We oughtta arrest the people who pave roads because human traffickers use them to commit crimes.
this post was submitted on 23 Jul 2023
382 points (100.0% liked)
Technology
37604 readers
137 users here now
A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.
Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.
Subcommunities on Beehaw:
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
I wonder if the ISP got charged as well lol
The charges usually end up falling onto the last one who can't stick them onto someone else.
Like, a carrier can blame the ISP, who can blame the VPN, who can check its logs and blame an address owner, who... better keep their own logs capable of identifying someone else if they're letting random people do random stuff using that address. And a good lawyer, and will and money to fight it.
It sure is weird how a political system based around who has the most money always ends up hurting the people that don't have money. Nobody could've predicted that.
load more comments
(9 replies)
From the article...
Yes, as they had to give me the minimum sentence. By law they were right as the law only protected registered companies, unlike in Germany for example. The law was changed a few weeks later to include private persons and sole traders as protected lsps, not just companies, but they had to convict me. No choice in the end.
So, ISPs in Austria actually have legal protection from liability here, rightfully so, and also rightfully so, that protection was extended to private persons as well. A rare story of a legal system apparently working well, with regard to the marriage of privacy and technology.
The law was changed a few weeks later to include private persons and sole traders as protected lsps, not just companies, but they had to convict me. No choice in the end.
I am not sure I would consider this "working well". It is the job of the court to determine if and how to apply law. Laws are never perfect and should be applied per intention, and not word-for-word. If the latter would even be possible, we wouldn't need judges in the first place, because it would be a "simple" decision tree. But it's not. And we have judges and the court processes for a reason.
If the law was amended a few weeks later, it shows, IMO, that the intention of the law was different than what was written down. Therefore the judge should have ruled that way by acknowledging that while the law does not exempt private individuals, its intention shows that it clearly should (simply because it doesn't make much sense otherwise).
In other words: if the system really worked well, the judge would have sentenced (or rather not sentenced) within the intention of the law, and not within the strict writing.
(Worst case is that something like that gets escalated to the highest court who then either also accepts or overrules it.)
Yep given this is Austrian jurisprudence they should be able to apply Radbruch. Could it be overturned on appeal? Sure, but the judge also wouldn't look stupid on appeal. German courts are using it in instances like conjuring a Romeo+Juliet exception out of thin air (in the "sex on your 14th birthday with your SO who is still 13" kind of sense), directly contradicting written law, saying "yep they overlooked that corner case". Law didn't even get updated as application of the formula is so uncontroversial.
In particular, this letter-of-law interpretation ignores equality before the law -- that between natural and juridical persons. You need a proper reason to do such a thing. Quoth Radbruch:
Where there is not even an attempt at justice, where equality, which forms the core of justice, is deliberately betrayed in the laying down of positive law, then the statute is not even merely 'flawed law'—rather, it lacks completely the very nature of law. For law, including positive law, cannot be otherwise defined than as a system and an institution whose very meaning is to serve justice.
load more comments
(2 replies)
Shouldn't all social media, ISPs, Apple, Google, etc also be found guilty of the same crime then? What about CDN?
you see, they are companys and they make monzees that they dont pay taxes on, so its fine. But that guy was a terroristic web activist, subverting the order of the free world by providing free tools to a community of which some used it for illegal purposes.
load more comments
(1 replies)
The absolute balls on the man to continue after being raided. It's unfortunate that the private internet requires people like him to risk their safety so it can continue to operate.
Reading the article, it's not just distributed CP. Someone also used his Tor Exit to hack into a NATO facility in Poland that dealt in chemical/biological weapons. Like, yeeesh.
This “someone” sounds an awful lot like a nation-state actor.
Yikes 😬
I always read this is why you run a relay as an individual not an exit. Some one has to run a exit at some point though.
You don't need an exit node to browse Tor hidden sites. Acting as a relay middle node is also not a problem.
Exit nodes are kind of a "plausible deniability" thing for Tor users from places where using Tor might be frowned upon, but otherwise you can find anything you may want to use Tor for, on hidden sites themselves.
For as much as I'd like to help the Tor network and the idea of free speech, articles like this are why I'd rather let the CIA and other national sponsors take the brunt of running those exit nodes.
But someone somewhere has to be an exit node. Not you, necessarily, in order to browse, but somebody has to be running them. Right?
Tor hidden sites are hosted on Tor nodes, so you don't leave the Tor network to browse them.
Anyone with a Tor node can host a hidden site, and there are some more or less famous ones around. Some open web sites keep a hidden one as an alternative in case their domain gets taken down or blocked for whatever reason in whatever country.
This is equivalent to a criminal running into a crowd to get away from police, and the police just stopping, arresting, and charging the first person in the crowd that they see for not doing anything to stop them.
Child pornography is in no way acceptable and cannot be rationalized as normal. He got what he had coming to him as far as I am concerned.
He wasn't searching for it or knowingly distributing it. The way Tor exit nodes work is that you're hosting a machine that lets other people on the Tor network communicate with the internet. You're essentially routing a portion of the entire network's traffic through your machine. You can't really control who is using it or what it transmits at that point.
