←back to thread

Man jailed for parole violations after refusing to decrypt his Tor node

(reddit.com)
989 points heavyset_go | 1 comments | 16 Sep 25 12:10 UTC | HN request time: 0.25s | source
Show context
rich_sasha ◴[16 Sep 25 13:27 UTC] No.45261966[source]▶
I certainly sympathise, but actually don't find it at all surprising.

Tor is totally used for criminal activity. That doesn't mean it is inherently a bad thing, or that it is this guy's fault, but he can't completely wash his hands off it. If bad guys use the postal service, it's not the postman's fault, but he has to cooperate with law enforcement if they demand that.

I don't know about the US, but contempt of court is a thing in the UK at least. You can't refuse to submit evidence to court, including things like encryption keys or things only stored in your head - or face penalties including unlimited jail time.

Now, I get that this is the US so the arrest was dialled up to 11 and it seems all of this is extra-judicial - no court warrant etc. This is all very disappointing. But, to my non-expert eye running a Tor exit node is in the legal grey zone, and I guess you can't be too surprised when things like this happen.

replies(5): >>45262087 #>>45262115 #>>45262166 #>>45262169 #>>45263752 #
mapontosevenths ◴[16 Sep 25 13:42 UTC] No.45262166[source]▶
> You can't refuse to submit evidence to court, including things like encryption keys or things only stored in your head - or face penalties including unlimited jail time.

This is a bit more complex in the US. We have the fifth amendment to our Constitution which says "nor shall [a person] be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself."

So, we can't be made to testify against ourselves. This has sometimes been interpreted to mean that they can't compel cryptography keys that are stored in our brains, and sometimes has been interpreted the other way.

I'm unaware of any definitive decision that applies universally. I've heard some suggest that passphrases that are themselves an admission of crime are a workaround that ensures you can't be compelled to provide them.

replies(1): >>45262506 #
rich_sasha ◴[16 Sep 25 14:12 UTC] No.45262506[source]▶
Why would breaking the privacy of Tor users be self-incriminating? If anything, surely it's the evidence of innocence - whatever unsavoury websites were visited via the Tor node were Tor users, not this guy.
replies(1): >>45264045 #
Ray20 ◴[16 Sep 25 16:01 UTC] No.45264045[source]▶
> surely it's the evidence of innocence

The obligation to provide evidence of self- innocence is equivalent to the obligation to provide evidence of self- guilt. Doesn't one follow logically from the other?

replies(1): >>45264628 #
1. rich_sasha ◴[16 Sep 25 16:43 UTC] No.45264628[source]▶
Not really. Protecting by law ones right to withhold information that would incriminate them is one thing. But the incarcerated guy doesn't seem to claim there's anything incriminating him in these files. He simply stated he doesn't want to share it with the cops.

My understanding is, it's not like the FBI got a warrant for this etc, and instead started flinging shit at him - which is clearly bad. But for this narrow argument, that's besides the point, IMHO (IANAL). Because in the first place, the guy simply didn't want to share this information with law enforcement. There is no claim that it incriminates him.

How that stacks up against actual US case law, I have no idea of course, but I don't see how it follows from the right to not self-incriminate.