 BIC: EASYATW1 I will try to pay them back when i'm out of this (or even before) but i can obviously not guarantee this, please keep this in mind. This money will only be used for legal expenses related to this case. If you have any questions or want to donate by another way (MoneyBookers, Webmoney, Bitcoin, Liberty Reserve, Neteller) feel free to send me a mail (will...@william.si) or a PM, or contact me in LET IRC. Thanks! William -- --C The dumber people think you are, the more surprised they're going to be when you kill them. - Sir William Clayton -- Ray Patrick Soucy Network Engineer University of Maine System T: 207-561-3526 F: 207-561-3531 MaineREN, Maine's Research and Education Network www.maineren.net
Re: William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if you can.
Back in the early days of the public internet we didn't require any id to create an account, just that you found a way to pay us. We had anonymous accts some of whom dropped by personally to pay their bill, some said hello but I usually didn't know their names and that's how they wanted it, I'd answer hello ACCOUNT, whatever their login was if I recognized them. Some mailed in something, a mail order, even currency tho that was rare but it did happen, or had someone else drop by to pay in cash (that is, no idea if they were local.) LEO occasionally served a warrant for information, usually child porn biz (more than just accessing child porn, selling it) tho I don't remember any anonymous accts being involved. I never expected to be held accountable for anyone's behavior unless I was knowingly involved somehow (just the usual caveat.) LEO never showed any particular interest in the fact that we were ok with anonymous accounts. If I was made aware of illegal activities we'd shut them off, didn't really happen much, maybe some credible hacking complaint on occasion. It's funny, it's all illusion like show business. It's not hard to set up anonymous service, crap, just drop in at any wi-fi hotspot, many just ask you to click that you accept their TCs and you're on. Would they raid them, I was just using one at a major hospital this week that was just like that, if someone used that for child porn etc? But I guess stick your nose out and say you're specifically offering anon accts and watch out I guess. -- -Barry Shein The World | b...@theworld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 800-THE-WRLD| Dial-Up: US, PR, Canada Software Tool Die| Public Access Internet | SINCE 1989 *oo*
Re: William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if you can.
On Nov 29, 2012, at 11:17 , Barry Shein b...@world.std.com wrote: Back in the early days of the public internet we didn't require any id to create an account, just that you found a way to pay us. We had anonymous accts some of whom dropped by personally to pay their bill, some said hello but I usually didn't know their names and that's how they wanted it, I'd answer hello ACCOUNT, whatever their login was if I recognized them. Some mailed in something, a mail order, even currency tho that was rare but it did happen, or had someone else drop by to pay in cash (that is, no idea if they were local.) LEO occasionally served a warrant for information, usually child porn biz (more than just accessing child porn, selling it) tho I don't remember any anonymous accts being involved. Mere conduit defense. (Please do not anyone mention common carrier status or the like, ISPs are _not_ common carriers.) I never expected to be held accountable for anyone's behavior unless I was knowingly involved somehow (just the usual caveat.) LEO never showed any particular interest in the fact that we were ok with anonymous accounts. If I was made aware of illegal activities we'd shut them off, didn't really happen much, maybe some credible hacking complaint on occasion. How do you shut off a Tor account? It's funny, it's all illusion like show business. It's not hard to set up anonymous service, crap, just drop in at any wi-fi hotspot, many just ask you to click that you accept their TCs and you're on. Would they raid them, I was just using one at a major hospital this week that was just like that, if someone used that for child porn etc? But I guess stick your nose out and say you're specifically offering anon accts and watch out I guess. Do you think if the police found out child pr0n was being served from a starbux they wouldn't confiscate the equipment from that store? -- TTFN, patrick
Re: William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if you can.
On November 29, 2012 at 11:45 patr...@ianai.net (Patrick W. Gilmore) wrote: On Nov 29, 2012, at 11:17 , Barry Shein b...@world.std.com wrote: It's funny, it's all illusion like show business. It's not hard to set up anonymous service, crap, just drop in at any wi-fi hotspot, many just ask you to click that you accept their TCs and you're on. Would they raid them, I was just using one at a major hospital this week that was just like that, if someone used that for child porn etc? But I guess stick your nose out and say you're specifically offering anon accts and watch out I guess. Do you think if the police found out child pr0n was being served from a starbux they wouldn't confiscate the equipment from that store? I dunno, has it ever happened? I mean confiscated the store's equipment, I assume that's what you mean. Is that because no one has ever been involved with child porn etc from a Starbucks? Does that seem likely? I don't know, really. And why would confiscating it from one location address the issue if they offer anonymous hotspots (I don't know if they do but whatever, there are plenty of others) at all locations and they're one company? It would seem like they'd have to confiscate the equipment at every Starbucks in their jurisdiction, which could be every one in the US for example. -b
Re: William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if you can.