He got punished because somebody else shared CP, using his equipment to do so. It's like being jailed for having your car stolen and being used to hit a pedestrian.
Ah, okay. I probably should have read closer. I will delete my comment.
Please don't, the misunderstanding is common, and it just reinforces the point of the rebuttal. I've seen sooo many anti CP laws trying to be forced through congress, but most of it is just bullshit surveillance or drm stuff but it gets the support from people like you who (understandably) hear about the propagation of CP and support stopping it via those laws.
Thank you!
Thank you for being as mature as you are, so many people are not able to learn from their mistakes! be proud of yourself!
You're a legend mate.
I find it infuriating when people refuse to be wrong at all costs, and just delete their comment when they are found to be indisputably wrong.
It's nice to see someone who can just acknowledge that they misunderstood, as do we all at times.
It would be better for you to leave the original comment, use markdown to strike it through*, and create an edit showing that you realized it was wrong.
It shows humility and reflects positively on you, but it also allows the history of this conversation to remain preserved.
~~*not sure if this is possible on Lemmy yet~~
Edit: it is :)
It very much is
It's like being jailed for having your car stolen and being used to hit a pedestrian.
Exactly this, except that nobody stole your car. You are providing free and no-questions-asked open access to your car for any member of the public who needs to use it. Many other people also used the car that day for legitimate business or for fun, but then one guy got in it and ran over 32 people in a furious rampage.
Clearly the driver is at fault here, but a case can be made (and apparently, was) that this would not have been possible had you not provided access to the car to the perp in question.
Clearly the driver is at fault here, but a case can be made (and apparently, was) that this would not have been possible had you not provided access to the car to the perp in question.
This is the equivalent of holding gun manufacturers culpable if someone buys a gun from them and then uses it to commit murder - right?
Well, if weapons manufacturers were handing the guns out literally for free to anyone who has a pulse, I could definitely see them getting in trouble
Why does it make a difference that gun manufacturers charge for their weapens. They make them accessible for basically every adult. If they didn't sell them to basically everyone, many shootings would not happen, as world wide statistics show. Earning income on what they provide makes them even more responsible, because they profit off from the selling. I don't see why they are not being charged for selling it to people that use it to commit crimes, and someone providing an exit point does get charged because he lets people use it while he has no control at all over who uses his access point.
I mean, car manufacturers do this. And it's much easier to buy a car than a gun.
That's a bit more of a stretch, but barely. It's in the same spirit, yes.
Please do note that I'm not necessarily agreeing with the ruling here, only trying to draw a more accurate analogy. The problem with equating those two though - the tor node ruling vs gun manufacturers being liable for deaths - fundamentally comes down to a few facts, that guns are sold with the intention of killing people, that guns are sold by corporations with lots of money and power, and that governments don't want tor in the hands of citizens. Tor node keepers are easy to prosecute in many countries, as individuals hosting software that is frequently used for illegal action. Gun manufacturers are not.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(2 replies)
It's like being jailed for having your car stolen and being used to hit a pedestrian.
Kind of... only you parked the car in front of a jail, left the door open, keys in the ignition, and a "FREE TO USE" sign next to it.
Hey, maybe the next guy will just use it to go buy some groceries... maybe.
I hate this analogy. Its more like you parked it in a very public space and said "free to use" and someone who had been to jail used it. There are all kinds of legitimate reasons to use TOR that aren't child porn, and acting like because it can be used to view child porn makes it truly horrible and hosting hardware to use it makes you part of the problem shows a misunderstanding of what its for.
Let me pose it to you this way. Do you use a VPN? Do you know someone who has used a VPN? Have you watched a YouTube video that was sponsored by a VPN? Do you remember the reasons to use a VPN? Those are all things Tor does well. Better even. And for free. Meanwhile, hosting VPN hardware comes with all the same "people could use it to host child porn" downsides as TOR exit nodes
In my personal life, I use Orbot all the time for things like keeping my Syncthing traffic secure and quickly anonymizing my traffic. I also host a relay because Iranian women and Ukrainian soldiers are currently using the Tor network for life and death circumstances.
load more comments
(10 replies)
The feds in multiple countries have used the tactic of hacking someone's computer, putting charlie papa content on it, and then using that as a reason for arrest. I'm with you that partaking in it is completely unexcusable and sick, however that fact is why it's used by governments to gain more control. "Think of the children."
I have heard of this happening. It is why I have a healthy distrust and dislike of law enforcement. Law enforcement serves the wealthy, powerful, and the interests of the state itself. It is almost like the wealthy have their own paramilitary to do their bidding for them.
In Capitalism, police protect capital.
Police protect both monetary and political capital. They're dogs licking the boots of their masters. Caveat: I am ex-cop. I was fired because I refused to arrest someone for smoking pot peacefully and not bothering anybody. This was in the late 90s.
load more comments
(4 replies)
view more: next ›