Relay nodes don't pose much risk and help mask/blend your own Tor traffic.

I agree with the concept. I should not be liable for the actions of others. If someone does something nefarious using my exit node (or the free wifi at my coffee shop) then that shouldn't be my responsibility.

After all, I have no way of knowing what they're up to. It may be good or it may be bad; I can't know. (I suppose I can set up a router to discard packets with the RFC 3514 evil bit set, as a show of good faith, but...)

So I think the risk should be low, but that's just, like, my opinion, man. My opinion doesn't mean that the risk is in fact low.

Has the risk of running an exit node ever been tested in court? Many people, myself included, simply can't afford to have that kind of experience even if we're reasonably sure that it will end up OK.

▲

ikmckenz 11 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Parent comment was talking about relay nodes, not exit nodes. The risk of running a relay node is essentially zero in a free country.

▲

ssl-3 10 hours ago | parent [-]

I appreciate the correction. It's been so long since I've looked at tor that I guess I forgot that relay nodes were a thing and conflated the two terms. Or maybe the coffee hadn't started working yet.

So with the correction, I agree completely: Running relay node (a thing that deals only with indecipherably-encrypted anonymized data) is not a meaningful risk.

	▲	vel0city 7 hours ago \| parent [-]
		IP addresses of relays are still known in the network, and IP reputation firms may flag your IP as potentially suspicious. This may or may not cause issues when dealing with orgs that filter based on "known bad IP address" lists. I've had it happen before, where everything was fine until a few days after running a tor relay (not an exit node, just a relay) everything suddenly wanted more verifications I was not a bot, some paid video services started blocking me, and a few other issues. Stopped running the node and later things cleared up.

▲

gzread 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Yes, many times. Once you explain what a Tor exit node is, you can't be convicted of downloading CP or whatever the anonymous user did, because you quite plausibly didn't do it. However, a verdict of innocence only happens after your life was already ruined by the process of getting to that point...

Some countries like Germany have strict liability, where you must pay a fine for any copyright infringement that happens on your connection unless you register yourself as an ISP yourself. If you're not sure, consult a lawyer to make sure you're not in one of those places.

▲

TZubiri 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

>"If someone does something nefarious using my exit node (or the free wifi at my coffee shop) then that shouldn't be my responsibility.

Without even getting into the intricacies and ethics of pooling and providing Spartacus communal anonimty. Wouldn't lending tools that are used for a crime being an accessory, or an accomplice, or at least aiding and abetting?

It's even a bit ridiculous, "If someone does something nefarious with my gun, that's not my responsibility" Yes? Yes it is? Maybe that line is used for something more borderline, but that's definitely your responsibility, if you are allowed to do that at all it's only because of the difficulties of legal procedures and the pressumption of innocence, but that doesn't mean that it's ok to redistribute CSAM and leaked data.

	▲	ssl-3 4 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		It's murky AF, which is why I asked about precedent after stating [and justifying] my own opinion. Intent has a lot to do with liability. My intent with my hypothetical coffee shop is not to provide a dark corner for people to do illegal things online; it is instead my intent for smiling patrons to have a free slice of Internet to go with their not-free cup of coffee. It's just a service that I provide, along with a restroom and a place for people to gather. My options for monitoring it are limited, but if I do notice someone doing stuff that's NFG (whether on the internet or in person), then I'll turn off the taps and tell them to leave. They won't be my customer anymore. That's not so dissimilar to my ISP's intent when they sell me a month of internet access at home. Their monitoring options are very similar: Observation is difficult (brought to you by NordVPN and https), but if they notice something that is definitely nefarious then I'm likely to be getting a sternly-written letter and/or disconnected. Most people are generally good -- and most coffee shops (around me, anyway) have free wifi. The precedent here is that it seems to work, and that we don't have a long and storied history of imprisoning owners of coffee shops and ISP networks. --- Now, if a person were to hang up a sign on the front their coffee shop that says "FREE WIFI! GET YOUR CSAM HERE!" then that's... that's a rather different kind of intent, and in a fair and just world it wouldn't be too long before the person who hung up that sign would behind bars.
	▲	gzread 5 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Why is your responsibility for things you didn't do? Providing a road that a bad person drives on is not a crime.

▲

giantg2 11 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Yeah, I've run a relay node without issues for a couple years.