
Tor Project Sued - mike-cardwell
https://www.scribd.com/fullscreen/233081133?access_key=key-WFujAqEI3BioFxNO43R3
======
AlyssaRowan
Not a lawyer, let alone a Texas lawyer.

But two pages in and plaintiff has already seemingly misrepresented to the
court: where does Tor's website show that they are aware of either this
particular hidden service, or this site?

There most certainly cannot be any "conspiracy" with someone they don't know
about, or any "meeting of the minds" without evidence they've even spoken!
That's just plain clear old-fashioned bullshit.

I've never heard of it before and there are no indications that they found the
"pinkmeth.com" site hard to serve at all: it's a .com.

Tor should be discharged as a party: they are completely irrelevant to this
case.

~~~
danielweber
IANAL either, but the lawsuit doesn't say that TOR knows specifically about
Pinkmeth. Instead the weasel words of "knowingly assists websites _such as_
Pinkmeth (in committing torts)." (Page 3 of 30, or page 5 of the PDF). So not
really a lie, but more just a paper-thin excuse that (again, IANAL) I wouldn't
expect to really tie the TOR project to it, especially as TOR couldn't stop it
if it wanted to.

 _EDIT_ many edits

~~~
Intermernet
On page 8 they bring up this up:

"Pinkmeth and TOR conspired to and had a meeting of the minds regarding the
commission certain torts against Plaintiff more adequately described in
paragraphs 5.1 - 5.15 above, as well as certain felony offense described in
paragraph 4.8 and 4.9 above. The specific object to be accomplished by the
conspiracy was the publication pornographic images of Plaintiff (and other
women) on the Pinkmeth website"

I think "conspired" may be a little misguided here.

~~~
coolj
INAL (but I play on one daytime TV): Their whole claim aginst TOR amounts to:

pp. 2-3

"According to its website, TOR "was originally designed, implemented, and
deployed as a third-generation onion routing project of the U.S. Naval
Research Laboratory. It was originally developed with the U.S. Navy in mind,
for the primary purpose of protecting government communications." The TOR
website further states that their products and services are used by
individuals "to keep websites from tracking them and their family members, or
to connect to news sites, instant messaging services, or the like when these
are blocked by their local Internet providers." TOR also provides services
that permit users, such as Pinkmeth, to "publish web sites and other services
without needing to reveal the location of the site." [...] It is clear from
the TOR website that TOR is knowingly assisting websites such as Pinhneth in
committing torts against Texas resident..."

p. 5

"However, unscrupulous Internet service companies such as TOR offer "private"
or "anonymous" domain name hosting services that allow criminals such as
Pinkmeth and its users to escape accountability for their actions. TOR even
advertises that with their service "nobody would be able to determine who was
offering the site, and nobody who offered the site would know who was posting
to it." [...] many unscrupulous companies offer services that allow illegal
websites such as Pinkmeth to remain anonymous and difficult for authorities to
shut down. Indeed Pinkmeth's Twitter feed advertises its website as being a
website "where your state laws don't apply.""

pp. 8-9

"The specific object to be accomplished by the conspiracy was the publication
pornographic images of Plaintiff (and other women) on the Pinkmeth website in
such a mannner so as to prevent its operators and users from being held
civilly and criminally accountable for this unlawful behavior."

This seems to be conflating a few things. The fact that "revenge porn" sites
exist outside of anonymous content distribution networks like TOR shows that
anonymity wasn't a required component in the tort allegedely commited by
Pinkmeth. There are many cases involving sites like that being taken down from
public hosting providers. The fact that TOR could allegedly allow defendant to
escape prosecution does not equate to a real conspiracy to assist defendant in
escaping prosecution. A person hosting a costume party isn't automatically
responsible for a murderer taking advantage of the anonymity to commit a
crime, without some evidence of collusion.

------
dctoedt
The defendants, which apparently are not residents of Texas, will probably
exercise their statutory right to "remove" [1] this lawsuit, so that instead
of the case being heard in the Texas state court in Denton, it'll be in the
federal court in Dallas [2].

We can expect the defendants to move to dismiss the case on the merits, on
grounds that their conduct is protected by Section 230 of the Communications
Decency Act [3]. Whether they'll succeed is another question, especially as to
Pinkmeth, and Tor might have an uphill battle as well.

We can also expect the defendants to move to dismiss on procedural grounds --
they will claim that they don't have enough contact with Texas to be properly
subject to suit there (here) [4]. That too will probably be the subject of
"satellite" litigation in pre-trial motion practice.

This won't be an inexpensive exercise for the defendants, just in terms of
legal fees.

[1]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Removal_jurisdiction](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Removal_jurisdiction)

[2]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_District_Court_fo...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_District_Court_for_the_Northern_District_of_Texas)

[3]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230_of_the_Communicatio...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230_of_the_Communications_Decency_Act)

[4]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_jurisdiction](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_jurisdiction)

