William Weber, a LowEndTalk member, was raided by Austrian police in 2012 for operating a Tor exit node that was allegedly used to distribute child pornography. While he was not arrested, many of his computers and devices were confiscated. He was later found guilty of supporting the distribution of child pornography through his Tor exit node, though he claims it was unintentional and he was simply supporting free speech and anonymity. He was given a 5 year probation sentence but left Austria shortly after. Though some articles portray him negatively, it is debatable whether he intentionally supported child pornography distribution or simply operated in the legal grey area of Tor exit nodes.

  • Metaright@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    320
    ·
    1 year ago

    We oughtta arrest the people who pave roads because human traffickers use them to commit crimes.

      • jarfil@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        79
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        The charges usually end up falling onto the last one who can’t stick them onto someone else.

        Like, a carrier can blame the ISP, who can blame the VPN, who can check its logs and blame an address owner, who… better keep their own logs capable of identifying someone else if they’re letting random people do random stuff using that address. And a good lawyer, and will and money to fight it.

          • Excrubulent@slrpnk.net
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            23
            ·
            1 year ago

            It sure is weird how a political system based around who has the most money always ends up hurting the people that don’t have money. Nobody could’ve predicted that.

            • aksdb@feddit.de
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              Is there really a realistic way to do it differently? Situations ending up in court are complex and ambiguous. It’s never a simple “if this then that” kind of thing. So in the end it’s about making arguments and convincing each other. Different people have different skills and depending how you match up, arguments are lost or won. There will always ever be a limited amount of extremely skillful people. Even if you would make sure that money isn’t a barrier, time/availability will still be and so still most people will end up with inadequate council.

              • lol3droflxp@kbin.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                8
                ·
                1 year ago

                If a justice system is so hard to use that only a small portion of the trained professionals can do it adequately it needs a massive overhaul. This of course is basically impossible and won’t happen. The US is a particularly bad case because of the sheer outdatedness of its constitution an court procedures.

                • aksdb@feddit.de
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  5
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  I think most laws started out simple. Reality isn’t simple, however. And I would bet that any attempt to simplify it will be adjusted over time and will end up being just as complicated again.

                  I mean, the law could be simple in the sense that it basically says “don’t to stupid shit”. But then it just becomes more subjective which in the end will be even less fair.

                  All the complexity in the law comes from the attempts to make it as fair and objective as possible.

                  • ArcticCircleSystem@beehaw.org
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    So if simplification isn’t a good way of making it so that poor people aren’t more likely to get screwed over in courts, what is? ~Strawberry

              • Excrubulent@slrpnk.net
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                Don’t have a society that gives all the power to people who have the most imaginary tokens. Don’t assign and apportion legal counsel according to money but instead according to need. Like, obviously I’m criticising capitalism, but your question assumes capitalism is here to stay.

                Of course, under capitalism this will never happen, because the legislature is thoroughly captured by capital, and they are quite happy with lawyers being extremely expensive and siloed away in massive corporate legal teams.

                Now of course none of what I am suggesting is going to be easy, quick, or absolute, which I mention just to head off the inevitable critcisms along those lines from people who find it easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism. As Ursula K le Guin said, “We live in capitalism, its power seems inescapable – but then, so did the divine right of kings.”

                • aksdb@feddit.de
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  but your question assumes capitalism is here to stay.

                  It does not. In my last sentence I specifically said “Even if you would make sure that money isn’t a barrier”, which rules out capitalism. So in a system where everyone has equal access to everything, you still only have a limited amount of skilled people with the right profession. If there are currently 1000 first-degree-murder cases where life sentences are on the line, and you only have 10 extremely good lawyers … 990 people will still end up worse than the 10 that had the luck (!!) to get these 10 good lawyers assigned.

                  • Excrubulent@slrpnk.net
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    I’m sorry, can you outline for me how you get to a world with 1000 first degree murder cases for every 10 competent lawyers? This isn’t mad max. If you want to raise an issue you need to explain why it’s a genuine problem anyone should care about.

                    As it is right now, lawyers are monopolised by the richest & most powerful. In a world where we don’t have enormous armies of corporate lawyers - who generally hate their jobs because they know they contribute nothing to society - we would have a lot more competent people available to do real jobs. Removing money from the equation helps both of these problems.

      • JakenVeina@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        66
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        From the article…

        Yes, as they had to give me the minimum sentence. By law they were right as the law only protected registered companies, unlike in Germany for example. The law was changed a few weeks later to include private persons and sole traders as protected lsps, not just companies, but they had to convict me. No choice in the end.

        So, ISPs in Austria actually have legal protection from liability here, rightfully so, and also rightfully so, that protection was extended to private persons as well. A rare story of a legal system apparently working well, with regard to the marriage of privacy and technology.

        • aksdb@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          20
          ·
          1 year ago

          The law was changed a few weeks later to include private persons and sole traders as protected lsps, not just companies, but they had to convict me. No choice in the end.

          I am not sure I would consider this “working well”. It is the job of the court to determine if and how to apply law. Laws are never perfect and should be applied per intention, and not word-for-word. If the latter would even be possible, we wouldn’t need judges in the first place, because it would be a “simple” decision tree. But it’s not. And we have judges and the court processes for a reason.

          If the law was amended a few weeks later, it shows, IMO, that the intention of the law was different than what was written down. Therefore the judge should have ruled that way by acknowledging that while the law does not exempt private individuals, its intention shows that it clearly should (simply because it doesn’t make much sense otherwise).

          In other words: if the system really worked well, the judge would have sentenced (or rather not sentenced) within the intention of the law, and not within the strict writing.

          (Worst case is that something like that gets escalated to the highest court who then either also accepts or overrules it.)

          • barsoap@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Yep given this is Austrian jurisprudence they should be able to apply Radbruch. Could it be overturned on appeal? Sure, but the judge also wouldn’t look stupid on appeal. German courts are using it in instances like conjuring a Romeo+Juliet exception out of thin air (in the “sex on your 14th birthday with your SO who is still 13” kind of sense), directly contradicting written law, saying “yep they overlooked that corner case”. Law didn’t even get updated as application of the formula is so uncontroversial.

            In particular, this letter-of-law interpretation ignores equality before the law – that between natural and juridical persons. You need a proper reason to do such a thing. Quoth Radbruch:

            Where there is not even an attempt at justice, where equality, which forms the core of justice, is deliberately betrayed in the laying down of positive law, then the statute is not even merely ‘flawed law’—rather, it lacks completely the very nature of law. For law, including positive law, cannot be otherwise defined than as a system and an institution whose very meaning is to serve justice.