Austrian Tor Exit Node Operator Found Guilty As an Accomplice 255
An anonymous reader writes with this excerpt from TechDirt: Three years ago we wrote about how Austrian police had seized computers from someone running a Tor exit node. This kind of thing happens from time to time, but it appears that folks in Austria have taken it up a notch by... effectively now making it illegal to run a Tor exit node. According to the report, which was confirmed by the accused, the court found that running the node violated 12 of the Austrian penal code, which effectively says:"Not only the immediate perpetrator commits a criminal action, but also anyone who appoints someone to carry it out, or anyone who otherwise contributes to the completion of said criminal action." In other words, it's a form of accomplice liability for criminality. It's pretty standard to name criminal accomplices liable for "aiding and abetting" the activities of others, but it's a massive and incredibly dangerous stretch to argue that merely running a Tor exit node makes you an accomplice that "contributes to the completion" of a crime. Under this sort of thinking, Volkswagen would be liable if someone drove a VW as the getaway car in a bank robbery. It's a very, very broad interpretation of accomplice liability, in a situation where it clearly does not make sense.
Parents are all guilty (Score:5, Funny)
for giving birth to evil people. Arrest them all!
Re:Parents are all guilty (Score:5, Informative)
govt is guilty (Score:2)
The govt teached the person at school,
The telco helped too,
The power company,
The food shop
Hey Austria, you helped Hitler, isnt that illegal.
Re:govt is guilty (Score:4, Informative)
Sigh ... taught ... not 'teached', taught.
Re:Parents are all guilty (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
The exit node is what let the traffic get out of the darknet and to the target of the attack...although it would indeed be only slightly more stupid to charge all the parties you listed as accomplices as well (equivalent to charging Michelin, Raybestos, and Shell for helping that Volkswagen be used as a getaway car).
Re: (Score:2)
I agree, except for the conclusion.
The spirit of the law, or perhaps the spirit of economics? This bloke is not a Verizon.
Re:Parents are all guilty (Score:5, Funny)
for giving birth to evil people. Arrest them all!
To be fair, the birth of each child comes with an 18 year + sentence, often with a similar sentence for the accomplice.
Re: (Score:2)
Yet it's illegal to try to avoid giving birth in most areas of the planet to some degree.
Laws are silly.
Traffic laundering will soon become a crime (Score:5, Interesting)
We're moving, slowly but surely, towards making your IP address the equivalent of your social security number in the US.
Re:Traffic laundering will soon become a crime (Score:5, Funny)
Not until we get IPv6, which will tattooed on your arm.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
And the other two 6's are?
Re: (Score:2)
That's gonna hurt.
Re: (Score:2)
It's accomplices all the way down! (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:It's accomplices all the way down! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Probably because it is not a precedence based jurisdiction, so this case has no concern for them. They can relax, wait and battle when/if they are actually target of a lawsuit.
Of course this decission may be an indicator of how the law is to be interpreted, but that is a problem with the law itself and winnning this case for the guy will change nothing about that for the ISPs.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
we don't call them people any more, the 99ers don't deserve that classification since we moved them to subhuman status.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
mmm so soylanty
Re: (Score:3)
Is the ISP an accomplice too? And the operating system vendor?
The Austrian Government owns over a 30% stake in the primary ISP and used to own 100% so... no. :-)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Is the ISP an accomplice too? And the operating system vendor?
Are you really not able to see a difference between your examples and running a tor exit node?
Let me spell it out for you: ISP's are selling you a service but tracking you in order to make sure any people using their network for anything illegal can be traced, a tor exit node is designed to let people be anonymous and untraceable. The judge made the assumption that anyone who wants to be untraceable to law enforcement must be a criminal, which is actually not such a huge stretch.
Re:It's accomplices all the way down! (Score:5, Informative)
The judge made the assumption that anyone who wants to be untraceable to law enforcement must be a criminal, which is actually not such a huge stretch.
That's true. Except for the people who are not criminals, 100% of people using TOR are criminals.
Re: (Score:3)
"Not a huge stretch" ...for a totalitarian, sure. But that sort of thing was supposed to have been off Austria's agenda since 1945.
Re: (Score:3)
The judge made the assumption that anyone who wants to be untraceable to law enforcement must be a criminal, which is actually not such a huge stretch.
Fascinating. And here I thought "Papers, please!" was not an acceptable law enforcement tactic in Austria anymore.