~~~
johnnymonster
I would assume that the defendants are not going to do a single thing. I
highly doubt they are in the united states. the pinkmeth website even makes
fun of the "lolsuit". I'm going to guess no response will be given and they
will just ignore the whole thing.

~~~
subleq
Pinkmeth are not the defendants; Tor is.

~~~
ef4
Read the actual article. Both of them are listed as defendants.

------
onion2k
This is a good thing, because unless provision of anonymity is tested in court
and shown to be legal and useful there's always the possibility that it's not
protected by law and people will be in danger of getting sued or imprisoned if
they make anonymising services. Far better to test it in court with a stupid
revenge porn website than testing it with a case of, for example, a
whistleblower where authorities feels they need to win. With some previous
precedents set it'll make it far harder to argue that providers of anonymity
are responsible or culpable when it actually matters.

~~~
tragic
> Far better to test it in court with a stupid revenge porn website than
> testing it with a case of, for example, a whistleblower where authorities
> feels they need to win.

Disclaimer: I'm one of the less privacy-obsessed posters on here. Even so:
_really_?

Hypothetically speaking, if the US state apparatus wants to clamp down on Tor
and anonymising services, then you don't want your test case to be a
whistleblower for whom there may turn out to be wider public sympathy. You
want it to be some obvious, incontrovertible scumbag. Plays much, much nicer
in the public gallery. That's just how it's done.

Cf. how a more punitive defamation regime in the UK was won on the back not of
politicians trying to protect their expenses or some such, but the hacking of
a dead teenager's voicemail and various other dirty tricks of the gutter
press. This is just the way you do things.

~~~
xophe
Yes, exactly this.

If they lose, then there's going to be precedent for when the stakes are high.
And I can't see how they can totally escape culpability, since they can't even
turn over the source if they wanted to.

The anonymity Tor provides is fundamental from an Internet activist
perspective but in the eyes of the law (and the world outside our tech bubble)
it's aiding and abetting. There's a reason why we're not allowed to have
encrypted landlines.

I don't feel good about this at all.

~~~
DanBC
> There's a reason why we're not allowed to have encrypted landlines.

Wait, what? Is that true? It isn't true, as far as I know, in the UK.

~~~
schoen
Also not true in the U.S. (unless "not allowed to" means "the government has
successfully deterred it" rather than "it's illegal").

------
serf
"However, unscrupulous Internet service companies such as TOR offer "private"
or "anonymous" domain name hosting services that allow criminals such as
Pinkmeth and its users to escape accountability for their actions. TOR even
advertises that with their service "nobody would be able to determine who was
offering the site, and nobody who offered the site would know who was posting
to it."

Wow. Weird to think of a non-profit software group which makes software that
aims to decentralize/anonymize parts of the web through mostly the bandwidth
of the users of their product as an "Internet service company", but I suppose
it is. Kinda.

~~~
malka
The TOR project NEVER provided a service, if I am not mistaken. They provide
the software, and that's it.

~~~
icebraining
Actually, they do: the Directory Servers, which the clients use for knowing
about other nodes.

For example: [https://blog.torproject.org/blog/time-directory-authority-
ou...](https://blog.torproject.org/blog/time-directory-authority-outside-useu)

~~~
belorn
A Directory Server is akin to ARIN, in that it's a directory of all the nodes
and their location in the network.

Suing ARIN (and services like it) because there is a website somewhere which
is connected to the INTERNET is a new form of silliness not seen before. Sure,
technically, ARIN do "perform a service" which "enables" a revenge site to
operate, but it is so indirect, so remote from the offending party, that it is
just silly.

