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

["Naslund, Steve" <SNaslund@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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


>---rsk


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