• TWeaK@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    1 year ago

    Yes exactly, and I think there have been stories recently where the exit node host has been held liable for content that’s gone through it.Which is complete bullshit, but the unfortunate reality is that the legal system doesn’t need to understand technology to regulate it.

    • jarfil@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      It’s not bullshit. If A has proof your system launched an attack, or sent CSAM, to another system, but your only defense is “I let anyone use my system in that way”, then at the very least you’re an accomplice.

      • TWeaK@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        It is bullshit, because it puts the onus of policing everything on any service provider. If a TOR exit node provider is responsible for all traffic through their node, then an ISP is responsible for all traffic through them to their users - yet it is not reasonable for ISP’s to do this. Nor should it be acceptable by law and even less so if the purpose is for law enforcement to bypass the warrant system by having private parties do the investigation for them.