[158592] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Tue Dec 4 23:11:18 2012
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <F05D77A9631CAE4097F7B69095F1B06FD62E0619@EX02.drtel.lan>
Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2012 20:07:40 -0800
To: Brian Johnson <bjohnson@drtel.com>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Dec 4, 2012, at 1:36 PM, Brian Johnson <bjohnson@drtel.com> wrote:
>> -----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....
>>>=20
>>> <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.
>>>=20
>>> This is a misleading statement. ISP's (Common carriers) do not =
provide a
>> knowingly illegal offering, AND they do provide the PHYSICAL =
infrastructure
>> 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) are required
>> by Law (under subpoena) to provide details to law enforcement.
>>>=20
>>=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 =
against
>> 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
>=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?
>=20
Merely because something is political does not exclude it from being =
vital.
There are opportunities for free speech which would be diminished or =
eliminated if TOR were eliminated. As such, yes, it is, in fact a vital =
political tool.
It was a technical issue until people started having their civil rights =
potentially infringed. At that point, it became political and moral =
also.
If you are hiding who I am from someone else and I am breaking a law, I =
presume they would come to you asking (or even demanding) what you know =
about my identity. However, that's not what a TOR exit node does. The =
TOR exit node operator isn't hiding the identity of the sender. You =
can't hide what you never knew.
>>> 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 your
>> packets, keeping in mind that good operators want the Internet to =
work.
>>>=20
>>=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 time. 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 =
possible 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 =
like any other
>> tool. It has beneficial uses and harmful uses. Going after the tool =
is
>> counterproductive and harmful.
>=20
> 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 destroyed. 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
If you send packets from a source, they can be tracked back in some =
cases. However, if you send your packets to someone nearby, anyone =
outside of that path probably can't easily track them back. If they then =
rewrite the packets and forward them to another who repeats that process =
and this process is repeated a few times, then if the person attempting =
to do the track-back isn't aware of the packets until the very far end, =
it can, in fact, be virtually impossible to track them back to the =
originator. This, combined with some obfuscation of the actual content =
along the way and a lack of logging is basically how TOR works.
Providing an effective cloak of anonymity has repeatedly been shown to =
allow important political speech to be made public under circumstances =
when it otherwise would not have been able to. You may not like the =
other uses of TOR. I certainly don't like some of the uses that TOR has =
been put to. However, denying that TOR has, in fact, enabled improved =
freedom of speech in difficult environments ignores substantial evidence =
to the contrary.
>=20
>>=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 =
uses
>> one or more of those.
>>=20
>=20
> Point given. I got off topic here.
>=20
>>>=20
>>>>=20
>>>> It is extremely relevant to the Internet community and to free =
speech in
>>>> general.
>>>=20
>>> 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 =
point 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 =
doesn'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 said
>> ISP.
>>=20
>> Running a TOR exit node isn't hiding any information. It's simply not =
collecting
>> the information in the first place. You can't hide information you =
never had.
>>=20
>=20
> And supplying the Sudafed to the kiddies to use for runny noses is not =
condoning use for crystal meth.
Agreed. I think the current effort I have to go through as an adult to =
buy a simple OTC medication at a time when I'm already feeling like crap =
is ridiculous.
>=20
>>>=20
>>> Short answer... don't use TOR. It's not a bad thing, but it's not a =
good 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 for a
>> ban on the sale of hammers or encouraging carpenters to stop using =
them.
>>=20
>=20
> Once again, this is a political reason not a technical reason. I'm =
sorry for your political situation.
>=20
Yes, this is a political reason. TOR is a technology that is important =
to solving a political problem. It isn't my personal political =
situation, but I have tremendous respect and admiration for those =
courageous enough to make use of it in political situations where it is =
important. I live in the US. In spite of the extent to which recent =
government actions have reduced civil liberties and ignore the =
constitution, they have not quite gotten to the point of eliminating =
free speech.
There's no technological problem with TOR. It works quite well.
There's no inherent political problem with TOR. There is a political =
problem with certain uses of TOR. There is a worse political problem =
with attempting to eliminate TOR just because there is a political =
problem with some uses of TOR.
Owen
