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

[C B <cb736@xxxxxxxxx>]

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

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


________________________________
 From: MacLemon <tor@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: tor-talk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
Sent: Wednesday, July 2, 2014 3:21 PM
Subject: Re: [tor-talk] Tor Exit Operator convicted in Austrian lower court
 

Hey!

On 02 Jul 2014, at 17:56, s7r <s7r@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

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


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



German language Austrian Legalese background:
Austrian E-Commerce Law Â15: Ausschluss der Verantwortlichkeit bei Zwischenspeicherungen http://j.mp/1iYdg4L

 15. Ein Diensteanbieter, der von einem Nutzer eingegebene Informationen in einem Kommunikationsnetz Ãbermittelt, ist fÃr eine automatische, zeitlich begrenzte Zwischenspeicherung, die nur der effizienteren Gestaltung der auf Abruf anderer Nutzer erfolgenden InformationsÃbermittlung dient, nicht verantwortlich, sofern er
ÂÂÂ 
ÂÂÂ 1. die Information nicht verÃndert,
ÂÂÂ 2. die Bedingungen fÃr den Zugang zur Information beachtet,
ÂÂÂ 3. die Regeln fÃr die Aktualisierung der Information, die in allgemein anerkannten und verwendeten Industriestandards festgelegt sind, beachtet,
ÂÂÂ 4. die zulÃssige Anwendung von Technologien zur Sammlung von Daten Ãber die Nutzung der Information, die in allgemein anerkannten und verwendeten Industriestandards festgelegt sind, nicht beeintrÃchtigt und
ÂÂÂ 5. unverzÃglich eine von ihm gespeicherte Information entfernt oder den Zugang zu ihr sperrt, sobald er tatsÃchliche Kenntnis davon erhalten hat, dass die Information am ursprÃnglichen Ausgangsort der Ãbertragung aus dem Netz entfernt oder der Zugang zu ihr gesperrt wurde oder dass ein Gericht oder eine VerwaltungsbehÃrde die Entfernung oder Sperre angeordnet hat.



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



Austrian E-Commerce Law Â3.1: http://j.mp/1iYdIQw
Begriffsdefinitionen: Diensteanbieter
1. Dienst der Informationsgesellschaft: ein in der Regel gegen Entgelt elektronisch im Fernabsatz auf individuellen Abruf des EmpfÃngers bereitgestellter Dienst (Â 1 Abs. 1 Z 2 Notifikationsgesetz 1999), insbesondere der Online-Vertrieb von Waren und Dienstleistungen, Online-Informationsangebote, die Online-Werbung, elektronische Suchmaschinen und DatenabfragemÃglichkeiten sowie Dienste, die Informationen Ãber ein elektronisches Netz Ãbermitteln, die den Zugang zu einem solchen vermitteln oder die Informationen eines Nutzers speichern;

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



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

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

The latter is very likely the case and I hope to have better (first or second hand) information in the next few days. I won't speculate more until I have talked to a few people who have actual information.


> That is nonsense. Why not arrest the owners of a stainless steel blade
> factory, because some people stab other people with those blades.
Similarly ridiculous parallels have been drawn. Why not close the postal system and every parcel delivery service as well. :-)




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