On Nov 29, 2012, at 12:58 , Barry Shein b...@world.std.com wrote: On November 29, 2012 at 11:45 patr...@ianai.net (Patrick W. Gilmore) wrote: On Nov 29, 2012, at 11:17 , Barry Shein b...@world.std.com wrote: It's funny, it's all illusion like show business. It's not hard to set up anonymous service, crap, just drop in at any wi-fi hotspot, many just ask you to click that you accept their TCs and you're on. Would they raid them, I was just using one at a major hospital this week that was just like that, if someone used that for child porn etc? But I guess stick your nose out and say you're specifically offering anon accts and watch out I guess. Do you think if the police found out child pr0n was being served from a starbux they wouldn't confiscate the equipment from that store? I dunno, has it ever happened? No idea. However, I would not be the least bit surprised. In fact, I would be surprised if they failed to do so, after having proof that child pr0n was served from one. I mean confiscated the store's equipment, I assume that's what you mean. Is that because no one has ever been involved with child porn etc from a Starbucks? Does that seem likely? I don't know, really. And why would confiscating it from one location address the issue if they offer anonymous hotspots (I don't know if they do but whatever, there are plenty of others) at all locations and they're one company? It would seem like they'd have to confiscate the equipment at every Starbucks in their jurisdiction, which could be every one in the US for example. They didn't confiscate every Tor exit node in the US once they found something nefarious emanating from one. -- TTFN, patrick
Re: William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if you can.
Hi, I gotta ask and I'm sure someone would if I didn't, but how do we know this guy is legit? He's jumped up on a forum saying, Hey, police raided me, help. gib mone plz and failed to provide and reason as to how he's real and not just making it up. Maybe if there's a way to know this guy is legit, I'll help out if possible, but until then I'm just going to watch others with caution and I suggest others do as well. On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 12:04 AM, Chris cal...@gmail.com wrote: I'm not William and a friend pasted a link on IRC to me. I'm going to send him a few bucks because I know how it feels to get blindsided by the police on one random day and your world is turned upside down. Source: http://www.lowendtalk.com/discussion/6283/raided-for-running-a-tor-exit-accepting-donations-for-legal-expenses From the URL: Yes, it happened to me now as well - Yesterday i got raided for someone sharing child pornography over one of my Tor exits. I'm good so far, not in jail, but all my computers and hardware have been confiscated. (20 computers, 100TB+ storage, My Tablets/Consoles/Phones) If convicted i could face up to 6 years in jail, of course i do not want that and i also want to try to set a legal base for running Tor exit nodes in Austria or even the EU. Sadly we have nothing like the EFF here that could help me in this case by legal assistance, so i'm on my own and require a good lawyer. Thus i'm accepting donations for my legal expenses which i expect to be around 5000-1 EUR. If you can i would appreciate if you could donate a bit (every amount helps, even the smallest) either by PayPal (any currency is ok): https://paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclickhosted_button_id=2Q4LZNBBD7EH4 Or by Bank Transfer (EUR only please): Holder: William Weber Bank: EasyBank AG (Vienna, Austria) Account: 20011351213 Bank sort number: 14200 IBAN: AT031420020011351213 BIC: EASYATW1 I will try to pay them back when i'm out of this (or even before) but i can obviously not guarantee this, please keep this in mind. This money will only be used for legal expenses related to this case. If you have any questions or want to donate by another way (MoneyBookers, Webmoney, Bitcoin, Liberty Reserve, Neteller) feel free to send me a mail (will...@william.si) or a PM, or contact me in LET IRC. Thanks! William -- --C The dumber people think you are, the more surprised they're going to be when you kill them. - Sir William Clayton -- ~Em
Re: William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if you can.
On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 11:45 AM, Patrick W. Gilmore patr...@ianai.net wrote: Do you think if the police found out child pr0n was being served from a starbux they wouldn't confiscate the equipment from that store? I think if they took the cash registers too the Starbucks lawyer would be in court an hour later with a motion to quash in one hand and an offer of full cooperation in the other. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William D. Herrin her...@dirtside.com b...@herrin.us 3005 Crane Dr. .. Web: http://bill.herrin.us/ Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
Re: William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if you can.