~~~
forgottenpass
A Directory Server is also akin to a torrent tracker or website hosting links
to tv shows on another video service's website.

No not exactly, but unless you have the legal arguments so that it will not be
treated as such by the courts, I'm just putting it out there.

~~~
belorn
A torrent tracker is a directory over content and distributors, and the legal
liabilities has so far been limited to mostly conspiracy charges. You would
have to show that there was a "agreement between persons", which require a
"meeting of the minds". Doing so is sometimes possible because the torrent
tracker has knowledge of the relationship of distributors and content.

Second, as a legal matter, too much indirection is typical not acceptable for
accessory crimes. Common practice normally allow only one step of indirection.

ARIN lacks in both aspects. ARIN do not know who is a distributor, or what
content those who are distributors might carry, and as logic implies, can't
know the relationship between distributor and content. They are also several
indirection away from the alleged crime. The only thing ARIN handles is
location of network nodes.

------
cones688
There's something quite ironic about this statement if you swap out Pinkmeth
and nude photographs and replace with US government:

"Pinkmeth has intentionally intruded on Plaintiffs solitude, seclusion or
private affairs. Specifically, Pinkmeth gained unauthorized access to nude
photographs constituting the property of Plaintiff"

------
linuxhansl
Instead of letting it rest, Shelby (the plaintiff) will now be known to a far
wider audience. Should have read up about the Streisand effect.

The petition seems to be slightly clueless. Tor and Pinkmeth "conspired"? And
then a list of anonymous comments from Pinkmeth... They clearly do not speak
for Pinkmeth (or Tor). And who is this "Tor" anyway? Everybody who runs a
relay or exit node? The software engineers?

Yes, Tor can be used to transfer information. You also need a computer for
that. Did that computer's manufacturer also conspire? What about about the
routers that transmit the information?

~~~
synctext
Clueless is the issue at play here it seems. This case has years of history.

With some light digging you can find out that she also sued Verisign:
[http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/12/06/52881.htm](http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/12/06/52881.htm)
Same thing happened there, lot of smoke, no substance.

~~~
blossoms
Anybody have a link to the document? It's behind a paywall?

~~~
mpnordland
I seem to be able to access it, and I've never paid Scribd anything.

~~~
jasonlotito
They're referring to the document in the article. Not the article or scribd.

------
voltagex_
Could this be a case of advertising for the lawyer involved? The Twitter feed
is... interesting.
[https://twitter.com/MeanTXLawyer](https://twitter.com/MeanTXLawyer)

~~~
ninjin
This guy, he previously threatened @pinkmeth over on Twitter to "make an
exception to not beating women" if it turned out that @pinkmeth was a woman,
there was also a tweet about his backyard, a gun and a shovel. Being the class
act that he is, he now appears to have removed them, is it even legal to make
those kinds of threats in the first place?

~~~
Filligree
IANAL, but no, I don't believe death threats are legal.

~~~
spacemanmatt
Preemptory death threats are part of the path to disbarment. I hope defendants
can nail those tweets to him in court.

------
Kyris
This is like suing the women's clothes shop that sold the tights to a person
who then used the tights to conceal their identity whilst robbing a bank.

Ban Tights! We must stop people wearing tights. The world will not be free
whilst people can buy tights.

------
RobAley
I've never read one of these in full before, and I'm somewhat bemused by
section 9.1., which is a prayer. Is that a normal, usual or required part of
such a complaint? Seems quite out of place to me.

~~~
spacemanmatt
Not all prayer is directed toward a supernatural entity.

~~~
RobAley
Indeed, but it sounds out of place regardless of the target. Now I understand
what it is, "request" or similar seems a more appropriate word. "Prayer"
evokes some kind super-legal meaning or precedence onto the request that is
out of place in a matter-of-fact setting.

