Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!


Raided for running a Tor exit - Accepting donations for legal expenses - Page 16
New on LowEndTalk? Please Register and read our Community Rules.

All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.

Raided for running a Tor exit - Accepting donations for legal expenses

1131416181926

Comments

  • kontamkontam Member

    Yes, it's called being in the loop.

    Thanked by 1texteditor
  • XeiXei Member
    edited July 2014

    @vedran said:
    I don't know. Do you have some statistics to back it up?

    He's totally pulling that out of his ass ofcourse. One of TOR's largest use cases from what I read some time ago had to do with censorship. I'm not about to look up stats though... someone else can. :)

  • truth

    in that case he'd know that there was the potential for something illegal to happen by contributing towards an anonymity/encryption service like this.

    privacy

    Tor is a joke. It's one thing encrypting your data over the wire, another to appear from a location you aren't in. I can't think of one reason why I'd "require" Tor over an HTTPS connection. Actively advertising that you're running exit nodes doesn't seem like a smart move either.

    I guess some people will jump on the hippy-esque right to anonymity, can't see how it flies in today's world. I for one, am glad they're able to prove (without looking to closely at the case) that child pornography was used by these exit nodes and therefore these exit nodes existing are a problem.

    analogy

    France's ban on full-face veils seems like a good one.

    Thanked by 1texteditor
  • @Xei said:
    He's totally pulling that out of his ass ofcourse. One of TOR's largest use cases from what I read some time ago had to do with censorship. I'm not about to look up stats though... someone else can. :)

    No actual dissident uses Tor, they are too busy doing actual important stuff than fumble around with dumb nerd 'anonymity' toys

    Thanked by 1kontam
  • MaouniqueMaounique Host Rep, Veteran
    edited July 2014

    @texteditor said:
    No actual dissident uses Tor, they are too busy doing actual important stuff than fumble around with dumb nerd 'anonymity' toys

    And this is the truth because you say so.

    kontam said: God god man, we all know tor is being used for mostly illegal activities.

    That is exactly why it is sponsored by US mil because we all know soldiers are into raping kids, drugs and terrorism.

    ricardo said: I for one, am glad they're able to prove (without looking to closely at the case) that child pornography was used by these exit nodes and therefore these exit nodes existing are a problem.

    And I, for one, I am glad to prove the internet is used for child porn, therefore the internet is a problem. Who needs Tor? Found this site on our servers when someone pointed it out to us, they moved elsewhere, of course, but, still, who needs Tor these days? Be careful on what you click there, though and I hope I remember it right:
    http://nothingtoseehere
    It was still online after we terminated, therefore those people know what they are doing and have verified paypal accounts.

    EDIT: LOL, looks like it is hosted on crissic now.

    Thanked by 50xdragon 5n1p c0y souen Xei
  • @Maounique said:
    It was still online after we terminated, therefore those people know what they are doing and have verified paypal accounts.

    Isn't that slightly illegal to link, lol
    (Haven't clicked it)

  • MaouniqueMaounique Host Rep, Veteran

    Well, I had to anyway when I was pointed out in a ticket, it is just to illustrate this case, that is plain internet not even on https, it is hosted on crissic, should we arrest uncle sal and the crissic guys for facilitating child porn? Or, even better, close down the internet?

    Thanked by 1Mark_R
  • vedranvedran Veteran

    0xdragon said: Isn't that slightly illegal to link, lol (Haven't clicked it)

    I have, and I had to remove the link.

  • The 'net is just a delivery service. Tor is a wrapper for it, specifically used to hide your true identity. Bit of a difference.

    I've no idea what that link is, too scared to click on it.

  • Maounique said: Well, I had to anyway when I was pointed out in a ticket, it is just to illustrate this case, that is plain internet not even on https, it is hosted on crissic, should we arrest uncle sal and the crissic guys for facilitating child porn? Or, even better, close down the internet?

