[158551] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jima)
Mon Dec 3 01:07:09 2012
Date: Sun, 02 Dec 2012 23:07:37 -0700
From: Jima <nanog@jima.tk>
To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <2078E1BD482143A38F1B4E0B92597212@owner59e1f1502>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
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
