
Tor exit node operator prosecuted in Austria - msl
https://network23.org/blackoutaustria/2014/07/01/to-whom-it-may-concern-english-version/
======
fredsted
Is this is the "big brother" plan to eradicate anonymity services? Just argue
"child porn!" and arrest everyone?

The law quoted was:

>Not only the immediate perpetator commits a criminal action, but also anyone
who appoints someone to carry it out, or anyone who otherwise contributes to
the completion of said criminal action.

 _Anyone_ who contributes? Wouldn't this include ISPs or perhaps even the
application server technologies (HTTP, FTP) used? Or clients, browsers and
picture viewers?

In any case, kudos to this guy. I can't imagine what he's going through: PTSD,
having all his hardware taken away, dealing with clueless police.

~~~
downandout
While I disagree with them, there are a multitude of laws in most countries
that make operating a TOR exit node a very bad idea. The concept of criminal
responsibility for enabling the illegal acts of others, even when you don't
know specifically what others are going to do with the tools you provide, is
well established in the US and other countries.

Perfect example: Ryan Holle of Florida is serving life without parole for
allowing his friends to borrow his car at a party when he was 18 years old. He
went to sleep; his friends took the car and committed a robbery during which
someone was killed. The prosecutor's argument to the jury during the 1 day
trial? "No car, no murder".

~~~
cookiecaper
This is why the concept of jury nullification is important. Yes, it's good to
have laws that punish accessories, but that kind of thing is obviously not the
intended case. No rational person would accept that outcome under normal
circumstances, but jurors are essentially bullied by the legal establishment,
which holds them in fairly clear disdain, and told they _must_ deliver a
ruling based on certain rules without consideration to the larger import of
the situation or face contempt of court. I suppose the abuse is even worse in
jurisdictions and/or cases where jurors do not have a say in sentencing.

~~~
drzaiusapelord
Holle knew they were going to use his car in a robbery. I imagine most juries
would still punish even if they knew of nullification. The parent poster
mislead you into thinking Holle was ignorant of what the car was used for.

I'd convict him considering the circumstances. He is an accomplice.

------
dewey
Official statement from the guy who got sentenced: [https://rdns.im/court-
official-statement-part-1](https://rdns.im/court-official-statement-part-1)

~~~
lawl
Came here and to post this too. It's really a shame how the current system of
law enforcement is designed to destroy completely destroy people.

I'm idling in some of the same public IRC channels as will (since way before
he was raided for running a TOR node) it was/is painful to watch how this
completely destroyed him.

It has really put me off, and probably many others, from _ever_ hosting a TOR
node, which might what makes this even worse. If you want to help people in
heavily censored (or monitored, but what would be every single one of them, as
of now) countries you get punished and your life gets completely ruined.

Seriously, the guy was like 20 or so when the police raided his home because
of a TOR relay. Financially and mentally ruining someone when he didn't even
do anything wrong is just... It makes me _really_ angry.

~~~
teamhappy
Unfortunately this hasn't been the first case like that and it probably won't
be the last one either. Saying they destroy peoples lives on purpose isn't
fair though. Everybody setting up an exit node knows there's some chance the
police will knock on your door one day or at the very least you'll end up
getting a lot of letters. Projects like
[https://www.torservers.net](https://www.torservers.net) exist for that very
reason. I understand donating money isn't as fulfilling/fun/cool as hosting an
exit node yourself but at this point everybody should be well aware of the
possible consequences.

~~~
teamhappy
@sp332:

>> I don't get how the rest of your comment supports this statement.

It doesn't. I didn't make that statement - you did.

I said they don't destroy lives _on purpose_. Neither are they trying to stop
people from running exit nodes. They don't know what an exit node is. Somebody
is doing nasty things using Tor. They look at the Whois record. Your name pops
up. They knock on your door. End of story (I don't like the story either).

@cookiecaper:

The last paragraph of your comment isn't true. The Tor Project itself trusts
and supports these organizations (like torservers.net - I'm sure there are
many others like it). All nodes under control of one organization are marked
as such inside the network so Tor clients can avoid using more than one of
them at a time.

This talk might help: Defcon 21 - Safety of Tor Network Look at Network
Diversity, Relay Operators & Malicious Relays
([https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=864FxA3jmHk](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=864FxA3jmHk))

\---

By the way. What's with all the downvotes? You do realise that I'm not
responsible for anybody's house getting raided by the police, yes? I'm tired
of blaming the police while nobody is willing to sit down with them and
explain to them how Tor works. It's just not helpful.

------
EthanV2
Does this mean that Austrian ISPs can be prosecuted if their customers use
their connections to transmit "content of an illegal nature"? Surely the ISP
knows that some of their customers _could_ use their services for illicit
purposes, meaning they're "guilty of complicity" themselves.

~~~
esbranson
It means absolutely nothing. Austria does not follow the common law doctrine
of _stare decisis_ , where each case is bound to follow whatever reasoning is
used by a superior court. (Note that "constant jurisprudence" is completely
different and is not really binding, since higher court chambers do not have
stable composition and as such their reasoning may not be consistent.)

A different court is allowed to use completely contrary reasoning and
interpretation of "enables or facilitates" ("ermöglicht oder erleichtert") and
"intent" ("Vorsatz") in § 12 StGB. The more money you have, the more likely
that is. Also keep in mind that sometimes juries composed of short-term
politically-appointed local politicians ("lay judges") are used, so that also
adds to the complexity.

Austria's women and landscapes are beautiful. Austria's legal system, _not so
much_.

~~~
the_mitsuhiko
> Austria's women and landscapes are beautiful. Austria's legal system, not so
> much.

I think our legal system is pretty good to be honest. (Then again, I also
pretty much agree with the fact that TOR exit nodes are not compatible with
Austrian law.)

~~~
esbranson
Lets put it this way: If you took American judges and American lawyers and
American laws and used Austria's jurisprudence, would the legal system be
better or worse than America's? Without juries and without doctrine like
_stare decisis_ , IMO, _way worse_.

Its just so sad to see what has happened to Austria's legal system. Austrians
lost their right to a jury trial, which AFAIK happened circa 1933-1934 (this
should give you a clue as to who benefited/benefits), and Austrians have
absolutely no clue they even had it. I think Germany lost their right to a
jury trial around 1924. That really wasn't that long ago, given that the jury
trial is a Germanic custom. (I mean, its all very POV. Austro-German
politicans call it "reform"; I call it "fascism".) _Stare decisis_ is more of
a _sui generis_ and extra-statutory mechanism developed in England, so that
facet is obviously less surprising.

~~~
the_mitsuhiko
> Austrians have absolutely no clue they even had it

Citation needed. From personal experience Austrians are very much in support
of not having American style juries which are seen in a very bad light over
here.

> Lets put it this way: If you took American judges and American lawyers and
> American laws and used Austria's jurisprudence, would the legal system be
> better or worse than America's?

Why would you mix things together that do not go together? Personally I would
much rather have to deal with an Austrian court than an American one.

~~~
esbranson
> _Citation needed._

It is hard to prove a negative or prove something has not happened. I'll leave
that as an exercise to the reader.

> _American style juries which are seen in a very bad light over here_

That neither supports nor refutes my argument that Austrians have no clue
about Austrian style juries.

> _Personally I would much rather have to deal with an Austrian court than an
> American one._

I would much rather deal with an American court with Austrian judges.

> _Why would you mix things together that do not go together?_

Because I possess free will. And I am capable of performing thought
experiments.

~~~
the_mitsuhiko
> That neither supports nor refutes my argument that Austrian's have no clue
> about Austrian style juries.

It's very hard to refute that claim because you did not provide any sources
for yours either. I would not know how to judge how Austrians see courts
besides my limited exposure to the few law related classes I took and
observing one of our most popular judges for a day and that obviously is
personal bias.

> I would much rather deal with an American court with Austrian judges.

I can only assume Austrian courts did you something wrong or a person you
know. Austrian courts see so little public exposure that you literally have to
pick individual cases together by force to get a (skewed) view of the world.
For the most part court cases in Austria are ridiculously boring.

~~~
esbranson
Well its not the courts themselves but the law which forms them. But the
differences are fast becoming only theoretical.

Now, mind you, Continental judiciaries have a superior administrative tribunal
system which is a recognized part of their judiciary. The United Kingdom has
even recently adopted this approach. It is only the United States AFAIK that
continues to insist that some judges are not part of the judiciary--which is
an obvious falacy. The judiciary adjudicates--that is its purpose. We call
them variously as "administrative law judges" (ALJs), "traffic commissioners"
and "magistrates", etc. America essentially has two judiciaries--one
independent of the executive, the other not independent. It's retarded. Its
unconstitutional.

And apparently Austria uses what are, in effect, Anglo-American juries. They
are selected at random from the electorate. They decide questions of fact. I
don't see the lack of separation between "trier of fact" and "trier of law" as
obviously better or worse.

And, as people are pointing out, there are inroads being made for a form of
_stare decisis_ such as Art. 177 EEC. So there is progress on all fronts IMO.

~~~
the_mitsuhiko
> And apparently Austria uses what are, in effect, Anglo-American juries. They
> are selected at random from the electorate. They decide questions of fact. I
> don't see the lack of separation between "trier of fact" and "trier of law"
> as obviously better or worse.

There are two versions of "juries" in Austria: Geschworenengerichte and
Schoeffengerichte. Either only become relevant if you have committed a crime
that could get you in prison for 5 years or more. Geschworene decide of guity
and not guilty and decide the punishment, Schoeffen do it with the help of a
judge. Not sure how that is related to the American system where the decision
is made of "proven and not proven" or am I misunderstanding you?

------
zmanian
Running a Tor exit node, developing encryptions tools , working on government
transparency and protecting journalists are all seen as dissent in the current
environment.

The reason to engage in these activities is a duty to protect democracy and
democratic values in an extremely adversarial environment.

It is unwise to do these things without some kind of strategy to manage the
escalation of political repression. It is advisable to do participate in these
things as part of the broader activist community. Nothing is riskier that
being a solo democracy activist.

~~~
brasky
I think the people running exit nodes gave up on democracy a while back and
for good reason.

------
gioele
If the convicted will appeal, and if the appeal will arrive up to the EU Court
of justice, this would be the first care in which it is debated whether TOR
operators are protected by the "mere conduit" doctrine that is base on which
ISPs are not held responsible. [1]

Too bad that it may take up to 10 years for this case to be appealed up to EU
court of justice.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_Commerce_Directive_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_Commerce_Directive_%28EU%29)

~~~
acqq
And that the accused considers him already destroyed and definitely not
healthy and wealthy enough anymore to appeal, see dewey's post here.

------
hellodevnull
>The operator of an exit node is guilty of complicity, because he enabled
others to transmit content of an illegal nature through the service.

This logic would make running an exit node illegal in all of Europe.

~~~
dtech
The quoted law is Austrian, so this doesn't apply to the whole of Europe.

But yes, even running a package delivery service is now illegal because it can
be used to transport drugs or firearms and such.

------
PythonicAlpha
It seems, in many countries, the knowledge and the acknowledgement of
technical facts is very much lacking, both in legislative authorities and in
courts.

~~~
teamhappy
You can't expect them to keep up with everything. Important is who they turn
to for guidance. The CCC does a great job advising law makers and law
enforcement in Germany and the EFF tries really hard to play a similar role in
the US. The Tor Project itself works directly with law enforcement as well
(pretty much globally as far as I know).

~~~
igl
A great job?? Can't expect them to do their job? Did you see the outcome of
DE-Mail? There is a great presentation about it at ccc-videos.

The CCC is currently not advising but sueing the german government. It has
also received 0 media attention since it was announced and i am sure it will
just fall flat after being stalled for a few years. GG CCC HF Germany.