    Why did you take down the site if you are such a hardliner for "anything goes" on the internet? Tor isn't policeable the same way your own network is

    Thanked by 1ricardo
  • MaouniqueMaounique Host Rep, Veteran

    Will you remove this too? http://www.cleanternet.org/ It is dangerous propaganda for child porn, one day we will have to chase those people too, they facilitate and enable the criminals.

  • And you'll be wanting to admonish the getaway driver in bank jobs ;o)

  • Maounique said: Will you remove this too? http://www.cleanternet.org/ It is dangerous propaganda for child porn, one day we will have to chase those people too, they facilitate and enable the criminals.

    You live in some bizarre alternate reality

  • MaouniqueMaounique Host Rep, Veteran

    texteditor said: Why did you take down the site if you are such a hardliner for "anything goes" on the internet? Tor isn't policeable the same way your own network is

    1. It is Illegal. It does not matter what I think, as long as it is illegal, I have to obey the law. When the law will require me to report any bikers tot he police because bikers are to be sentenced to death, that will not go, of course, and I will go to great lengths to help bikers organize and fight back, with weapons if needed. Until the law asks such things, I can continue to oppose people which try to make it so.
    2. It is very policeable. Law enforcement should do their job for once and stop relying on interceptions and illegal rulings and unconstitutional laws. By the same idea you should allow police enter any house and search anything. Why would anyone hide something? Because they are doing something illegal, there are many houses where terrorists gather, therefore all houses can be searched as long as you cant know all houses where they plan their attacks and hide their bombs. Also, all basements should be under the same regime because we all know austrian (!) child molesters are hiding there their incests. Why we dont see the police complaining about the incredible difficulties the need to get warrants for every house search puts on their fight against crime? Because people actually know what that means, while on the internet it is not as clear for everyone.
    Thanked by 1MikePT
  • MaouniqueMaounique Host Rep, Veteran
    edited July 2014

    texteditor said: You live in some bizarre alternate reality

    It happened here. People talking about food shortages or listening to foreign radio were in league with the enemies of the state so either criminals or lunatics, sentenced to horrible detention or put to electroshocks. You do not know what you are asking for.

    ricardo said: The 'net is just a delivery service. Tor is a wrapper for it, specifically used to hide your true identity. Bit of a difference.

    Indeed. The street just facilitate the movement of people and goods, the wallet is just a wrapper for your ID meant to hide it. A bit of a difference. So, while the street is legal, hiding your ID is illegal, therefore people found not displaying their ID on the forefront AND the back for the surveillance cameras to get from all angles will have to be jailed because they help criminals to hide among them. Heck, you must prove you have a valid reason to be on the street, otherwise you are there just to create difficulties for the surveillance and help the enemy hide. Curfews are serious business.
    I remember a joke from the curfew times.
    Two policemen were patrolling the streets. One takes his gun and shuts someone.
    -Why did you kill him, there are still 15 minutes until the curfew? asks the other.
    -I happen to know the guy and where he lives, there is no chance in hell he will make it home in 15 minutes.

    Thanked by 2gbshouse 5n1p
  • ricardoricardo Member
    edited July 2014

    Let me clarify as it seems we have drastically different ideas of the rule of law , morality and why a case like this ended up in the courts of the land.

    Child pornography is illegal in most (all?) countries and enabling someone to view child porn without retribution (via encryption and proxy) could easily be argued as enabling.

    The Internet itself as we well know is not anonymous as your IP belongs to a commercial provider that (should) hold your personal details. In situations where it's rightly so, authorities can request that information, IMO.

    Your ID analogy is just fishing for the lowest common denominator and arguing against it.

  • xyzxyz Member

    kontam said: Terrorism and drugs I can digest, but child pornography I can't.

    I agree - mass killings (possibly including children)? Pfft... but a picture of a naked child, DEAR LORD!

  • c0yc0y Member
    edited July 2014

    @xyz said:
    I agree - mass killings (possibly including children)? Pfft... but a picture of a naked child, DEAR LORD!

