[158608] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jean-Francois Mezei)
Wed Dec 5 11:36:49 2012
Date: Wed, 05 Dec 2012 11:36:19 -0500
From: Jean-Francois Mezei <jfmezei_nanog@vaxination.ca>
To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <37FF3A62-505A-4E9B-9664-54398F03EEA9@delong.com>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
Does it matter if an anomysing service advertises itself as allowing
free speech to users in countries where free speech is censored,
compared to a service that advertises itself as catering to the mafias
of the world, ensuring their crimes are untraceable ?
In the later case, it makes it very easy to think of the sercice
operator as an accomplice to crime.
But if the primary purpose of a service is legitimate, should the
service operator be held liable if there is *some* misuse which cannot
be prevented by the service operator ?
In my opinion, the operator should remain immune until the police shows
up with a warrant and the operator refuses to cooperate.
Tor exit nodes are not that different from payphones or disposable
pre-paid cellular service where the wireless operator has no verifiable
identity/address for the purchasor of the service.
Are phone companies held liable because the mafia uses a payphone to
plan their crimes knowing that they can't trace calls to an individual ?
