[158576] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Brian Johnson)
Tue Dec 4 16:36:38 2012
From: Brian Johnson <bjohnson@drtel.com>
To: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2012 21:36:19 +0000
In-Reply-To: <B7B8DE11-09D5-4E7C-93F1-C538D3A55ED5@delong.com>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Owen DeLong [mailto:owen@delong.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2012 2:22 PM
> To: Brian Johnson
> Cc: Jordan Michaels; nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: Re: William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help =
if
>=20
>=20
> On Dec 4, 2012, at 09:32 , Brian Johnson <bjohnson@drtel.com> wrote:
>=20
> > I know I'm going to get flamed and excoriated, but here goes....
> >
> > <snip>
> >> case evolves in and out of court. Are Tor exit-node operators going to
> >> be given the same rights as ISP's who's networks are used for illegal
> >> purposes? I would hope so, but it doesn't seem like that has happened =
in
> >> this case, so I am very interested to hear how the situation pans out.
> >
> > This is a misleading statement. ISP's (Common carriers) do not provide =
a
> knowingly illegal offering, AND they do provide the PHYSICAL infrastructu=
re
> for packets to be passed and interconnected to other PHYSICAL networks.
> TOR exit/entrance nodes provide only the former. The lack of providing a
> physical infrastructure is crucial. Also, most ISP's (US specifically) ar=
e required
> by Law (under subpoena) to provide details to law enforcement.
> >
>=20
> I strongly disagree with you.
>=20
> TOR exit nodes provide a vital physical infrastructure to free speech
> advocates who live in jurisdictions where strong forces are aligned again=
st
> free speech. I'm sure most TOR exit node operators would happily provide =
all
> the details they have if presented with an appropriate subpoena.
>=20
TOR is not vital. It is political. I view this not as an issue of morals or=
political action. It is an issue of a technical nature. A TOR is a way to =
hide who you are. If I am hiding who you are from someone else and there is=
a law broken, who do you go after?
> > I really hate this idea of privacy on the Internet. If you really think=
you have
> the "right" to use the public infrastructure (to whatever extent you want=
to
> label the Internet as such) and be completely anonymous, I have a bridge =
to
> sell you. Network operators may treat your packets to whatever level of
> scrutiny that they may find necessary to determine if they want to pass y=
our
> packets, keeping in mind that good operators want the Internet to work.
> >
>=20
> I really cherish this idea of privacy on the internet. It's a strong tool=
for
> enabling democracy and freedom of speech.
>=20
> First, the internet hasn't been "public infrastructure" for a very long t=
ime. It's
> a loose collection of privately owned networks with very few pieces still
> owned by government institutions. I don't think anyone has asserted a
> "right" to use that infrastructure, but, I certainly value that there are=
people
> who choose to provide it. I think society benefits from having such
> infrastructure available.
>=20
> I like free speech. I like that there are people making free speech possi=
ble in
> places where it is strongly discouraged. While I think it is a shame that=
child
> pornographers and other nefarious users are able to abuse this
> infrastructure to the detriment of society, the reality is that it is lik=
e any other
> tool. It has beneficial uses and harmful uses. Going after the tool is
> counterproductive and harmful.
This is ridiculous. Owen you damn well know that if you send packets from a=
source, that source can be tracked back. Add a subpoena, privacy hereby de=
stroyed. Other countries are generally less protective of the citizen than =
the US and as such... what was your argument again. Oh yeah. I'll be hiding=
behind my packets. ;P
>=20
> > I'm waiting for the next hot "application" to use a widely known "bad" =
port
> and see what happens. :)
>=20
> What's a "bad" port? 80? 443? 25? 587? Most of the malware these days use=
s
> one or more of those.
>
Point given. I got off topic here.
=20
> >
> >>
> >> It is extremely relevant to the Internet community and to free speech =
in
> >> general.
> >
> > I'm actually in agreement that law enforcement may have overstepped
> here if the only reason was the TOR exit point, but having a TOR exit poi=
nt to
> me, seems to be condoning the actions/statements/packets used through
> the exit point. You are knowingly hiding information that your local
> government may require you to disclose.
>=20
> Having a TOR exit point is making an effort to provide a service. It does=
n't
> condone the nefarious uses of the service any more than running an ISP
> condones running a warez site that happens to get transit services from s=
aid
> ISP.
>=20
> Running a TOR exit node isn't hiding any information. It's simply not col=
lecting
> the information in the first place. You can't hide information you never =
had.
>=20
And supplying the Sudafed to the kiddies to use for runny noses is not cond=
oning use for crystal meth.
> >
> > Short answer... don't use TOR. It's not a bad thing, but it's not a goo=
d thing
> either.
>=20
> I strongly disagree. TOR is a tool. It's a very good thing in its ability=
to enable
> democratization of communications and freedom of speech. It also has some
> nefarious uses. Guess what... So do hammers. I don't see anyone calling f=
or a
> ban on the sale of hammers or encouraging carpenters to stop using them.
>
=20
Once again, this is a political reason not a technical reason. I'm sorry fo=
r your political situation.
- Brian
