New on LowEndTalk? Please Register and read our Community Rules.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
Raided for running a Tor exit - Accepting donations for legal expenses
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
I know nothing about bitcoins but can somebody confirm that this is correct? He received 261.91743313 in bitcoin donations which is worth almost $170,000 today? While it has no bearing on the news today, how many lawyers did he hire? I wouldn't want to imagine what the sentence would be if he used a public defendant (unsure if Austria has those).
I don't really understand this ... He's guilty for running a TOR exit node because he knew it can be used for criminal activities?
That's like saying Nike (or whoever) is guilty for Boston bombing because they knew their backpack can be used to carry the bomb used there. Makes zero sense to me.
There isn't some innate human right to run a Tor exit, you guys.
I can understand why you would make it illegal to run an exit node. Otherwise every cyber criminal would just set up an exit node on their home internet connection and would basically have a free pass to do any online crimes without any repercussions
I would have expected that after that ruling he would have taken his TOR exit nodes offline, he still have 14 active. That's nuts!
His blog said he was fired from his job, does he still work for EDIS?
It's not even fucking close to this comparison, unless the sole purpose of backpacks were specifically for allowing people to avoid all responsibility of their actions
Those are not exit nodes.
Seriously, he's bitching about 20k euros in fees and lawyer expenses but pulled in $170,000 in donations? He knows that those donations are usually factored into judgements doesn't he, or is he being intentionally obtuse?
Thanks for invoking the slippery slope stacked atop your usual fallacy-based arguments, Mao
That's the sole purpose of TOR? I didn't know, I thought it was for people who want some privacy.
Why don't they make transparent backpacks (or not as many)? Because you don't want everyone to see what you're carrying around even if it's nothing illegal.
Are you saying @William was running those TOR nodes to allow people to access child pornography?
Thanks for not reading what I wrote before responding
The "bitching" seems to be from two days ago, and the donation from today? Or am i missing something?
Oh, the website I looked them up on used to only show exit nodes, I guess they started listing relays also now. Glad to see he's still supporting what he believes in, hopefully it doesn't bite him in the rear in the future because of somebody else's foolishness.
Maybe the donations never made it to him? Maybe the donations were seized (or taxed)? Maybe he cashed out the donations last year? Lots of unanswered questions we may never had the answers to.
No, he complains about the fees in the blog post from today.
As for the donations, they were mostly early last year
Indeed, all backpacks should be transparent, anyone walking with an opaque one should not be only x-rayed, but also tried and found guilty to help bombers because if many people run with opaque backpacks it makes it harder for the police to actually find the terrorists. The sole purpose of having opaque walls at home is also to hide from the authorities when you molest kids and prepare suicide vests for them.
You make bad analogies more consistently than any human being, ever
I understand this, my point is that it wasn't unknown publicly, and very likely to the judge, that he was at one point accepting bitcoin donations and that very likely got factored into the judgement on the case; it's the same way with how bail works
There was a thing about this topic on reddit and the vast majority of the responses were in regards to what a proper analogy would be for TOR which nobody could agree upon. It was pretty funny how much more derailed it got than this thread (although this thread is giving it a run for its money).
I'm just saying there are a lot of unknowns involved. I don't know anything about Austrian law so I don't know how it works over there. What if the judge factored in the donations but William never received them and had no way to prove it? I would assume that would hurt him even more financially if the courts think he's sitting on tens of thousands of dollars when he's broke like his blog said.
I know I sound like a dick, but I think it's dumb how this situation gets painted so differently in different sites, when the entire situation is really a result of a series of poor choices on William's behalf. He was really brazen because he wanted to set a legal precedent (read joepie's interview) and because he was an idiot he got exactly the opposite legal precedent from what he intended.
Don't pity William, this is his fault and if some other Austrian who ran an exit but properly handled abuse got taken to court first, it all would have gone down differently
If it makes you feel any better, I'm still not happy about this. I wish there was more information on what happened to the VPS provider because of William's actions.
Since when William talk truth and nothing but the truth? All internet sources about this matter are more or less his own articles.
I am not saying that he made up everything, but the most things he said about any matter at LEB/LET/IRC were always bragging, half truth, deceiving...
Good point.
He received all of the bitcoins in 2012 and 2013.
Let's see, he received the majority of the bitcoins in late 2012 and ~1% (equaling 2.6BC) in the start of 2013. Bitcoin value in November/December 2012 was ~14$/BC. 14259=3626$ + maybe 2.650(value of bitcoin in late March 2013)=130$. Combined, that's ~3750$ he received.
If the money has been actively used for the case, it wouldn't have been on his bitcoin address for a long time, so I guess the amount of money he received through bitcoin only coverers up a small amount of the money that he now has to pay.
@texteditor
I am not saying that he made up everything, but the most things he said about any matter at LEB/LET/IRC were always bragging, half truth, deceiving...
I didn't want to point it out, but yeah
Yeah, I just quickly copied KuJoe's math on recent pricing; still, it doesn't make my point about it likely getting factored into judgement wrong
It's a very unfortunate ruling since my personal belief is hosting a TOR exit node should not result in legal consequences. I hope William is able to appeal.
I don't want to sound like a jackass but serves you right for running a tor node. God god man, we all know tor is being used for mostly illegal activities. Terrorism and drugs I can digest, but child pornography I can't. Running a tor node is like watching the door for criminals. Good luck picking up soap for balkanite and turkish inmates in Graz.
I don't know. Do you have some statistics to back it up?