------
lucaspiller
The interesting part to me is that the court claims it has jurisdiction
because it is accessible in Texas and to Texas residents:

> This Court has jurisdiction over the website and all of its administrators
> under the Texas Long Arm Statute because they (a) operate
> illegal"involuntary pornography" or "revenge pornography" websites on the
> World Wide Web that are accessible to and targets residents of the State of
> Texas

> This Court has jurisdiction over TOR because it (a) advertises and offers
> the services referenced above in Texas and to Texas residents

~~~
300bps
The court didn't write that; the Plaintiffs attorney wrote that. The
Plaintiffs attorney can write anything in the complaint; it doesn't make it
true and it doesn't make it a ruling from the court.

~~~
ufmace
+1, I think a lot of people don't realize that anybody can file a lawsuit for
absolutely anything at all, without it necessarily meaning anything. Just
because an actual lawyer wrote it and it was properly submitted to an actual
court doesn't mean that it's valid or that anything will happen. It has no
meaning or validity until the court rules on it.

------
xophe
>> Suing a revenge porn site. Fair, next.

Oh wait there's more.

From [https://www.torproject.org/docs/faq-
abuse.html.en](https://www.torproject.org/docs/faq-abuse.html.en)

>> Tor aims to provide protection for ordinary people who want to follow the
law. Only criminals have privacy right now, and we need to fix that.

True, but distribution has always been the hard part in any kind of scalable
criminal activity, and Tor is _unwittingly_ facilitating this.

There's definitely a case here against PinkMeth.com. Revenge porn sites don't
really receive protection under fair use.

So here's the sticky part.

Here's Tor's hidden services overview:
[https://www.torproject.org/docs/hidden-
services.html.en](https://www.torproject.org/docs/hidden-services.html.en)

Since the hidden services are themselves run over Tor, it looks to me like the
only thing Tor can do is refuse to serve PinkMeth.com without identifying the
agents. Which might be good for privacy precedent on the one hand, but bad if
Tor as a result receives all the flack for all criminal activity run over Tor
-- that means Tor relays (who _are_ identifiable) are next.

Ideas to save Tor?

~~~
wcummings
"Blocking" sites, were this feisible, would be the death of Tor, not its
savior.

------
artpar
So whats next, sue "The Internet" for there are websites like the pirate bay ?
Did I get the anology right ?

------
pron
This is the most important bit, IMO:

 _CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST TOR_

 _6.1 A civil conspiracy consists of a combination of two or more persons to
accomplish an unlawful purpose or a lawful purpose by unlawful means._

 _6.2 Pinkmeth and TOR conspired to and had a meeting of the minds regarding
the commission certain torts against Plaintiff more adequately described in
paragraphs 5.1 - 5.15 above, as well as certain felony offense described in
paragraph 4.8 and 4.9 above. The specific object to be accomplished by the
conspiracy was the publication pornographic images of Plaintiff (and other
women) on the Pinkmeth website in such a manner so as to prevent its operators
and users from being held civilly and criminally accountable for this unlawful
behavior._

------
eliteraspberrie
Including the Tor project in this lawsuit is obviously out of ignorance, and
won't succeed.

Having said that, personally, I would just attack the hidden service directly.
It's not particularly difficult to censor a node by DoS. More sophisticated
attacks include setting up your own hidden service directory server and just
return 404 for requests to PinkMeth. Researchers have shown it's possible and
doesn't require much resources: _Trawling for Tor Hidden Services: Detection,
Measurement, Deanonymization_. [http://www.ieee-
security.org/TC/SP2013/papers/4977a080.pdf](http://www.ieee-
security.org/TC/SP2013/papers/4977a080.pdf)

~~~
icebraining
For a court, it's probably better to issue a subpoena to the domain registrar
to find who paid for it.

------
hxc
I was looking on the Lawyer's website. Found this to be hilarious (located in
the FAQ's)

>Q: Is this firm owned by the same Jason Van Dyke that got PinkMeth.com shut
down? A: Yes. We have helped victims of revenge pornography in the past and
will continue to do so in the future?[1]

I guess pinkmeth.com is already shutdown? I can still see the website up and
working.

[1][http://vandykelawfirm.com/index-1.html](http://vandykelawfirm.com/index-1.html)

------
jebblue
In the comments, there are insults and insinuations and implications of a
negative manner towards Texas and Texans. Engaging in such negativity does not
enhance or otherwise bolster one's stand in the general pragmatic view of the
world.

~~~
zorbo
Can you point out those comments, because I see nothing of the kind? The only
thing that comes even close is "Of course it's Texas I men where else would it
be..." and that is obviously a jab at the unique way in which Texas deals with
the law regarding all things IT.

------
mike-cardwell
Relevant thread on the tor-talk mailing list:

[https://www.mail-archive.com/tor-
talk@lists.torproject.org/m...](https://www.mail-archive.com/tor-
talk@lists.torproject.org/msg14085.html)

~~~
jrockway
Love the lawyer's Twitter page: "Owner of The Van Dyke Law Firm P.L.L.C. and
quite possibly the meanest and most right-wing lawyer in Texas."

I feel like there's another -est he's forgetting about.

------
enneff
I'm sitting here wondering what possible motivation someone might have for
running a site like Pinkmeth. It's one thing to share the amateur porn, but
why share the names and locations?

~~~
pjc50
Misogyny?

~~~
walshemj
or blackmail pay us x or ....

~~~
danielweber
Yes, blackmail. "Pay us to take it down."

------
cookiecaper
This is the same as suing ICANN for providing a domain name or suing Layer3
for providing a Tier 1 backbone that allows users to connect to the "bad"
site. On what basis do intermediate routers avoid liability for connecting to
other sites? Shouldn't the same be applicable to TOR (The Onion Router), which
is just another routing methodology?

------
neurobro
I feel bad for the plaintiff. First her pictures were posted to that site,
which apparently caused enough distress to seek counsel. And now, despite
virtually no chance of redress for her, the whole thing will be far more
publicized so this lawyer can throw a hail mary and try to make a name for
himself.

~~~
keithpeter
And the wide publicity resulting from the political fallout of a legal case
touching TOR, one hopes the 'torch and pitchfork' elements will back off a
bit.

------
xeroxmalf
Are they suing tor2web[0] as well, seeing as the "AKA" listed includes the
tor2web address, *.onion.lt, or just another example of this lawyers lack of
research?

[0] [https://tor2web.org](https://tor2web.org)

------
jijji
On page 8 of the document it says that the website owner of "pinkmeth.com" and
the owner of TOR had a "meeting of the minds" and committed torts against the
plaintiffs. That is quite a stretch.

------
throwaway283719
The tl;dr seems to be that "pinkmeth.com" is a revenge porn site (who are also
being sued) and that the Tor Project is being sued because they "knowingly
assist sites such as pinkmeth.com".

------
usumoio
That's fine. Its super easy to sue someone. I could sue Facebook for having
boring ads. Will my case go to a trial that I have a remote chance of
winning...? Not a chance. This is the same thing.

------
neurobro
Disclaimer: Nobody here is attempting to "practice law" through HN comments
unless they explicitly state otherwise. FFS.

------
mpnordland
I'm sorry, but the plaintiff in this case nor her lawyer cannot possibly be
technically capable of understanding what happens with Tor. Section 4.4
reveals this by saying: " The World Wide Web operates using web "browsers" ...
to read a web-based programming language commonly known as HTML." Will people
never learn the difference between markup and programming?

~~~
mortov
You would have thought they would have learned that since they apparently
first sued in 2012 - 2 years is surely long enough to learn about the internet
?
[http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/12/06/52881.htm](http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/12/06/52881.htm)

------
mariuolo
I wonder if they could be compelled to sabotage the security of TOR à la
lavabit or allegedly Truecrypt.

~~~
danielweber
"Allegedly" can hide a lot of accusations.

------
ahunt09
Petty, I know, but "The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
(ICAAN)" (?)

------
jijji
You know you are big when you get sued by random states for doing nothing
wrong

------
SquareWheel
Is there a non-scribd link?

~~~
yebyen
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=954967](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=954967)

"Scribd was seed funded by Y Combinator."

