Hacker News Reader

Comment by danielweber | Hacker News Reader

There is something big missing from that summary of Holle: he knew his friends were going to commit a burglary.[1] Without that connection that puts him on the hook for a felony, he wouldn't be facing life for felony murder.[2]

[1] He disputes his point, which is fair enough, but the court has found otherwise.

[2] Someone could point out the three-felonies-a-day thing here.

EDIT for footnote 2 Flordia's felony murder law[3] spells out the very specific felonies in which you face felony murder charges. These aren't in the same category as accidentally picking up a lobster trap.

[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felony_murder_rule_(Florida)

View on HN

Whether he knew or not (he says he didn't believe that they were going to do it), the comparison to TOR-related cases is still appropriate. If one of these cases went to trial in the US, you would hear the prosecutor telling the jury about TOR's seedy reputation, and that because of that reputation, any reasonable person would have known that illegal activity was likely to occur. Under federal and most state laws, that's enough to make someone culpable.

Legally, "you should have known something fishy was going to occur" is a very different beast from "you knowingly participated in a felony conspiracy, and a co-conspirator committed murder that depended on your material aid."

Home invasions have a tendency to end up with someone dead. Don't help your friends commit them by giving them guns or the vehicles to get there. (Also, don't be the getaway driver for a bank robbery.)

Without the court finding that Holle knew his friends were going to commit burglary, the prosecutor could wave his arms all he wanted about how he should have known his friends were scumbags and he should not have lent them even his watch, but the actual legal requirements for felony murder would have fallen apart.

And, I suspect a jury would add to that...Don't offer up your internet connection with the specific intent to aid in shielding the identities of child pornographers, spammers, and all manner of thieves.

The jury doesn't get to make up laws or charges.

Halle was convicted specifically under Florida's felony murder law, which lists a number of felonies (including arson, escape, home invasion, and carjacking) that, if you participate in them, you are liable for any murders that occur during them.

We might someday find that everyone is responsible for their Internet connection. But it won't be because of felony murder laws.

You're being pedantic. The point is that there are similar laws regarding conspiracy that are even more broad, that could easily put an exit node operator in prison.

Could you share some of these laws? I'm curious because I haven't heard of such a case in the US.

I don't think one has been pursued here yet, but it doesn't mean they can't or won't. Our conspiracy laws are very broad.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/371

That's the federal one, and each state has their own.

The essence of a conspiracy charge requires an agreement between two parties to commit a crime.

http://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R41223.pdf

Running a TOR exit node almost certainly would not constitute an agreement under federal law.

Indeed, see the following jury instructions: http://www3.ce9.uscourts.gov/jury-instructions/node/475

> On the other hand, one who has no knowledge of a conspiracy, but happens to act in a way which furthers some object or purpose of the conspiracy, does not thereby become a conspirator. Similarly, a person does not become a conspirator merely by associating with one or more persons who are conspirators, nor merely by knowing that a conspiracy exists.

There's your defense. An individual running a TOR exit node with the purpose of passing news to people behind the great firewall of China does not become a conspirator because an anonymous individual uses that node to commit wire fraud. They had no knowledge that a conspiracy was being committed - they may have furthered it (by simply running the node) but that is insufficient for a conspiracy charge.

> Running a TOR exit node almost certainly would not constitute an agreement under federal law.

You may very well be right. All I'm saying, and this is the EFF's position as well, is that at some point a prosecutor (or several) will test this. By running the node, you have agreed to have traffic run through your system. Given the shady reputation, you are saying "come do illegal things with my internet connection, I'll protect your identity".

Federal prosecutors are smart, and most are gunning for jobs at high-end law firms. Someone is going to try to get a nice resume bump by testing this eventually, and there will be an unlucky exit node operator that will at best only have to pay a six figure defense bill, and at worst will spend time in prison.

If that were really "all you were saying" the comment thread wouldn't be so deep. But earlier you said, "that's enough to make someone culpable," implying not that a prosecutor would test it, but that someone would be convicted. There simply isn't a sturdy argument for that proposition.

Interesting quirk - under felony murder, you are responsible for any deaths that occur as a result of the crime, not just murder.

If a guy has a heart attack and dies while you're robbing a bank, boom, felony murder for everyone.

If a guard, police officer, or armed citizen shoots dead one of your accomplices during the crime, felony murder for you.

It's not hard to argue that TOR has non illegal useses which provide a fair amount of protection. DARPA provided early funding. Further the US State department is currently funding TOR development giving US exit nodes much better legal standing.

More importantly TOR is not going to work much worse if your exit node(s) shut down. Selling spray paint to a 15 year old might be used for tagging but you don't know and not selling it is not going to stop crap.

A better analogy is that a rental-car company owner being prosecuted because someone rented a car and committed a bank robbery.

Loaning a car to seedy friends has no redeeming value to society. Hosting a TOR node, on the other hand, protects the privacy of whistle blowers and likely contributes to bringing down totalitarian governments.

It seems quite possible to make the argument that the great good a TOR node can do outweighs the bad it can also do.

So a knife producer, by that logic, is also guilty, because of the reputation of knife's to, you know, kill people.

Also everyone up to the guy who mined the iron ore. Even the people who designed the machinery used to mine all the way to those who designed the machinery that makes the knives, because, without them, knives would not exist.

You're forgetting the government that set up a common currency allowing for the sale of the knife.

Maybe in US law (I'm still not convinced of that), but I disagree with your assertion that this could be used in "most countries". In the UK you would have to prove knowledge that a crime had been or was going to be committed - which kind of seems sensible.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com