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

[Eugen Leitl <eugen@xxxxxxxxx>]

----- Forwarded message from Kyle Creyts <kyle.creyts@xxxxxxxxx> -----

From: Kyle Creyts <kyle.creyts@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2012 17:40:25 -0800
To: Jim Mercer <jim@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: nanog@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if
	you can.

On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 2:00 PM, Jim Mercer <jim@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 01:19:19PM -0600, Naslund, Steve wrote:
>> 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.
>
> if your phone is stolen and used by a drug dealer, i'm pretty sure the cops
> would not be after you for anything the dealer did.
>
> if you stand on the corner with a sign saying "free cell phone airtime,
> just ask me", they might take a different view on things.
>
> now, whether you are guilty of anything or not, by standing there with a sign
> you are certainly opening yourself to legal inquiry, delay and hassle.
>
> i wouldn't be surprised if the cops didn't accept your "i'm just letting
> people use my phone, i've got nothing to do with their activities" defence,
> at least not without poking about for a bit, which might include looking
> at your cellphone, your home phone, your bank records, and anything else
> they think (and a judge agrees) might need viewing to clear you.

A few questions this thread raises for me: you are a very trusting
person, and frequently let people borrow your things. A friend
frequently borrows your phone, which he explains is because he:

 a) frequently lets his phone die, or has run close to using too many minutes.

  You frequently allow him (and other people) to borrow your phone. At
some point, it becomes clear that his life has taken a turn for the
worse, and he has become involved in activities of which you do not
approve. You stop allowing him to use your phone. During a criminal
investigation of your friend's activities, it later becomes clear that
for some time he was using it for illegal activities.

  At what point did allowing him to use your phone become illegal, and
how should a responsible citizen rationally realize or identify this
point?

  How can one be reasonably sure that one knows another person well
enough to allow them to use one's equipment/resources? When do you
become responsible for the activity of someone else on your equipment?
Clearly "always" is not correct; similarly, "never" is also not
correct.


 b) (most analogous to the actual situation) has a [legitimate?]
reason for wanting to avoid the entity he calls having, being able to
predict, see, or otherwise link some information he wishes to give
them with some information he does not wish to give them (for example,
his phone number [1])

  Upon this pretense, which seems fairly reasonable, you allow him
access to your phone. In order to enable this pursuit (so that this
phone number cannot be attached to a pattern of activity), you also
allow others to use your phone for similar reasons. You consider such
activity correlation/tracking and data mining to be a violation of
privacy (explicitly with regard to data-mining and activity tracking
performed in pursuit of selling this data for profit).


Now arguably, in the second case, you are operating this "service"
with an explicitly altruistic intent. IF you are not informed about
the mechanics of this process, and you are unaware of the issues this
creates for law enforcement entities in identifying criminals, what
constitutes wrongdoing? If you are not aware of criminal uses of your
service which is entirely free and only intended for avoiding
data-miners, are you still accountable for the activities of those
using it? Why? At what point do you accept or acquire this
responsibility? How is this different from operating a party line
shared by an apartment building or phone bridge with external calling
ability?


I am curious about the impact of the nuances of each of these situations.

[1] he is paranoid, and doesn't like the pizza place associating his
address with his phone number, or perhaps he is calling someone who
collects marketing data and attempts to data-mine his activity, or
some other more legitimate, applicable and realistic take on
appropriate cases for desiring anonymity in such a transaction

>
> --
> Jim Mercer     Reptilian Research      jim@xxxxxxxxxxxx    +1 416 410-5633
> "He who dies with the most toys is nonetheless dead"
>



-- 
Kyle Creyts

Information Assurance Professional
BSidesDetroit Organizer

----- End forwarded message -----
-- 
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
_______________________________________________
tor-talk mailing list
tor-talk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk