Report: German police seize TOR servers

http://www.boingboing.net/2006/09/10/report_german_police.html

"I haven't yet read much about this topic anywhere else expect in the German news. But the German police are currently raiding server rooms all over Germany, and seizing TOR servers.

Apparently it's about the proliferation of child pornography, although no charges have been pressed against TOR operators yet.

....

Depending on whether or not the state presses charges against TOR-operators (like "supporting the proliferation of child-porn" or something) we might be in trouble -- and it could bring anonymization to an end."

 

Given what I understand about TOR, all the German police will accomplish is the harassment of TOR server operators. Maybe to them, that is enough. It's easier to eliminate TOR than to get at the child pornographers.

 

that's probably why it is so slow lately...

 

Hi tristantzara

!? Tor is always slow...
I'll tried with different setup and speed and it's always the same problem.
It's really anonymous: I've to used an other computer to surf on the web!

Since it's impossible within Tor to prevent or at least limit the abuse of the network an external action was easy to expect! In my exit rules I was allowing port 119 for Usenet access but when I realised that this port was used to download divx from binaries news groups I blocked it!... I don't give the bandwith I pay for this!!!

But exit policies based on exit ports only are too much limited and somewhat naive...

1- The exit policies must included a IP blacklist (such as the ones used by PeerGuardian or Bluetack Block list manager).
Blocking criminal web sites will protect the freedom and the fair use of Tor.

2- I agree to run a Tor server to help the freedom of speach and privacy against abuse NOT to allow F_____G Bastards to use it for Porn Child or downloading cracked softwares, video or music.

3- My opinion is that Tor was created by idealistics New England scholars.

(You know: that kind of poeple who believed that the Democrat Party is "progressist" or at "left" and Bill "La Bragetta" Clinton a "social-democrat" [no such things in U.S. !!!] )

And Tor exit policies shows this...

They believed (in the cafeteria and Men restroom of Harvard) that poeple are KIND so they always do KIND things and nobodies will do bad things within Tor : Yeaaaah...

I sincerly hope that the facts of the real life give them a snap in the face:
this is excellent as brain storming!

May be I'm a "Fascist" but I agree with the police to arrest pedophiles and other bastards like this even by seizing Tor server! (and, to speak frankly, I'm using what they called a fascist firewall, in ordinary words, a firewall who do what normal poeple expect from a firewall...)

They have NO IDEA of what a firewall is supposed to do.
And NO IDEA of what Fascism is...

4- Tor was based at the beginning on a misconception: based on TCP only. The only way to avoid DNS leaks is by using externals utilities or tweaks to "sockified" these requests...

On one side the communication is crypted, on the other, DNS requests announced to the whole world on which site you're going...

This is not very bright...

TCP protocol works based on IP addresses, and the translation of URL into IP address must pass by DNS request in UDP... This is very basic... (Did scholars of East Coast smoked too much drugs or they play collegial football with no helmet )

They build a shielded tank but with a big hole in the shield (Dns requests).
That tank is also running at 2 km /hours... 3 speed: slow, very slow, stopped.


5- The exit policies are port based only: this is not enough to avoid abuse of the Tor network.

One example of this naive attitude is about BitTorrent:

- It's considered not fair to used the bandwith of volounteers to download and upload files with BitTorrent and they ask to avoid this... [Be a KIND person: please don't do this]

- On the other hand they give the way to use it with Azureus, a BT client... [We're KIND poeple so we show you how to do]

- finally they pretend to block BitTorrent abuse in the Tor network with their so-called exit policies: by blocking the "official" BT port 6881. Any teenager using BT since 3 days know that BT may be used on ANY port, not only 6881, therefore this "exit policy" is a BIG JOKE. [We're KIND poeple so you we don't know that fact of the life]

If the Tor network is still running that (naive) way (with no real exit policies to avoid access to criminal web sites such as the pedophile web sites) everybodies must expect an external action from the police not only in Germany but elsewhere.

If they are so naive with basic things such as DNS request and BitTorrent port used in the real life is it a big surprise to see the same "idealistic" view of the real web ? [Everybodies (except german police at this time) are KIND and NICE on the Web... and so and so... ]


With no real exit policies this Tor network will be good for garbage (and police operations.) The ennemies of Tor are not the German Polizei: it's the jerks and bastards using Tor for criminal purpose.

The naivety of Eastern Coast Scholar is NOT an excuse.

That's my "humble" opinion!

 

Hi Climenole,

great post, i agree.

Yes there are a lot of idiots trying to torrify p2p etc.. if it wasn't for them it wouldn't be so slow.
i always had it running for surfing and miranda instant messaging. downloading was never really an option for me with TOR.

greetings,

 

It's funny I don't have an issues with the speed - It's greatly improved over time - once in awhile you'll hit a slow circuit but I don't find that too often.

While it's easy to torrify anything, including P2P apps, I can't see many users doing this - why would anyone want to handicap their bandwidth like that? Protocal encryption and the use of a peer blocker (peer guardian / moblock) are more than enough IMO. In reality those that you're trying to avoid could be running torrified too - so I rather like your idea of implementing a peer blacklist to prevent them from trying to bypass peer black lists, but I don't see going anything beyond this as reasonable as it would effect everyones privacy and freedom - you have to take the good with the bad, heavy restrictions aren't the answer, as no matter the restrictions, there'll always be a way through - unless all the doors are closed.

To tie this back into the topic, content blocking isn't a decision that should be made nor should it be a concern of anyone. Authorities should be targeting the providers of illecit content and killing the source - I am sorry if a few bad apples are using tor to access such content (reasonable to assume that this does happen - none the less it's still an assumption). I'll never be willing to shed my privacy for the good of the name of the state and I'm not a 'bad guy' because I run tor. The seizure of server(s) is futile ... good luck to them with trying to extracting what they desire - as it will bare no fruit - one server only knows two points in the chain, the hop before and the hop after. Brinn had it right, this is nothing but harrassment - but maybe this is their only intention.

 

Hi Dog

I understand that Tor is normally slower than an non-torrified connexion but I'm talking about the difference between
a web page loaded within 10 seconds (non-Tor) and the same loaded (when it load) in more than minutes (with Tor)...
May be I expect too much speed... It seems that the part of bandwith I can used is lower after many hours of running a Tor server. It's like if everybodies may used my bandwith, everybodies except me...(at 25 or 50 or even 75 KBytes/ sec.).
There is a way to limit the bandwith but not the number of client connected to the server. May be this is a part of the problem... (I don't know.)

May be but I found (by chance: I'm not looking in my firewall log for this...) that my exit rule to allow port 119 NNTP was used not for confidential access to discussions on news group but, instead, for downloading DIVX from binaries news groups... Is it freedom of speach? Did many poeple are using Tor with Azureus or other BitTorrent client? I don't know but there is a option in Azureus to do so... (an the explanation on How To do it in Tor wiki.)

I believed that a such black list is easy to implement and may solve many problems with the autorities (and the police). If the known bad sites are blocked with a common black list I'm sure that this will be an asset for Tor:
better than an exit policy based on ports only...

But Tor is already blocking content: the official exit policies of Tor block the port 25 to avoid spamming within Tor.
Did somebody complain about a so-called limitation "freedom of speach" ? I can argue that blocking the port 25 is not only againts spammers but also against freedom of speach and normal use of email... (Remember Mr. Shi Tao ? He is in chinese jail for 10 years after sending ONE email with his Yahoo! account)

When I'm talking about freedom of speach I'm talking about this ...

In the case of email, Tor do not accept "to take the good with the bad" ...
I ear no complain about this...

;-)

I beg your pardon Sir but there is a difference between a State of Rights such as the Deutschland Bundes Republik
and some states such as North Korea, China, and the likes. I'll never be willing to shed my privacy to poeple who ignored this difference for the good name of "anonymity" and I'm not a "Fascist" ;-)

I don't know what is the intention of german polizei but but Presumption of innocence exist in Germany.
The seizure of Tor servers was possibly futile but why we don't give them some guarantees to avoid such futilities?
(Such as a web sites black list...)

IMHO is blocking bad web sites such as pedophiles sites, nazi sites and the likes do not limit the freedon of speach (abuse of childs is NOT a freedom...). How can we say that we defend the freedom of speach and in the same time allow the denial of other rights done by pedophiles against childs and nazi against almost everybodies

Blocking criminal web sites do not limit our liberties but enforced it. To defend the liberties we put criminals in jail. Why we can't block criminal web sites for the same reason? The liberties was defended by poeple who put their fist in the face of nazis not by the ones who give them a "freedom of speach"...

Briefly said : we cannot defend one Right(the freedom of speach) and, in the same times, denying the others Rights (protection of childs or ethnics minorities for example).

