On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 2:00 PM, Jim Mercer <jim@reptiles.org> wrote:
On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 01:19:19PM -0600, Naslund, Steve wrote:
I think the best analogy I would use in defense is something like the pre-paid cellular phones that are sold. That is about the only anonymous communications service I can think of off the top of my head. Problem is that most people are not licensed carriers and may not be able to hide behind that protection.
if your phone is stolen and used by a drug dealer, i'm pretty sure the cops would not be after you for anything the dealer did.
if you stand on the corner with a sign saying "free cell phone airtime, just ask me", they might take a different view on things.
now, whether you are guilty of anything or not, by standing there with a sign you are certainly opening yourself to legal inquiry, delay and hassle.
i wouldn't be surprised if the cops didn't accept your "i'm just letting people use my phone, i've got nothing to do with their activities" defence, at least not without poking about for a bit, which might include looking at your cellphone, your home phone, your bank records, and anything else they think (and a judge agrees) might need viewing to clear you.
A few questions this thread raises for me: you are a very trusting person, and frequently let people borrow your things. A friend frequently borrows your phone, which he explains is because he: a) frequently lets his phone die, or has run close to using too many minutes. You frequently allow him (and other people) to borrow your phone. At some point, it becomes clear that his life has taken a turn for the worse, and he has become involved in activities of which you do not approve. You stop allowing him to use your phone. During a criminal investigation of your friend's activities, it later becomes clear that for some time he was using it for illegal activities. At what point did allowing him to use your phone become illegal, and how should a responsible citizen rationally realize or identify this point? How can one be reasonably sure that one knows another person well enough to allow them to use one's equipment/resources? When do you become responsible for the activity of someone else on your equipment? Clearly "always" is not correct; similarly, "never" is also not correct. b) (most analogous to the actual situation) has a [legitimate?] reason for wanting to avoid the entity he calls having, being able to predict, see, or otherwise link some information he wishes to give them with some information he does not wish to give them (for example, his phone number [1]) Upon this pretense, which seems fairly reasonable, you allow him access to your phone. In order to enable this pursuit (so that this phone number cannot be attached to a pattern of activity), you also allow others to use your phone for similar reasons. You consider such activity correlation/tracking and data mining to be a violation of privacy (explicitly with regard to data-mining and activity tracking performed in pursuit of selling this data for profit). Now arguably, in the second case, you are operating this "service" with an explicitly altruistic intent. IF you are not informed about the mechanics of this process, and you are unaware of the issues this creates for law enforcement entities in identifying criminals, what constitutes wrongdoing? If you are not aware of criminal uses of your service which is entirely free and only intended for avoiding data-miners, are you still accountable for the activities of those using it? Why? At what point do you accept or acquire this responsibility? How is this different from operating a party line shared by an apartment building or phone bridge with external calling ability? I am curious about the impact of the nuances of each of these situations. [1] he is paranoid, and doesn't like the pizza place associating his address with his phone number, or perhaps he is calling someone who collects marketing data and attempts to data-mine his activity, or some other more legitimate, applicable and realistic take on appropriate cases for desiring anonymity in such a transaction
-- Jim Mercer Reptilian Research jim@reptiles.org +1 416 410-5633 "He who dies with the most toys is nonetheless dead"
-- Kyle Creyts Information Assurance Professional BSidesDetroit Organizer