    The worst thing is that the more you prohibit it, the more desperate people want it who are into it. Same for drugs.

  • MaouniqueMaounique Host Rep, Veteran
    edited July 2014

    ricardo said: Child pornography is illegal in most (all?) countries and enabling someone to view child porn without retribution (via encryption and proxy) could easily be argued as enabling.

    No, that is not the point. Not by far.
    While I admit Tor can be used for nefarious things and other similar services too, that does not justify the guilty by association theory. MANY (if not all) businesses today can facilitate such things and given time you KNOW they will, including yours. Terrorists can use your bus line to transport money/bomb parts/guns, child molesters your phone cameras to record their "deeds", drug dealers your restaurant's toilet or parking to push their death, even the pizza delivery boy you hire could be a courier for the mafia, the taxi driver, the janitor, are you supposed to break the privacy of everyone and record in secret the phone location, make it covertly send to you all pictures taken and give them to the NSA, after all, if all the things you do are legal, what are you afraid of? Only criminals need privacy, and WILL ALWAYS GET IT NO MATTER HOW MUCH YOU INFRINGE ON THE RIGHTS OF YOUR CITIZENS!

    Do you think that a criminal will have a problem getting a phone which will fake the pictures and location or not report it at all, wont be able to use a stolen one, a stolen credit card to buy a new one, a forged ID to open an account at the bank, there are many ways to launder money, people fight wars in the streets with illegal guns in US and the state is busy tracking people online. Do you think it is not possible to make a VPN between two stolen phones and transfer any kind of data without any risk, use public services such as wi-fi's found in gas stations, wep or wds "protected" networks not to mention the open ones? What rights will we have to waiver so all those things are not possible anymore?
    You are forgetting one thing: The criminals are not afraid of the laws and rulings. The definition of a criminal is someone which does not obey the law. By ruling and legislating against civil rights you are only pushing more and more law abiding citizens underground. Either because of their convictions or because of necessity.
    A drug addict does not have a choice, same as gays or kids or vulnerable people. They will have to break the law forced by internal or external factors. As I said many times before, you do not legislate against immigration to keep the criminals out. By doing so you keep only the honest people out. The criminals will come in either way, and then you can say, see, those people we try to protect you against are all criminals, we need tougher laws against immigration, and then higher walls, then more policing, more racial profiling, more surveillance. Will the criminals find it more difficult to come? Perhaps, but they will still come and will go to extremes to protect themselves if the law is harsh. Capital punishment, they have nothing to lose, catching one will be a bloodbath. We manage to turn a nuissance into a disaster for all parties involved.

    Thanked by 1MikePT
  • kontamkontam Member

    You're right, I don't know why we don't just allow that. Perhaps when you have children you can set an example for us.

    Thanked by 1texteditor
  • MaouniqueMaounique Host Rep, Veteran
    edited July 2014

    xyz said: I agree - mass killings (possibly including children)? Pfft... but a picture of a naked child, DEAR LORD!

    Killing kids is fine as long as that is done in the name of the right religion to fight islam or simply to get cheap oil. Israel will once again apply collective punishment on gaza people because there are some terrorists there and we must understand that is the norm, guilty by association. Sure, nobody loves the bombers, their land being confiscated, house demolished and kids killed, so they hate Israel, that is the reason they must die.
    Same here, sooner or later there will be civil disobedience against surveillance laws, more and more people (including me) will go to jail for "helping the enemy" or even be killed as traitors for exposing some crimes, William is one of the first. It is too bad that even here where we are supposed to be people that value our rights, slightly above average in IQ, people which know history and how dictatorship came to power to "solve" problems, how it never worked and people always had to die for freedom and democracy, at times by the hundred of million, such gestures are not appreciated for the true value.

    Thanked by 1jvnadr
  • ricardoricardo Member
    edited July 2014

    @Maounique

    I still think you're arguing the lowest common denominator, at least in the top half of your post.

