444

William Weber, a LowEndTalk member, was raided by Austrian police in 2012 for operating a Tor exit node that was allegedly used to distribute child pornography. While he was not arrested, many of his computers and devices were confiscated. He was later found guilty of supporting the distribution of child pornography through his Tor exit node, though he claims it was unintentional and he was simply supporting free speech and anonymity. He was given a 5 year probation sentence but left Austria shortly after. Though some articles portray him negatively, it is debatable whether he intentionally supported child pornography distribution or simply operated in the legal grey area of Tor exit nodes.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Chozo@kbin.social 106 points 1 year ago

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.

[-] skulblaka@kbin.social 28 points 1 year ago

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.

[-] Kleinbonum@feddit.de 30 points 1 year ago

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?

[-] ira@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Gun manufacturers have special protection, specific legislation at the federal level singling them out to not be liable.

Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments (29 replies)
this post was submitted on 23 Jul 2023
444 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

37747 readers
216 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