(In case this is unclear -- the default in most democratic countries has generally been that people are effectively "untraceable to law enforcement." I know that may seem completely crazy in this new era of continuous surveillance, fingerprint and DNA databases (even for non-criminals), etc., but it's actually how the world mostly was until just the past couple decades. Exactly why should t
Re: (Score:2)
... while you signed up with something that is known to hide illegal traffic...
Doesn't that describe the entire internet (also, the public highways, mass transit systems, etc., etc.) So you really meant yes?
Re: (Score:2)
i guess the banks are complicit in money laundering... o wait
Re: (Score:2)
Most traffic on the internet is legal. As is most traffic on the roads.
Re: (Score:3)
What about the ISP? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, but the ISPs and backbone providers are likely big companies with lawyers. So they can't possibly be accomplices and must be completely innocent angels. This individual with no team of lawyers on retainer is obviously guilty of helping out nasty criminals.
Re: (Score:2)
And, don't forget, the provisions of the DMCA and the things like it were written in such a way as to safeguard the ISPs as long as they played ball with the authorities.
Under the guise of copyright reform, government have rigged the game, and built in a mechanism by which they can continue to illegally spy on everybody and pretend like it's all legit.
We are pretty much fucked. "State Security" has become the catch phrase (along with kiddie porn and copyright) which is being used to ensure we no longer liv
It'll come down to an opinion (Score:5, Insightful)
That's the biggest difference compared to the car analogy, in that the demonstrated legitimate use of cars far, far outweighs the illegitimate use of cars. Using cars is the norm. Using Tor is not the norm, and so then it becomes a matter of scrutinizing what it does, who uses it, and for what purposes.
Same issues held true for networks like Napster and MegaUpload, and holds true for bit torrent.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Go read about "civil forfeiture" and be very, very upset.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It'll come down to an opinion as to whether or not the use of Tor implies an intent to allow others to break the law. While an anonymizer service itself can be used for both legal and illegal purposes
I was under the impression TOR was explicitly designed to allow others to break the law, for the benefit of regions where things like expressing an opinion is illegal. Of course an anonymizer service is only effective if there is plenty of other innocuous white noise on the same channel.
Re: (Score:2)
TOR is just a mask. A means to obscure yourself
Should we arrest anyone we see wearing a mask? Should we arrest people who sell masks?
Re: (Score:2)
It's illegal in quite a few states to wear a mask in public due to past attempts on cracking down on the KKK.
Re: (Score:3)
Interesting, but it was the 2nd question that bears more relevance to the actual issue.
If someone sells masks (i.e. outdoor/hiking stores, Halloween stores, etc) is the seller liable if someone wears the mask to commit a crime?
Re: (Score:2)
If they have a reasonable belief that the person will used the purchased item in a crime... then yes... sometimes.
This is nothing new... plenty of gun manufacturers and stores have been hit by lawsuits over the years (and in some cases, criminal charges) because items they manufactured or sold were later used in a crime.
Bar tenders have seen civil & criminal prosecutions for continuing to serve someone who was already clearly intoxicated and then later drove home and killed someone.
I'm not saying it's r
Re: (Score:3)
Agreed. There are some very noble uses of Tor, but when you operate an exit node you are basically allowing any scum to use your connection to hide their activities, and some are really sick. I wish there were a good solution to allow an exit node to be operated, but prevent some of the more nefarious uses. In the absence of that, it is pretty irresponsible to contribute such a powerful component(the exit node) without discretion for what it will be used for. At least an ISP providing a physical link has
Re: (Score:2)
I think you're making good points. If I own a toll bridge, I know that my bridge is going to be used to transport all kinds of stolen property. Still, I shouldn't be liable for such transport.
Re: (Score:2)
Using Tor is not the norm, and so then it becomes a matter of scrutinizing what it does, who uses it, and for what purposes.
The same could be said for any emerging technology. That argument would have applied when SSL was new. Maybe one day Tor will be standard, you buy a new computer, get online, and it's using Tor without you ever changing any settings. The EFF is already saying that everyone should use Tor [eff.org]. At this point, the only reason it's not the norm is because it's fairly new. I wouldn't be surprised if we see computers within a couple years marketed with privacy in mind that come with Tor already installed and con
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but what if the 'law' being broken is one suppressing freedom of speech, freedom of the press, or otherwise reporting on things that uncomfortable for those making the laws?
Things like Tor have an intrinsic value to society. Cases like this show that even in western democracies -- government has an active interest in suppressing hard won liberties :(
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't this just another form of the "illegal to be black" line of thinking? Just because you have a certain skin color or live in a certain neighborhood doesn't automatically mean you should be treated like a criminal. Sure it's expedient for cops to make these generalizations, but it's wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
Now, it's unfortunately common that participating in thug culture is interpreted as "being black". If someone is aspiring to thug culture in their mannerisms and how they attire and adorn themselves then yes, they will be judged based on their appearance, even if they've never committed a crime, and they will be scrutinized.
