Technology

37740 readers

694 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

[email protected]

444

Man Found Guilty of Child Porn, Because He Ran a Tor Exit Node (The Story of William Weber) - LowEndBox (lowendbox.com)

submitted 1 year ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

118 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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

[–] [email protected] 30 points 1 year ago (3 children)

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?

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 year ago (2 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 14 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

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.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 year ago

I mean, car manufacturers do this. And it's much easier to buy a car than a gun.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago

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.

[–] [email protected] 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