It's difficult to compare a guy in Austria to a multi-billion dollar corporation. Here in the US, the fed has charged 3 men with involuntary manslaughter for their parts in the Gulf of Mexico Rig explosion. BP received a slap on the wrist, and a decent (to us, not them) sized fine. On 11/29/12 10:57 AM, William Herrin b...@herrin.us wrote: On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 11:45 AM, Patrick W. Gilmore patr...@ianai.net wrote: Do you think if the police found out child pr0n was being served from a starbux they wouldn't confiscate the equipment from that store? I think if they took the cash registers too the Starbucks lawyer would be in court an hour later with a motion to quash in one hand and an offer of full cooperation in the other. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William D. Herrin her...@dirtside.com b...@herrin.us 3005 Crane Dr. .. Web: http://bill.herrin.us/ Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
Re: William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if you can.
On Nov 29, 2012, at 13:57 , William Herrin b...@herrin.us wrote: On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 11:45 AM, Patrick W. Gilmore patr...@ianai.net wrote: Do you think if the police found out child pr0n was being served from a starbux they wouldn't confiscate the equipment from that store? I think if they took the cash registers too the Starbucks lawyer would be in court an hour later with a motion to quash in one hand and an offer of full cooperation in the other. And if the sky were orange Any other non-sequitors? :) -- TTFN, patrick P.S. I can come up with some examples where the cash registers would be fair game, such as when the manager was charging the hosting provider extra to sit in the corner and host the 'bad content'. But it is still a non-sequitor w/r/t this thread.
RE: William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if you can.
How would this be legally different than receiving the illegal content in an envelope and anonymously forwarding the envelope via the post office? I am pretty sure you are still liable since you were the sender. I realize that there are special postal regulations but I think that agreeing to forward anything for anyone sight unseen is pretty risky and I think you will have a hard time pulling of the service provider defense if you are not selling services and are not licensed as a carrier. Steven Naslund -Original Message- From: Patrick W. Gilmore [mailto:patr...@ianai.net] Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2012 10:45 AM To: NANOG list Subject: Re: William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if you can. On Nov 29, 2012, at 11:17 , Barry Shein b...@world.std.com wrote: Back in the early days of the public internet we didn't require any id to create an account, just that you found a way to pay us. We had anonymous accts some of whom dropped by personally to pay their bill, some said hello but I usually didn't know their names and that's how they wanted it, I'd answer hello ACCOUNT, whatever their login was if I recognized them. Some mailed in something, a mail order, even currency tho that was rare but it did happen, or had someone else drop by to pay in cash (that is, no idea if they were local.) LEO occasionally served a warrant for information, usually child porn biz (more than just accessing child porn, selling it) tho I don't remember any anonymous accts being involved. Mere conduit defense. (Please do not anyone mention common carrier status or the like, ISPs are _not_ common carriers.) I never expected to be held accountable for anyone's behavior unless I was knowingly involved somehow (just the usual caveat.) LEO never showed any particular interest in the fact that we were ok with anonymous accounts. If I was made aware of illegal activities we'd shut them off, didn't really happen much, maybe some credible hacking complaint on occasion. How do you shut off a Tor account? It's funny, it's all illusion like show business. It's not hard to set up anonymous service, crap, just drop in at any wi-fi hotspot, many just ask you to click that you accept their TCs and you're on. Would they raid them, I was just using one at a major hospital this week that was just like that, if someone used that for child porn etc? But I guess stick your nose out and say you're specifically offering anon accts and watch out I guess. Do you think if the police found out child pr0n was being served from a starbux they wouldn't confiscate the equipment from that store? -- TTFN, patrick
Re: William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if you can.
