Man Found Guilty of Child Porn, Because He Ran a Tor Exit Node::undefined

  • BadRS@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    80
    ·
    1 year ago

    It’s encrypted, encrypted many times over, it’s completely anonymous… as long as you’re staying inside the network. An exit node connects to the regular internet and that’s what’s going to start showing up on logs. This was completely secure for the people actually dealing in cp.

    I can’t believe this stuck, it’s the equivalent of arresting a business owner because someone distributed cp while connected to their Wi-Fi.

    • wackster_fapster@lemmynsfw.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      26
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      CP laws (in the US and probably other places) fall under a doctrine called strict liability, which basically means that you’re guilty regardless of intent or even knowledge of an offense.

      It’s fucked.

      • BadRS@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        There isn’t a crime worse than hurting children. Does that mean we should allow law enforcement infinity leeway to punish these crimes and persue the offenders? I hate to ever give law enforcement any leeway as abuse is so common, but if someone is hurting children I don’t care how you stop it.

        Is hosting a tor exit nods with the knowledge that doing so might help pedophiles hurting children? That feels like too many layers to me. Too esoteric.

        • TechnoBabble@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          1 year ago

          I hate to ever give law enforcement any leeway as abuse is so common, but if someone is hurting children I don’t care how you stop it.

          Is this satire? Because that’s exactly the excuse government has been giving for hundreds of years, to take your freedoms away.

          It’s never about the children. The Catholic church operating with near total immunity, after all these millennia of abuse, is proof of that.

          • BadRS@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            You’re right and I agree completely. My ACAB hat slips when they bring up kinds. Which is, of course, their intent.

    • HousePanther@lemmy.goblackcat.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s quite possible he had either a public defender or a poor attorney. I am friends with an attorney who works with the poor, indigent, and people otherwise unable to fight for themselves. I help him out for free when he has questions related to technology and IT. I really need to read up on Tor because there might come a time when I’ll need to assist my friend in a similar matter. It’s quite chilling that the state could potentially punish a business owner for providing a free service like WiFi. I have another friend who runs a the neighborhood sports bar and she offers WiFi to her customers. I think I need to implement some content filtration for her so as to prevent her from potentially getting blamed for a crime she did not commit.

    • db2@lemmy.one
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Which has probably happened. It’s (shady uses, not necessarily this use) one of the reasons there was a big push to get consumers to put a password on their wifi back in the day.

    • sloppy_diffuser@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      Not completely secure. If the same entity controls the entry and exit nodes (any maybe also relay?), it is my understanding that traffic can be traced back. Low probability, yes, but not completey.