[dwj]

No, you misunderstood. My point is that someone else's child porn is going through your computer when you operate a tor exit node - that isn't the case when you just use encryption and transfer it yourself.

Also UPS maintains logs of who sends and receives stuff, so they can easily track down anyone sending child porn or whatever through their service.

[jQueryIsAwesome]

Someone else's child porn is going through your computer when you operate a ISP.

Someone else's child porn is going in your taxi when you are a taxi driver.

Someone else's child porn is being recorded at your house when you rent your house to someone unknown to you.

By your line of logic we should all sit still and do nothing because otherwise we may be helping a pedophile.

[dwj]

The big difference is ISPs keep track of users' ip addresses and they give that information to the police when they get a warrant. tor doesn't keep that information, so basically the exit node is all that the police have. The trail stops at the person running the tor node. Likely the police won't find the actual perv here, but you can't blame them for trying.

Interesting how many downvotes I got here...

[anonymous]

> Interesting how many downvotes I got here...

Maybe you should stop spreading misinformation then: ISPs are not generally required to log IPs, neither on global scale, nor on European scale, nor on Austrian scale. The last two ISPs I've used, for example, were both exempted from the recently passed data retention law.

The irony is that the raided guy owns an ISP himself that (as far as I know) wouldn't be required to log IPs. If the data would have been distributed directly over that equipment, he would not be liable. Even if I'm wrong and he would have been required to keep logs and didn't, he could only be charged with that particular offense. But since the traffic went over Tor he is now at risk to getting his life ruined.

[baak]

A surprising amount of people seem to be just flat out defending child pornography itself, actually. The fact that everyone talks about it so nonchalant is frightening.

People seem to care more about this guy's life being ruined than all the kids' lives ruined.

[retrogradeorbit]

If people are so worried about the "kids' lives ruined" maybe people should be more angry when real, high level, child abuse rings are exposed, then the police that expose them are fired, and the politicians and royalty associated with the perpetrators cover it all up. One example from Europe: The Marc Dutroux case. Another example from the US: The Franklin Coverup.

The real child pedo rings, the ones that are the real danger, are composed of powerful people who work in corporations, levels of government, the judiciary, and royalty. As they say, this one goes right to the top.

Sorry to ruin your day, but the global pedo ring will never be stopped until the the system allows powerful and connected perpetrators to be prosecuted. Busting some ISP Tor supporter, guilty or not, is going to do nothing to the real global child crime networks.

[flyinRyan]

Your post is a disgusting appeal to emotion, and a useless one at that. "Think of the children!". What would you have us do? Crucify this guy who may not be guilty of anything but protecting free speech?

You can go on spouting your nonsense about Tor just being for CP and downloading media, but the internet is getting more and more censored every day. Someone went to jail in India for clicking "like" on a post that spoke out against a politicians. How long until this comes to your country? Things like Tor are the only thing that will keep the internet free over the long term, if it can be done at all.

But no, let's just shut the whole thing down and go back to smoke signals because some asshole out there might otherwise see a picture of a naked kid that was taken 20 years ago.

[Karunamon]

The civil liberties encroachments perpetrated in the guise of "stopping child porn" do a hell of a lot more damage to a hell of a lot more people than all the child porn ever produced.

[baak]

I honestly can't tell if you're being serious or not. I'd like to know how you measure the damage done to a child who is raped on film, much less all of them. "A lot more damage"...

I guess you're right though. Children being victimized is a small price to pay for free movies on bittorrent.

[marshray]

But one can "blame them for trying" because they know, as you pointed out, "likely they won't find the actual perv".

Many police use Tor on a day-to-day basis in their investigations. It's just as useful for the police to need anonymity as it is anyone else. Tor provides an easy-to-use system to identify the exit nodes.

Ignorance of the reality is no excuse.

[dwj]

It's up to the user to prove that the child porn isn't on his computer. As someone pointed out earlier, you could just download a bunch of child porn with a tor exit node running on your computer and say it was someone else.

[anonymous]

> It's up to the user to prove that the child porn isn't on his computer.

You're abandoning central pillars of modern law here, namely the presumption of innocence as well as the right not to incriminate oneself.

[dwj]

No, not exactly. Perhaps I didn't word it correctly. A crime has been committed using the user's internet connection, so in most civilized countries (i.e. places I would like to live in), that means the police have the legal and moral right to investigate that crime. Until proven otherwise, the 'tor' user is a suspect - watch a few episodes of CSI if you want to get a rough idea how it works.

[anonymous]

> A crime has been committed using the user's internet connection, so in most civilized countries (i.e. places I would like to live in), that means the police have the legal and moral right to investigate that crime.

I agree so far.

> Until proven otherwise, the 'tor' user [operator?] is a suspect

The burden of proof lies with the police, not with the suspect. If the police fails to come up with reasonable evidence, the operator is to be acquitted, furthermore the operator has to do nothing to aid the police. It's definitely not up to him to prove the child porn isn't on his computer.

This is an important point. Consider what happens if the seized hard drives were encrypted (I don't know whether this is the case). Then it's virtually impossible for the police to prove that the operator was downloading the data himself. The operator on the other hand is not required to give up his passwords. In the end it all comes down to the question of whether relaying data via Tor is in itself enough to constitute an offense. And this is the question we all care about so much, because it will have implications for all exit node operators in the area.

> watch a few episodes of CSI if you want to get a rough idea how it works.

Oh come on.

[flyinRyan]

>watch a few episodes of CSI if you want to get a rough idea how it works.

Please don't watch CSI if you want to see how anything works. CSI is bullshit from top to bottom. If you want to see reality, watch "The Wire".