~~~
teamhappy
That one was disappointing for sure. I guess you can't win them all. The
government not listening to them all the time doesn't mean they didn't do a
great job though. Last time I voted I didn't see any fancy touch screens (to
name one accomplishment).

I didn't say "can't expect them to do their job". I said you can't expect them
to keep up with _everything_. Their job is to make legal decisions to the best
of their abilities.

~~~
igl
Do you work for der Spiegel? ;3

------
4ad
I live in Austria, used to ran a TOR relay and this worries me deeply. I am
unsure what to do.

~~~
mahouse
But this is a problem only if it's an exit node, right?

~~~
anaphor
It's still a legal problem as much as running an exit node is, they just can't
easily figure out that you did anything because of how Tor works. You couldn't
even confess to anything either if you wanted to.

------
phn
I know what I am suggesting is wrong on some levels, and creates a myriad of
other problems, but bear with me.

If I run a Tor exit node, can I block outgoing packets to known illegal
servers/addresses?

Would some kind of update mechanism of this list (of course, the question is
controlled by whom?) warrant that known illegal servers are not available, and
thus show/prove my intent that no ill use was endorsed by me?

~~~
schoen
Tor has a notion of exit policy, but it's only expressed in terms of permitted
and forbidden TCP port numbers. This lets you, for example, decline to deliver
SMTP traffic on TCP port 25. The exit policy can't list IP subnets (contrary
to my recollection; I thought it could, and maybe it once did).

A lot of government investigations of Tor users do involve the use of pretty
mainstream, popular services like Gmail, accessed over Tor. Someone can access
Gmail over Tor and send e-mails that provoke a government investigation.

~~~
haakon
I'm pretty sure you can still express IP subnets in exit policies. From
[https://www.torproject.org/docs/tor-
manual.html.en](https://www.torproject.org/docs/tor-manual.html.en), heading
"ExitPolicy policy,policy,…":

    
    
        Each policy is of the form "accept|reject
        ADDR[/MASK][:PORT]". If /MASK is omitted
        then this policy just applies to the host
        given. Instead of giving a host or network
        you can also use "*" to denote the universe
        (0.0.0.0/0). PORT can be a single port
        number, an interval of ports "FROM_PORT-TO_PORT",
        or "*". If PORT is omitted, that means "*".

~~~
schoen
Huh. That looks like what I remembered, but I don't actually see any policies
that use that form in the cached consensus.

------
peterjancelis
It's too easy to scare people from hosting tor exit nodes right now.

I think the way forward is to incorporate some use based digital currency
payments to compensate exit node operators for their risk.

Make it a business and let the market decide the insurance premium needed.

~~~
pritambaral
Who do you think can pay more? Dissident journalists or internet drug dealers?

~~~
peterjancelis
Companies don't just serve those who can pay the most. They serve, absent
transaction costs, all customers who can pay more than the marginal cost.

------
joesmo
Wouldn't this make all ISPs illegal in Austria then? What is the difference
that Austrian law sees between a TOR exit provider and an ISP as far as
enabling criminal action? Is it only the differentiation between natural and
legal persons?

------
imdsm
So, am I right in assuming that if I transfer illegal content from my laptop
to my friends laptop via a cafe wireless network, they are complicit in my
crimes and will also be at fault?

------
shmerl
_> it is a sensible precaution to turn off hosted services where data from
third parties is transmitted (like Jabber, IRC, VPN, FTP, TOR exit nodes, TOR
RELAYS!! …)_

TCP/IP as well?

------
sarciszewski
This is frustrating to hear. I don't know the laws in Austria, but I hope
there's an appeal process and he wins it.

------
hoggle
The war is on, is staying on, indefinitely.

------
comboy
It's like sending knife maker to jail because "he knew it could be used to
kill somebody".