Defending ONE Right and forgetting all the others is'nt a typical idealistic "East Coast scholar" weltansschauung? ;-)

Have a nice day Dog.

 

Well we have a difference of opinion and that's more than fine.

An avenue for email is provided thru another of their projects: mixminion (alpha 2). Just as a counter to your point, while the default exit policy blocks smtp - it can be enabled. But it isn't really a viable option because the majority of servers do block that traffic. Spammers are very good at cover their tracks they don't need tor, they can use open http proxies to connect to smtp servers, and open relays are quite available; another approach would be using tor to connect to botnets thru IRC.

Just the same the so called "Bad Guys" have many other options for ensuring their privacy - they don't need tor. tor is for average joe who wants to protect his privacy. Sure there are some bad apples, but most commonly there just minor trolls.

My reference to content was in reference to web content not protocals, why should anyone determine what someone else can see or do - regardless of the content I'd never agree - it isn't tors job to police the internet. The authorities need to get there act together and target the right people - but like said above, maybe the target really is just to strip us of our privacy.

 

Have to agree with Dog. Today it's one thing that's considered worthy of blocking, tomorrow it's another, and the next day it's whatever you're looking for. It's best to just not police content, that's not TOR's job.

 

Hi Dog

Yes, I agree with you: spammers used a Zombie PCs network and they don't need Tor. But it's also a fact that blocking smtp is a content blocking.

I hope so. I'm pretty sure that the vast majority of Tor users are there to protect their privacy. But It takes very few "troll" to discredit Tor as anonymisation solution... We have to make some compromise...

I not totally agree with this, Dog. We have to protect our butts. So why give to some autorities the stick to hit us?

An example of this is with Germany where nazi web sites (this is an example) are forbidden ... If a black list block these sites who care ? The poeple who want to access these web sites may do it outside Tor.

The most important is to give privacy to the poeple in countries like China where a free access to normal site such as Google are forbidden... To do this Tor must give legal guarantee to the democratic states and the most simple one is to have an exit policy based on IPs not only on ports... (A block list approved by Tor users...)

Anyway... we'll see what's happen with seized server in germany.
The time will show what is the best solution.

Good night !

 

BTW here's an update from Tor - http://tor.eff.org/index.html.en#News

 

Who is to decide what content to block or allow and which governments to accomodate or circumvent? Free speech is free speech.

 

Hi Brinn

You say:

« Who is to decide what content to block or allow and which governments to accomodate or circumvent? Free speech is free speech.»

A tautology prove nothing.

Who is to decide that NOT blocking some IP address is good for Freedom of Speach and to accomodate some persons for their view about the Rights and Liberties?


Blocking pedophile or racist web sites or bad web sites dumping spywares and the like is not a limitation of freedom of speach. In States of Rights such as Canada, the freedom of speach do not mean that anybody can make defamation and such (this is an example)...

To be very clear with this, Sir, let me give you a comparison with the Mathematical Logic and the Axiomas.

When we have to build a concistent set of logic propositions we may choose the axiomas we want: the Hilbert-Ackermann or Frege-Luckasiewicz for example. But it's always mandatory in each and every deductions steps to be concistent and non-contradictory with the axiomas we have choosen.

We can't choose one axioma and not an other one. All axiomas must be taked in account otherwise our deduction drive to contradictions and absurdities...

This is the same with the Rights. We cannot choose ONE right and use it against the other Rights. Or take in account ONE right and forget the others (and say "this Right" is "this Right"...)

We may defend one Right: the freedom of speach but we must in the same time respect all the other rights which included the protection for children against abuse, the protection of minorities (I'm French-Canadian: I have an idea of this... you know what I mean my dear compatriot ? ) and so on...

Pretend to defend the Freedom of Speach and take the others Rights like a non-existent things is fallacious and wrong... (It a lie.)

My opinion about the Exit Policies of Tor based only on ports is not changed.
These policies must included also a set of blocking rules based on IPs.

Did you agree that I have the right to NOT used MY computer as a mean to commit criminal acts?
Did I can be an accomplice of, for example, child abuse and in the same time say "Okay, I'm fighting for the Free Speach and I wash my hands for the rest" ?

Liberties comes with responsabilities.

IMHO the "free speach NUTs" fights for the Right to be a NUT and NUThing else.

Blocking the access to criminal web sites is NOT a limitation of freedom of speach exactly like putting criminals in jail is not a limitation of our Rights but a mean to defend them.

Good night.