Every racial group has their own form of thug culture, and sometimes they overlap in style, or someone of a different ethnicity will
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
If Irridium or any of the then-new satellite phone systems had been adopted by primarily a criminal or terrorist user base then they probably would be shut down or heavily modified to make it more difficult to use such a service in those circumstances for very long.
Whatever way we want it to be (Score:4, Insightful)
In the post-911 world, police departments all over the world are moving into Orwellian territory. They spot someone that they "know" is doing a crime, and they go searching for a law to hammer them.
With laws that don't sunset, and legislative organizations (worldwide) passing more rules and regulations and laws as fast as they can write them down, the state is moving to consolidate it's power. Once, a congressman from the United States said of his constituents, "There are no law-abiding citizens, there are only citizens who haven't yet broken a law."
Wait for it. The police are choosing to persecute (sic) whomever they want to, and due process seems to be fading into the sunset.
Re:Whatever way we want it to be (Score:5, Informative)
Once, a congressman from the United States said of his constituents, "There are no law-abiding citizens, there are only citizens who haven't yet broken a law."
If you are going to quote someone then you need to give a name and, if possible, a reference. Saying "a congressman from the United States" is meaningless. Yes, I did a Google search for that phrase and found nothing.
Re: (Score:3)
I believe that would be Senator Strawman who was quoting his Aunt Sally from the UK.
Re: (Score:3)
Once, a congressman from the United States said of his constituents, "There are no law-abiding citizens, there are only citizens who haven't yet broken a law."
Funny, I tried googling your quote to see what congressman said it and when, but Google didn't find any matches. I also tried some variants of the wording but still no luck. It seems to me that such a quote would produce a lot of search results if it happened. Citation please?
Re:Whatever way we want it to be (Score:4, Insightful)
My apologies. I searched myself for the quotation and did not find it. The person in question was Charles Schumer (US Senator), and his remarks were in response to a rather over-the-top NRA assertion that the government was trying to take guns away from "Law Abiding Citizens" subsequent to some multiple shooting event. The event made at least one video outlet -- which is how I saw it -- but apparently was not recorded. This I actually understand, and find nothing nefarious about it -- after all, there was a hugely more serious event to report on.
Since I was unable to provide an actual citation, I did not "name names" -- and the comment was more to illustrate an attitude by lawmakers (not necessarily Mr Schumer personally) that government should have the power to go after someone that "they think" is a Bad Guy, and screw the legal process.
In the US, there have been countless cases of cops trying to charge someone recording their actions on video, because having their actions stand up to careful scrutiny seems (to them) to be an undue burden. The current trend towards categorizing all "illegal immigrants" as drug mules is another example. "They are here illegally, right? So we know they've broken a law." Yes, but _drug mules_ ? That's a stretch.
As a person who witnessed the 1968 events in Chicago, I know that there are some police forces who have the attitude of "We know who the bad guys are and we need to be able to go after them" and the phrase "burden of proof" seems to be missing from their repertoire. Thankfully, in the US, the majority of police forces are not there, at least not yet.
Uh no (Score:5, Insightful)
Under this sort of thinking, Volkswagen would be liable if someone drove a VW as the getaway car in a bank robbery.
No. Under this sort of thinking, the owner of a Volkswagen would be liable if someone drove their VW as the getaway car in a bank robbery. And indeed, in some countries you can be held [partially] liable for misuse of your vehicle even if all you did was leave the keys in the car, especially if you have even a passing relationship with the perpetrators.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The owner of the VW would be liable if they put the keys somewhere with a big sign that says 'use my car to keep the law from knowing what YOU are doing by making it look like it was me!'
Run Your Own Node in Austria (Score:5, Informative)
You can spin up your own Tor exit node in Austria here: http://lowendbox.com/tag/austria/ [lowendbox.com]
Or, if you prefer, you can just donate to people that are running nodes here: https://www.torproject.org/docs/faq#RelayDonations [torproject.org]
Analogy Sucks... (Score:2)
"Under this sort of thinking, Volkswagen would be liable if someone drove a VW as the getaway car in a bank robbery"
That may be the case, but probably only if VW knowingly pursued bank robbers as customers (e.g.; in their ads they said something to the effect of "Perfect as a get-away vehicle!")