    I understand you're an advocate of freedom of speech and right to anonymity and that's fine, that's your right to believe it. The middle section of your post addresses that. I'm led to believe you're from a country that was known to be oppressive in the near past and can understand why you may take this viewpoint.

    And there is that old saying about "Those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither" but I don't think that's entirely relevant here.

    Here's my take:

    • Does the Internet benefit us as a society? Yes, yes it does. Telecommunications has done a lot for us.
    • Does Tor? No, not really. It obfuscates data, because, .... well, I'm sure you have really important things that no one else is allowed to know about that you'd like to transmit across the world.

    Use Tor and wear a hoodie.

    @William, I guess he believes in similar values to yourself, and fair play to him. Live by the sword, die by the sword. If he didn't knowingly faciliate a crime then who can disagree it's a harsh price to pay if he serves time for it. To say someone is not aware of the possibilities of a crime being committed on those exit nodes is just naive.

    If Tor was made illegal I certainly wouldn't feel like my liberties have been taken from me. In fact, it'd have no bearing on my life at all.

    BTW, publicly advertising the fact you host exit nodes seems like a simple method for entrapment, by authorities or people who simply don't like you.

    Thanked by 1texteditor
  • KuJoeKuJoe Member, Host Rep

    Poor William, thanks to this thread he's being associated with some pretty bad stuff now.

  • c0yc0y Member
    edited July 2014

    ricardo said: Does Tor? No, not really. It obfuscated data, because, .... well, I'm sure you have really important things that no one else is allowed to know about that you'd like to transmit across the world.

    Tor wasn't originally intended for the lazy Western citizens it is utilized by today. Tor was there for people in countries with aggressively censoring countries before the entire NSA scandal came to light.

    Thanked by 35n1p Xei djvdorp
  • ricardoricardo Member
    edited July 2014

    Censoring is the closest to a plausible argument for using it, IMO, though I'm led to believe people are entitled to live outside of those countries.

  • rm_rm_ IPv6 Advocate, Veteran

    ricardo said: Does Tor? No, not really. It obfuscates data, because, .... well, I'm sure you have really important things that no one else is allowed to know about that you'd like to transmit across the world.

    And that shows you don't even understand what exactly it is, that you are arguing about.

  • I understand it perfectly fine. If you know differently, provide some reasoning.

  • This thread made me yawn.

    Thanked by 2Lee matthewvz
  • MaouniqueMaounique Host Rep, Veteran
    edited July 2014

    ricardo said: If Tor was made illegal I certainly wouldn't feel like my liberties have been taken from me.

    I am also sure that if homosexuality would have been made illegal you would have felt as free as before, nor if Islam or any religion that is not yours would be outlawed, or any race that is not yours discriminated. However, any society is made up of minorities. The children minority, the men minority, the various races and religions as well as ethnicities in minority. The only majority among people is humans. That is why we are speaking of human rights.
    Problem is, privacy and Tor as a facilitator for it do benefit people fighting for freedom in many countries AND in US and EU. You can be sure many whistle blowers used it to report on illegal and unconstitutional stuff. If your boss in the army knows you are leaking evidence about his rapes and collective punishments, guess who will die by enemy hands?
    You probably do not feel like your rights were violated now, and it is perfectly fine, fact is:
    1. Tor is not illegal in Austria. If running an anonymity service is illegal, then that must be clearly stated in the law.
    2. William was not condemned for molesting kids or even viewing child porn or getting money from it. He was found guilty by association. Like if you are running a bar where you know people might be dealing drugs and you get arrested as someone who helped them, because nobody needs a bar, people can have a drink at home too.
    That kind of stuff is scary. What is even more scary is the fact there are people which believe that is the right thing to do.

  • LeeLee Veteran

    The world according to Mao :P

    Thanked by 1texteditor
This discussion has been closed.