 

As reprehensible as pedophilia and racism is, I do defend such speech. When they are acted on, however, it is no longer speech. "Your right to throw your fist ends at the tip of my nose." As long as what is said is factually true or is an opinion, it cannot be found to be defamatory.

You seem not to realize you are advocating exactly that: curtailing speech rights in the name of protecting vulnerable groups.

You have the right to turn your computer off.

And I cheer them on. The more objectionable and outrageous the speech, the more it needs to be defended. Especially against those who try to dismiss them as "nuts".

 

Hi Brinn

You say:

« You seem not to realize you are advocating exactly that: curtailing speech rights in the name of protecting vulnerable groups. »


You do not understand. Abuse of right IS NOT a right.

Using Tor as mean to access criminal web sites such as pedophile network sites and and the like IS NOT an example of "Free Speach". Kidnapping and raping child IS NOT the expression of free speach.

I say this:

The Free speach is one Right AND these ones (as an example) must be taked in account:

Article 3

Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

Article 4

No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.

Article 5

No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

Reference:
http://www.unhchr.ch/udhr/lang/eng.htm

Human Right must be takes as a whole.
Not a menu where you pick the one you prefer and forget the other as irrelevant things.


Internet in not a non-rights area. Reasonable poeple understand this. For the others the police is there.

Have a nice day.

P.S.

You say :
«The more objectionable and outrageous the speech, the more it needs to be defended. Especially against those who try to dismiss them as "nuts".»

GOOD! So I have (in your point of view) an objectionable an outrageous speach about "Free speach NUTs" :

In your own point of view it needs to be defended too. Is'nt? ;-)

 

Kidnapping and raping does not occur because of free speech.

Again, none of these wrongs are caused by free speech. In fact, free speech sheds light on these things. Not allowing free speech makes these horrors easier to occur.

Yes, exactly. You can say all you want about free "speach" nuts. But when you act to infringe on those rights, YOU become the problem.

 

Hi Brinn


1)

Pedophiles networks are using internet as a mean to commit their crimes.

I'm running a Tor server and I don't want to be an accomplice of this.

Therefore my opinion is: Tor must have an exit policies based on IP addresses not only ports.

This is a better, not a perfect solution, which may help Tor network users
against abuse of the Tor network.



2)

Let me inform you that I also

- block abnormal/illegal packets incomming from internet with my "fascist" firewall,

- block virus with an updated "fascist" anti-virus,

- I'm also blocking spam with a "fascist" software called K9.

- I'm blocking spyware installation with Spyware Blaster and some other "fascist" softwares and last but not least

- I'm also using a well feeded HOSTS file [the MVPs Hosts file] which block , as a "fascist" Hosts file, sites many "freedom fighters" like to visit within Tor, I presume.

;-)

3)

I personnaly take actions to defend freedom of speach with articles such as these ones about censorship in China and the case of Mr. Shi Tao:

http://climenole.wordpress.com/2006/07/21/ai-campagne-contre-la-repression-sur-internet/
http://climenole.wordpress.com/2006...ional-campage-contre-la-censure-sur-internet/
http://climenole.wordpress.com/2006/07/17/yahoo-collabo/
http://climenole.wordpress.com/2006/06/30/censure-internet-en-chine-comment-passer-outre/
http://climenole.wordpress.com/2006/07/21/ecrivez-a-yahoo-faites-liberer-师涛-shi-tao/

and so on...

4)

For you "Free speach IS Free speach" : an abstraction that you maintain as the only argument and everythings else is rejected.

I'm fed up to argue with you about this since no rationnal argument are taked in account. May be it's because I'm a "fascist" ...

So, "SIEG Bye Bye !"

;-)

 

Your problem (and you do have a problem) is that you keep equating speech with action. You bring up viruses, abnormal packets, rape, torture, etc., which has NOT ONE THING to do with speech. You say that I don't take rational arguments into account. NONE HAS BEEN PRESENTED BY YOU.

I should be able to shout from a mountain top that I hate French-Canadians and not suffer repercussions. But the minute I act on it, the minute I throw a rock through your window, try to deny you a job, endanger you physically, the minute I do anything like that, I should be thrown in jail. But I should be able to think and say what I like.

 

I don't know how you feel viruses and attacks on your computer are forms of speech, but whatever. Coincidental to the right to free speech is the right to ignore it. Ignoring something is not fascism.

 

The easiest speech to defend is that which you agree with. I'm not impressed.