I'd bet the courts/prosecutor said something to the effect "As the 'administrator' of a TOR exit node, It's not unreasonable for the operator to expect illicit or illegal activity to take place, as the intent of TOR
Re: (Score:2)
Comcast is turning users' cable modems into public hotspots. So anyone could connect to a user's modem and use it for any purpose that one might connect to the Internet for. If said use is illegal, would the person who owned (or leased it from Comcast as the case may be) be liable as an accomplice? After all, if you provide open Internet access, you've got to expect that someone is going to do something illegal with it.
(I know that the story is in Australia and this is in the US, but this sounds like a v
Re: (Score:2)
Comcast is turning users' cable modems into public hotspots. So anyone could connect to a user's modem and use it for any purpose that one might connect to the Internet for. If said use is illegal, would the person who owned (or leased it from Comcast as the case may be) be liable as an accomplice?
My understanding is that it's not a public hotspot, the access is only made available for other Comcast customers, and that in any event the traffic is handled separately from the owner of the connection. It goes out with a different globally valid IP and does not count against the owner's bandwidth cap or otherwise inconvenience him.
Re: (Score:2)
(I know that the story is in Australia and this is in the US, but this sounds like a valid comparison.)
This may be news to you, but there is actually a country called Austria and it's not the one with the kangaroos.
Re: (Score:2)
VW as the getaway car in a bank robbery (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe it's embarrassing but perfectly legal activity. Or maybe they just like being anonymous.
A few points (Score:5, Informative)
1. Apparently a final ruling has not been reached. While a court has found the operator guilty it's not clear if that will ultimately hold.
2. None of TFA provide any details of what the ruling was based on, beyond the TOT node being used for illegal activity by someone else. Without more details, it is impossible to conclude that merely running a TOR node is illegal; the only conclusion from TFA is someone was prosecuted for running one. A relationship between the operator and the user committing fraud, or if the operator new the user was using the node of illegal purposes, is vastly different than merely running a node where a user is using it for illegal activities. The former is much more reasonable to prosecute than the latter.
3. As others point out, in keeping with /. traditions, the car analogy is bogus.
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks. Its contributions like yours thant make /. a still tolerable place.
Precedence (Score:2)
Let's hope lots of kidnap victims will now sue the phone company and the post office because they aided the kidnapper by allowing and delivering anonymous phone calls and ransom notes.
So, privacy is illegal then? (Score:3)
So is the gist of this that anything which prevents the government from spying on you is now illegal?
Have we come that far already?
Sad, the world used to be such a nice place, but governments have become so demanding in their surveillance that anything which they can't defeat is now illegal.
Techincally, its right (Score:2)
Ultimately you are responsible for the traffic that exits your PC. Sure, if you are infected with a virus, you have a potential 'out' but if you *allow* it, then not so much.
The "VW" analogy in the story line, is ludicrous. If you want to use a car analogy; its like letting your friends store gym bags in your trunk while you drive cross country. You didnt ask what was in the bags, but know there could be drugs..
Very bad car analogy (Score:4, Insightful)
The car analogy is so flawed it really should be removed from the story for this significant reason: cars are designed to move people and stuff. They can be used to commit crimes, but that is not their intended use.
Tor on the other hand, is explicitly designed to allow people to remain anonymous, to prevent detection. While honest people most certainly use Tor, so do criminals and it is because of Tor's intended purpose that the police are justifying their actions.
Before anyone flames me, I am not justifying what is taking place. I am only giving a much better explanation than that ridiculous car analogy for why this is taking place.
Re: (Score:2)
"While honest people most certainly use cars, so do criminals"
so you were saying ?
Re: (Score:2)
Tor on the other hand, is explicitly designed to allow people to remain anonymous, to prevent detection.
Amazing how faulty logic can be disguised by just putting a comma into a sentence. If you had an "AND" or "OR" at the end of the sentence, I might have agreed with you.
But by using a comma, you implicitly claim that "to remain anonymous" = "to prevent detection." Those are not the same at all. There are all sorts of reasons people might want to remain anonymous, most notably just because they believe in something called "privacy" and don't want other people (governments, online businesses, internet ad
Reich Heartland (Score:2)
Cisco is an accomplice? (Score:3)
It is amazing the postoffice has lasted thing long (Score:2)
Postal mail - the original pirate transport mechanism!
they need to be shut down, stat!