Assuming it's true, it was bound to happen. Running anything , TOR or otherwise, that allows strangers to do whatever they want is just folly. People will spend time and money securing their home wireless so their neighbor can't steal their internet, but willingly allow strangers from anywhere in the world to use their connections no strings attached. It's hilarious. On 11/29/2012 8:04 AM, Chris wrote: I'm not William and a friend pasted a link on IRC to me. I'm going to send him a few bucks because I know how it feels to get blindsided by the police on one random day and your world is turned upside down. Source: http://www.lowendtalk.com/discussion/6283/raided-for-running-a-tor-exit-accepting-donations-for-legal-expenses From the URL: Yes, it happened to me now as well - Yesterday i got raided for someone sharing child pornography over one of my Tor exits. I'm good so far, not in jail, but all my computers and hardware have been confiscated. (20 computers, 100TB+ storage, My Tablets/Consoles/Phones) If convicted i could face up to 6 years in jail, of course i do not want that and i also want to try to set a legal base for running Tor exit nodes in Austria or even the EU. Sadly we have nothing like the EFF here that could help me in this case by legal assistance, so i'm on my own and require a good lawyer. Thus i'm accepting donations for my legal expenses which i expect to be around 5000-1 EUR. If you can i would appreciate if you could donate a bit (every amount helps, even the smallest) either by PayPal (any currency is ok): https://paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclickhosted_button_id=2Q4LZNBBD7EH4 Or by Bank Transfer (EUR only please): Holder: William Weber Bank: EasyBank AG (Vienna, Austria) Account: 20011351213 Bank sort number: 14200 IBAN: AT031420020011351213 BIC: EASYATW1 I will try to pay them back when i'm out of this (or even before) but i can obviously not guarantee this, please keep this in mind. This money will only be used for legal expenses related to this case. If you have any questions or want to donate by another way (MoneyBookers, Webmoney, Bitcoin, Liberty Reserve, Neteller) feel free to send me a mail (will...@william.si) or a PM, or contact me in LET IRC. Thanks! William -- --C The dumber people think you are, the more surprised they're going to be when you kill them. - Sir William Clayton
RE: William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if you can.
I think the best analogy I would use in defense is something like the pre-paid cellular phones that are sold. That is about the only anonymous communications service I can think of off the top of my head. Problem is that most people are not licensed carriers and may not be able to hide behind that protection. I can see an argument both ways with the feds saying that you are running a service for the express service of concealing the identity of a person allowing them to avoid law enforcement (among other uses). On the other hand, the makers of guns do not get charged with murder even though their tool enabled a criminal. Could go either way but the problem is that in any case it will be expensive to defend so win or lose, you lose. I guess you can't run a Tor exit unless you have a legal defense fund set up. I understand the legit uses of Tor but wonder what the actual percentage of good vs. evil use really is. Steven Naslund -Original Message- From: Barry Shein [mailto:b...@world.std.com] Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2012 10:17 AM To: NANOG list Subject: Re: William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if you can. Back in the early days of the public internet we didn't require any id to create an account, just that you found a way to pay us. We had anonymous accts some of whom dropped by personally to pay their bill, some said hello but I usually didn't know their names and that's how they wanted it, I'd answer hello ACCOUNT, whatever their login was if I recognized them. Some mailed in something, a mail order, even currency tho that was rare but it did happen, or had someone else drop by to pay in cash (that is, no idea if they were local.) LEO occasionally served a warrant for information, usually child porn biz (more than just accessing child porn, selling it) tho I don't remember any anonymous accts being involved. I never expected to be held accountable for anyone's behavior unless I was knowingly involved somehow (just the usual caveat.) LEO never showed any particular interest in the fact that we were ok with anonymous accounts. If I was made aware of illegal activities we'd shut them off, didn't really happen much, maybe some credible hacking complaint on occasion. It's funny, it's all illusion like show business. It's not hard to set up anonymous service, crap, just drop in at any wi-fi hotspot, many just ask you to click that you accept their TCs and you're on. Would they raid them, I was just using one at a major hospital this week that was just like that, if someone used that for child porn etc? But I guess stick your nose out and say you're specifically offering anon accts and watch out I guess. -- -Barry Shein The World | b...@theworld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 800-THE-WRLD| Dial-Up: US, PR, Canada Software Tool Die| Public Access Internet | SINCE 1989 *oo*
Re: William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if you can.
