←back to thread

655 points k-ian | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.207s | source
Show context
diggan ◴[] No.44302108[source]
> Is this legal?

Why wouldn't it be? You're not actually hosting a tracker in this case, only looking at incoming connections. And even if you do run a tracker, hard to make the case that the tracker itself is illega. Hosting something like opentrackr is like hosting a search engine, how they respond to legal takedown requests is where the crux is at, and whatever infra sits around the tracker, so police and courts can see/assume the intent. But trackers are pretty stupid coordination server software, would be crazy if they became illegal.

replies(8): >>44302128 #>>44302134 #>>44302420 #>>44302712 #>>44303308 #>>44303436 #>>44305263 #>>44310124 #
gpm ◴[] No.44302420[source]
Because knowingly helping people commit crimes generally counts the same as committing the crime yourself. I.e. federally in the U.S. under 18 USC 2a https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2 The software you're running being "simple" isn't a defence for doing illegal things with it - like aiding others commit crimes.

There are a few internet/copyright safe harbor provisions (in the US) that might maybe (probably not) make it not a crime, I don't know, I'm not a lawyer. But your general thought when you hear "helping someone else commit a crime" ought to be "that's probably a crime itself".

replies(7): >>44302635 #>>44302667 #>>44302899 #>>44302975 #>>44303193 #>>44306390 #>>44306964 #
rockskon ◴[] No.44302635[source]
Wouldn't particular knowledge be required? I'm sure Google devs know in the abstract that Google search is used by criminals to help them in committing crimes, but that clearly is not illegal in and of itself.
replies(4): >>44302685 #>>44302867 #>>44303314 #>>44307986 #
1. awesome_dude ◴[] No.44303314[source]
IANAL, but I would think that Google's customers are overwhelmingly using the service for "legitimate" activities, and Google makes attempts to limit use of their tools in the commission of a crime.

It's kind of like Kim Dotcom's defence of his systems where he was saying that he was making attempts to remove content from his systems in compliance with DCMA requests. That is, the claim is his systems were legal because even though people were using them for illegitimate purposes, he was actively working to prevent that from happening.