0
64

[–] donkeyqong 0 points 64 points (+64|-0) ago 

The FBI can obtain a warrant if you don't run TOR come yesterday.

The issue I see is running TOR alone isn't illegal, nor reason to assume illegal behavior. The decision to allow pat warrant approval for something that is legal and not exclusive to illegal behavior is foolish.

0
2

[–] idle_voating 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

The decision to allow pat warrant approval for something that is legal and not exclusive to illegal behavior is foolish.

And the FBI is doing it. It has to do with so much of the US government being run by people who are incapable of having any understanding of the technologies they're dealing with. Too many people believe what they're saying thanks to the appeal to authority logical fallacy, along with their self confidence when they talk about stupid things like banning encryption.

0
1

[–] WakkoWarner 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

https://www.fightforthefuture.org/2016/comey-resign/

Let's fight back by demanding their heads.

95
-93

0
51

[–] In_Cog_Nito 0 points 51 points (+51|-0) ago  (edited ago)

The more the government threatens services like this, the more we should use them. Increasing the number of users makes it that much harder for them to single people out.

0
29

[–] donkeyqong 0 points 29 points (+29|-0) ago 

I honestly don't think they want to single anyone out. They merely want a simple method to obtain a warrant at will, just like "He smelled of alcohol" or "Signs of drug paraphernalia".

With a simple method like this to get a warrant, they can observe anyone from a distance. I read talks about outlawing encryption. We are literally talking on an encrypted channel now via HTTPS. If that's outlawed, can they get a warrant for anyone using HTTPS?

0
4

[–] luckyguy 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

Yes, but if it were common practice most judges wouldn't assist this development. It's a bit late to ask everyone to use tor but maybe we can get people onto i2p and vpn.

0
5

[–] idle_voating 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago 

I'm thinking that there should be a new encryption and onion routing software that is not TOR. Preferably with improved algorithms too.

29
-27

0
14

[–] harsoe 0 points 14 points (+14|-0) ago 

We're Always Innocent Until Proven Using TOR

2
13

[–] marvinrabbit 2 points 13 points (+15|-2) ago  (edited ago)

No. No. No... There is nothing about this rule change the makes TOR, or anything else, illegal!

The change is this... Because TOR is anonymous, if someone is doing illegal stuff, it's almost impossible to know where they are. And a federal magistrate only has authority in their own district.

So you need some warrant to find out where a person is doing illegal stuff, but you need to prove where they are to get the warrant. This change allows any federal judge to issue the warrant.

This does not make TOR illegal. It does give a way to find people that are doing illegal stuff while using TOR.

0
5

[–] revofire 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago 

Please be right. Either way, I'm down for less government control overall so I'd prefer that even THIS did not pass.

0
3

[–] LordCobalt 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

He is right. There was an article about this on here before this flood of sensationalised articles came out and Voat entered DEFCON1. This Reuters article should be much more fair in the reporting of it than all the recent "TOR IS NOW ILLEGAL THE SKY IS FALLNG" articles.

0
2

[–] idle_voating 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

That's not how cops and the intelligence agencies will really operate. It's supposed to be innocent until proven guilty but it really isn't.

I don't get the mindset. There is nothing suspicious about keeping my door closed and locked and my windows blocked by curtains. That is not illegal and not considered enough justification for a search warrant, cops need something that gives them probable cause. They need to at least lie about there being something suspicous. Yet somehow blocking what others can see me doing on the internet is grounds for a warrant.

0
0

[–] marvinrabbit 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Uh, yeah. That's pretty much exactly what my point was. This rule change doesn't make anonymity illegal, it doesn't make anonymity grounds for suspicion, it doesn't make you subject to search because of anonymity, it doesn't give the government the right to hack you because of anonymity. Nothing that was illegal yesterday will be illegal tomorrow (at least, from this rule).

This gives the government a way to pursue someone who is actually doing illegal shit but they don't know where they are. And remember, I just got done saying that simply being anonymous isn't what qualifies as illegal shit.

Let's say "hitman32" is selling assassination services over TOR. But the police don't know if he is in California or New York. Today, the FBI would go to a New York magistrate to get a search warrant and the magistrate would say, "Can you prove this person is in my district? No? Then I can't give you a warrant." Same thing would happen in California. No warrant.

This change says, since it can not be proven where "hitman32" is, any federal magistrate can issue a warrant, and this can authorize the "hacking" necessary to find out where "htiman32" actually is.

"hitman32" isn't a target because he's using TOR. He's a target because he's a fucking hitman.

Now, we can debate whether this is a good change or a bad change, but let's not get our panties in a bunch about stupid shit that has nothing to do with this. Because, as a community, it makes us look like fucking morons! And if we can be manipulated with sound bites without even looking into an issue for ourselves, then we are fucking morons.

So, please, don't even take my word for it. Research it yourself. Evaluate your sources. The most bombastic clickbait may not be telling the whole story!

0
2

[–] antiplebbitor 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

Which still has the same net effect of granting carte blanche to government, and to utilizing hacking to intercept data.

This technique does not pass Constitutional muster. At all.

The framers insisted that government adhere to their framework. Neither passage of time or technological advance relieves government of its duty to abide its self-imposed constraints.

0
9

[–] plankO 0 points 9 points (+9|-0) ago 

what about hornet or i2p

0
3

[–] TheodoreKent 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

What are those?

0
4

[–] thefloodcontrol 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

I dunno hornet but I2p is basically the other darknet. Had eep sites instead of onion sites.

0
1

[–] plankO 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

alternatives to tor

[–] [deleted] 0 points 8 points (+8|-0) ago 

[Deleted]

0
12

[–] 5146964? 0 points 12 points (+12|-0) ago 

And they're going exclusively down the "pedophiles use it, so the whole thing needs to be nuked from orbit" argument route.

0
8

[–] maelask3 0 points 8 points (+8|-0) ago 

Telescreens when?

9
-1

[–] Texan_Pride 9 points -1 points (+8|-9) ago 

I don't know if you noticed but those have been around for almost a decade now. People willingly eat that shit up.

0
4

[–] rhy 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

Good. Waste all our tax dollars, you fucking morons.

load more comments ▼ (13 remaining)