On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 01:14:08AM +1100, Emily Ozols wrote: Hi, I gotta ask and I'm sure someone would if I didn't, but how do we know this guy is legit? He's jumped up on a forum saying, Hey, police raided me, help. gib mone plz and failed to provide and reason as to how he's real and not just making it up. Maybe if there's a way to know this guy is legit, I'll help out if possible, but until then I'm just going to watch others with caution and I suggest others do as well. This matter is being investigated by the Tor developers. It looks legitimate, so far. On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 12:04 AM, Chris cal...@gmail.com wrote: I'm not William and a friend pasted a link on IRC to me. I'm going to send him a few bucks because I know how it feels to get blindsided by the police on one random day and your world is turned upside down. Source: http://www.lowendtalk.com/discussion/6283/raided-for-running-a-tor-exit-accepting-donations-for-legal-expenses From the URL: Yes, it happened to me now as well - Yesterday i got raided for someone sharing child pornography over one of my Tor exits. I'm good so far, not in jail, but all my computers and hardware have been confiscated. (20 computers, 100TB+ storage, My Tablets/Consoles/Phones) If convicted i could face up to 6 years in jail, of course i do not want that and i also want to try to set a legal base for running Tor exit nodes in Austria or even the EU. Sadly we have nothing like the EFF here that could help me in this case by legal assistance, so i'm on my own and require a good lawyer. Thus i'm accepting donations for my legal expenses which i expect to be around 5000-1 EUR. If you can i would appreciate if you could donate a bit (every amount helps, even the smallest) either by PayPal (any currency is ok): https://paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclickhosted_button_id=2Q4LZNBBD7EH4 Or by Bank Transfer (EUR only please): Holder: William Weber Bank: EasyBank AG (Vienna, Austria) Account: 20011351213 Bank sort number: 14200 IBAN: AT031420020011351213 BIC: EASYATW1 I will try to pay them back when i'm out of this (or even before) but i can obviously not guarantee this, please keep this in mind. This money will only be used for legal expenses related to this case. If you have any questions or want to donate by another way (MoneyBookers, Webmoney, Bitcoin, Liberty Reserve, Neteller) feel free to send me a mail (will...@william.si) or a PM, or contact me in LET IRC. Thanks! William -- --C The dumber people think you are, the more surprised they're going to be when you kill them. - Sir William Clayton -- ~Em -- Eugen* Leitl a href=http://leitl.org;leitl/a http://leitl.org __ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE
RE: William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if you can.
Not sure if there is a legal precedent for this, but logically the difference is that there are no robots that I know of that can automatically receive and parse postal mail, then re-address and forward it. For a human to forward a letter takes a conscious manual action, even if they choose not to look inside. Having a Tor node for no specific purpose, having a hacked server/pc that is then compromised for some nefarious purpose, etc. are not necessarily purposeful actions that one could be held accountable for without other proof. I'd think the LEA would have to establish motive, like in any other crime, to make that jump. Perhaps in this case they believe they have, and that would end up in the courts, where you'd have to hope the Judge and or Jury sees that difference. Don't see this as very different either from when an agency confiscates a whole rack of shared servers because one user was suspected of some bad action, and we all know that does happen. -Scott -Original Message- From: Naslund, Steve [mailto:snasl...@medline.com] Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2012 2:07 PM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: RE: William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if you can. How would this be legally different than receiving the illegal content in an envelope and anonymously forwarding the envelope via the post office? I am pretty sure you are still liable since you were the sender. I realize that there are special postal regulations but I think that agreeing to forward anything for anyone sight unseen is pretty risky and I think you will have a hard time pulling of the service provider defense if you are not selling services and are not licensed as a carrier. Steven Naslund -Original Message- From: Patrick W. Gilmore [mailto:patr...@ianai.net] Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2012 10:45 AM To: NANOG list Subject: Re: William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if you can. On Nov 29, 2012, at 11:17 , Barry Shein b...@world.std.com wrote: Back in the early days of the public internet we didn't require any id to create an account, just that you found a way to pay us. We had anonymous accts some of whom dropped by personally to pay their bill, some said hello but I usually didn't know their names and that's how they wanted it, I'd answer hello ACCOUNT, whatever their login was if I recognized them. Some mailed in something, a mail order, even currency tho that was rare but it did happen, or had someone else drop by to pay in cash (that is, no idea if they were local.) LEO occasionally served a warrant for information, usually child porn biz (more than just accessing child porn, selling it) tho I don't remember any anonymous accts being involved. Mere conduit defense. (Please do not anyone mention common carrier status or the like, ISPs are _not_ common carriers.) I never expected to be held accountable for anyone's behavior unless I was knowingly involved somehow (just the usual caveat.) LEO never showed any particular interest in the fact that we were ok with anonymous accounts. If I was made aware of illegal activities we'd shut them off, didn't really happen much, maybe some credible hacking complaint on occasion. How do you shut off a Tor account? It's funny, it's all illusion like show business. It's not hard to set up anonymous service, crap, just drop in at any wi-fi hotspot, many just ask you to click that you accept their TCs and you're on. Would they raid them, I was just using one at a major hospital this week that was just like that, if someone used that for child porn etc? But I guess stick your nose out and say you're specifically offering anon accts and watch out I guess. Do you think if the police found out child pr0n was being served from a starbux they wouldn't confiscate the equipment from that store? -- TTFN, patrick