(sadly) inevitable (Score:2)
This has been a long time coming. Not to say is the right thing, but I think it was bound to happen. Freedom for the masses is a very dangerous thing for the stability of our society ... I mean ... for the billionaire multinational "elite" and their puppet "democratic" governments. I'll consider him a martyr for the evolution of human society (sorry Fritz!). :-(
For things to get better, they sometimes have to get worse
Dear former colonies of United Kingdom... (Score:5, Informative)
Most of the world uses something called Civil Law [wikipedia.org] as opposed to your Common Law that you inherited from UK.
Which is why in most of the world precedents don't carry as much weight [wikipedia.org] as they do in Common Law legal systems like yours, where the rationale for the decision makes each sentence a binding precedent in other courts.
And that is why this single decision DOES NOT "effectively now make it illegal to run a Tor exit node" in Austria.
NOR would "Volkswagen be liable if someone drove a VW as the getaway car in a bank robbery".
Re: (Score:2)
Austria, not Australia.... afaik, UK never owned the former head of the Holy Roman Empire :)
Re: (Score:2)
apologies, misread your comment!
Re: (Score:2)
It's OK.
I had to return to the summary to check that I haven't misread it.
And then I had to check the article again to make sure timothy read it right.
After all, it is the Internet.
Half the shit one reads or sees in any given day requires a double check to make sure you saw/read right.
I.e. Transformers 4 made HOW MUCH MONEY?!
Why would anyone go to see that after the last 3 movies which were essentially one and the same movie done 3 times and only made longer? [youtube.com]
The VW analogy seems faulty. (Score:2)
I'm heartened (Score:2)
US Government guilty (Score:3)
They provide 80% of the Tor Project's funds.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T... [wikipedia.org]
ISPs and Telcos... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Wonderful car analogy! (Score:4, Funny)
What? Read the article?
This IS slashdot right?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, that depends... did you leave your front door open with a big sign saying "Twisty passages inside! Great for losing pursuers!" posted next to it?
If so, then it's pretty easy to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you were not just aware that your actions could assist criminals, but you actually made overt actions to help them.
Re: (Score:2)
They should be concentrating on the criminals and not some of the techniques that the criminals may use in pursuit of the crime. Should McDonalds be held accountable for a blackmail email sent from one of its wifi points?
Re: (Score:2)
Does this mean that anyone who allows public access through their property, like a store with two doors, or a shopping mall operator, will be responsible too for the bank robbery?
Re: (Score:2)
Well, it shouldn't. In any truly free country, the potential for abuse shouldn't mean whatever it is should get banned.
Re:Does not make sense? (Score:5, Insightful)
Or, in other words, guilty until proven innocent.
Re:No, it's not the same as selling cars at all. (Score:4, Insightful)
Prima: I need to do some dodgy shit.
Secunda: I am going to offer a resource for people to do dodgy shit.
Prima: I am going to use your resource to do dodgy shit.
Secunda: OK, please carry on using it.
Prima: I need to be anonymous
Secunda: I offer masks. Masks make you anonymous.
Prima: I am going to use your resource (thinking only to self: to do dodgy shit.)
Secunda: I'm glad someone appreciates my fine craftsmanship.
If a bankrobber robs a bank while wearing a mask purchased from a store, is that mask store held liable? Usually only if the bank robber explicitly said "I'm going to use this mask to do dodgy shit".
users of the tor network don't notify exit node maintainers what they plan to do with the exit nodes they transfer data from. At best, an exit node maintainer might be able to firewall off certain sites, but that's cumbersome and doesn't prevent 99% of evil use cases.
Re: (Score:2)
Kind of ironic that you chose to post that comment anonymously, exactly the kind of thing TOR is designed to allow for.
-AndrewBuck
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't claim that he was immune from being tracked down, I am well aware of the issues of IP level anonymity vs slashdot just choosing not to display a name which is what the AC parent did. I know the distinction because I run a Tor relay (not an exit node just a relay) and I use Tor myself.
My point was merely that he chose to remain anonymous (at least as well as he was easily able to) while criticising a tool used by others to actully do the same thing.
Whether Tor is used by "bad guys" is beside the po
Re: (Score:2)
And, yes, making a request to your computer in your ownership+control is the same as making a request to you.
Besides what others said: No, because a person isn't instantly informed that such a thing took place. Under certain circumstances, they may never even find out.
Re: (Score:2)
No that is not the logic being applied. You are ignoring certain factors in the sake of making a very silly argument. A car manufacturer is not an accomplice because someone used one of their cars to commit a crime, because the design and typical use of a car is for legitimate purposes. If however, the car manufacturer provided features designed specifically to aid criminals, or features which happenstance had more common criminal uses than legitimate, then they would be an accomplice be cause the knowin
a perfect example of the SNAFU pricnple in action (Score:3)