~~~
yebyen
This was in the top google results looking for a connection, I knew it was a
fact but I don't know why people hate on Scribd or why it would be considered
ethically or morally wrong... I think it's relevant that Scribd is supported
by Y-Combinator. Is there a reason why you don't want to click through to
Scribd and press download?

~~~
gabriel34
Because they hide most content behind a paywall (even content they don't own)
and still allow it to be indexed by search engines.

It is really frustrating to search for a more elusive document and find it on
scribd only to discover its behind a paywall.

They break down search engines by allowing indexation of unavailable content.

------
jstalin
I hate scribd. Please stop using it.

------
Fuxy
Of course it's Texas I men where else would it be...

I never considered Tor an ISP since their using their users connections to the
internet which they have already payed for and are sharing for free but ok.

I would call it more of a social network where everybody is helping everybody
else stay anonymous.

Tor project offer private and anonymous domain name hosting? Well technically
maybe but not really... it's not like you can access .onion domains without
installing Tor and if you do install Tor you're opting to be anonymous.

How does this work if a program is offering anything close to the domain to IP
resolution used on the internet while preserving your anonymity within their
ecosystem they are breaking the law?

It's a piece of software designed to preserve you privacy and anonymity of
course everything in its ecosystem is going to do that and their going to
advertize that.

------
jheriko
As much as I don't like the litigation culture or 'the man' stepping on 'the
little guy' as a result - but if the little guy is being a dick and acting in
violation of the spirit of the law then let him stomp away in defence of other
little people... the world will be better for it.

If you provide the means to do something wrong - no matter what your intent -
you are still responsible because without your actions the wrong would not
have come to pass.

~~~
cruise02
Bullshit. If I make steak knives for a living, am I responsible when someone
gets stabbed?

~~~
menubar
But what if your steak knife product was called "Fatal Revenge Stabber for Ex-
Girlfriends and Steak"?

~~~
cruise02
That's a valid point. I'd probably take some heat for that.

------
InTheArena
I'm actually pretty disturbed by the comments here. Of all of the comments, I
don't see a single one that basically goes after the fact that some one has a
revenge porn site, that identifies users, and that is using TOR to enable it.
I agree that most of this lawsuit w.r.t TOR is bogus - just like trying to sue
the Internet for all of the stupid shit that goes on there.

The one time I ventured into TOR (many many years ago), I got scared off
immediately when I just saw the description of hidden services. Pure anonymity
is almost as evil as no anonymity. Reading into the comment, it looks like the
plaintiff was underage, had these posted against her consent, and then
publicly distributed with her name attached.

Unless TOR finds a way to balance enablement with responsibility, it will
eventually slide into nothing more then the criminal underbelly of the
Internet, and all that is vile about modern civilization.

~~~
icebraining
_I 'm actually pretty disturbed by the comments here. Of all of the comments,
I don't see a single one that basically goes after the fact that some one has
a revenge porn site, that identifies users, and that is using TOR to enable
it._

Because there's nothing fruitful to discuss. Yes, it's a terrible thing and
the people behind it should be prosecuted and convicted. Most of us take that
for granted, there's no point in saying it.

 _Pure anonymity is almost as evil as no anonymity._

The thing is, when you're talking about important enough acts, like dissidence
from authoritarian regimes, there's no such thing as "non-pure anonymity".
You're either anonymous or imprisoned (or worse). So there's really no much we
can do if we want to keep Tor as a useful tool for whistleblowers. After all,
the same software that powers pinkmeth.com also powers SecureDrop; the
technology can't tell your intentions.

~~~
sseveran
This will probably eventually by TORs undoing. Eventually there will be a
major media event and there will be people beating the drums for action. By
definition many of the people with legitimate uses of TOR will not be able to
say anything since doing so publicly would defeat the purpose. And the TOR
network may still exist after congress eventually passes legislation or a
federal agency suddenly discovers its right to regulate TOR deep in its
charter. But the organization would be gone and distributing/using TOR in the
US could be a crime.

The most useful thing in keeping TOR alive would be for the community to
continue to show how important something like SecureDrop is in the face of
global electronic surveillance. That way any attack on TOR is an attack on
free speech. All the comments on how the lawyer is so stupid and doesn't
understand technology misses that the people that may ultimately decide the
fate of TOR also probably don't understand technology.

