←back to thread

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

(reddit.com)
988 points heavyset_go | 3 comments | 16 Sep 25 12:10 UTC | HN request time: 0s | 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 #
NoImmatureAdHom ◴[16 Sep 25 13:39 UTC] No.45262115[source]▶
In the U.S. and much of the rest of the civilized world, you have rights. This includes the right to not self-incriminate (in the U.S. that's the 5th amendment). In general, except for very specific and limited circumstances, U.S. state and federal government actors cannot compel speech (telling your encryption keys is compelled speech).

The U.K. is fast sliding down the slope to being a dystopian police state. The idea that you can be jailed for refusing to provide encryption keys (except for really specific, narrowly-defined circumstances) is something that should induce nausea. I feel for you and your country, you accomplished such great things.

replies(2): >>45262372 #>>45272402 #
jansper39 ◴[16 Sep 25 13:59 UTC] No.45262372[source]▶
I just saw that president Trump is thinking about prescribing 'Antifa' as a terrorist organisation and saying that he's 'not sure' their 1st amendment rights should apply.

I'd be a little more concerned about the state of US at this point.

replies(2): >>45262779 #>>45267859 #
NoImmatureAdHom ◴[16 Sep 25 20:50 UTC] No.45267859{3}[source]▶
Trump is just one man and he won't last much longer. Also, declaring "Antifa" a terrorist organization might make sense.

The U.K. is waaaaaaay further along in this direction. Wrongthink on a social media post? Jail.

They arrest 30 people a day for this: https://www.economist.com/britain/2025/05/15/britains-police...

( https://archive.is/vaCkJ )

replies(1): >>45268585 #
1. NaomiLehman ◴[16 Sep 25 21:48 UTC] No.45268585{4}[source]▶
Declaring "Antifa" a terrorist organization makes as much sense as declaring "MAGA" a terrorist organization
replies(1): >>45268665 #
2. NoImmatureAdHom ◴[16 Sep 25 21:54 UTC] No.45268665[source]▶
I don't actually know what "Antifa" is, if it is in fact anything specific (rather than, e.g., a banner used by many and disparate groups--maybe that was your concern?).

What I did mean is that declaring certain organizations to be terrorist organizations (HAMAS, Al-Qaeda, etc.) seems to be well within the remit of the executive branch.

replies(1): >>45287787 #
3. NaomiLehman ◴[18 Sep 25 10:10 UTC] No.45287787[source]▶
Antifa is not an organization. It's an ideology. There are groups that call themselves anti-fascists, which have different views and methods, and there is no HQ they answer to. Just like MAGA.

Another example: banning zionism/antizionism or banning racism.

It can't work like that.

The focus has to be on criminal acts committed by individuals, regardless of their ideological affiliation.

Banning an ideology would be a direct and fundamental attack on the 1st amendment of the constitution.

It would lead to "guilt by association." A concept the Supreme Court has found to be unconstitutional. (NAACP v. Alabama (1958), Scales v. United States (1961), Noto v. United States (1961), United States v. Robel (1967), etc.)