Clueless Lawyer Sues Tor Project Because Revenge Porn Site Made Use Of Tor
from the meanest-lawyer-in-texas? dept
Jason Lee Van Dyke is a lawyer in Texas whose own website describes himself as the "meanest lawyer in Texas" (technically it says "meanest lawyers" but the "attorneys" tab on his website only lists him.) Either way, his site promises "a highly practical 'no bullshit' approach to the practice of law." It also notes that the Van Dyke law firm is "unafraid of using novel arguments and tactics if we think that our clients may benefit from them." Novel arguments and tactics can be a good thing... but it kinda goes the other way when you're making a clearly bogus argument, ignoring basic existing safe harbor laws, potentially dragging all sorts of totally unrelated parties into court, while seeking a broad injunction that clearly violates the First Amendment. And that, it seems, is exactly what Jason Lee Van Dyke has done in filing a lawsuit against the Tor Project and Pinkmeth.com.It should be noted, first of all, that Pinkmeth is yet another revenge porn site. We've written a bunch about revenge porn over the last few years, and hopefully most of us can agree that the folks who run these sites are horrible people, encouraging others to upload naked photos of unwitting folks, while often running a related extortion-like scam to get people to pay up to have their photos removed. We've been happy to see some of the folks who run these sites arrested -- when it appears there are legitimate charges against them -- but have been fearful about how others are trying to stretch the law to go after them.
Jason Van Dyke didn't just stretch the law, he seems to have decided to jump on a bulldozer and plow it right through the law with a legal filing so bad it makes you wonder how Van Dyke ever passed the bar. As nice as it would be to get Pinkmeth to shut down, abusing the law is no way to do it. Let's start with the most problematic aspects of the lawsuit, though, and that's lumping Tor into the lawsuit with Pinkmeth. First, it appears that a year and a half ago, Van Dyke was somehow able to get a judge to order the Pinkmeth.com domain put on hold by VeriSign. In response, the folks behind Pinkmeth set up the site as a Tor Hidden Service, like many other such hidden services (like the Silk Road).
Van Dyke, who does not seem to understand how Tor functions, or to have ever come across Section 230 of the CDA, is trying to claim that the Tor project is liable as part of a "conspiracy" with Pinkmeth:
Pinkmeth and TOR conspired to and had a meeting of the minds regarding the commission certain torts against Plaintiff more adequately described in paragraphs 5.1 - 5.15 above, as well as certain felony offense described in paragraph 4.8 and 4.9 above. The specific object to be accomplished by the conspiracy was the publication pornographic images of Plaintiff (and other women) on the Pinkmeth website in such a manner so as to prevent its operators and users from being held civilly and criminally accountable for this unlawful behavior.Of course, Tor is just a tool, and claiming there was any "meeting of the minds," let alone any possible liability here, is ridiculous. In fact, many of the direct claims against Pinkmeth itself are likely protected under Section 230 as well, but we'll get to that. After the internet started trying to explain to Van Dyke how Tor worked, he first shrugged that he could dismiss the Tor Project later if he wants, and then issued a hilarious press release in which he tries to both back up his attack on the Tor Project and prime himself to back down against them at the same time. It has to be read to be believed. Here are some choice quotes:
The TOR Project Inc., ("TOR") is a slightly different story. They were named as a conspirator in the lawsuit based upon our belief that they were hosting PinkMeth or providing it with services that have allowed its operators to continue to escape justice.First off, Tor doesn't host anything. I mean, a 5 second Google search should teach you that. I don't care if you're the meanest lawyer in Texas, you should be able to do a basic Google search. Second, "providing it with services that have allowed its operators to continue to escape justice" is a fascinating legal standard. Once again, Van Dyke would be well served to look up Section 230, or hell, just about anything concerning how basic liability works.
This was not an unprecedented action by our office.Yes, actually, it was.
Claims brought against hosting companies such as GoDaddy have survived dismissal in similar lawsuits.First, Tor isn't a hosting company, so you got that wrong. Second, while he's sorta kinda correct that a similar lawsuit against GoDaddy survived past the dismissal stage, he conveniently leaves out that that decision was decisively overturned once a real court looked at it and pointed out that the lower court somehow totally ignored Section 230, meaning the lawsuit against GoDaddy was dismissed, contrary to what Van Dyke implies.
Just today it was reported that a TOR exit node operator in Austria was convicted of abetting the spread of child pornography.First off, that wasn't today, it was last week and we wrote about it here, with the point being that it was a ridiculous ruling that almost everyone finds problematic. Second, a tor exit node is not run by the Tor project, so the comparison is meaningless. Third, it's Austria, not the US, where any such claim would get laughed out of court just as fast as Van Dyke's lawsuit here will be.
It is our position that, if TOR provided goods or services of any nature to PinkMeth, that they are liable to Ms. Conklin. A review of the TOR website further confirmed by belief that, although it may have been originally designed for legitimate uses, is now used almost solely to aid and abet criminal conduct.Yeah, I'll just leave that one there for people to laugh at. He then goes on to blame Pinkmeth for making him file against Tor, because Pinkmeth mentions that they're a Tor hidden service. Then the backtrack begins:
Since the filing of our lawsuit and service of legal process on PinkMeth, evidence has emerged that TOR may not have provided any goods or services to PinkMeth. We are still working to determine what degree of control, if any, TOR has over those who use TOR hidden services and to what extent they may be able to provide us information regarding those responsible for publishing PinkMeth. Naturally, if TOR has played no role in PinkMeth's re-emergence, has not provided PinkMeth with goods or services of any kind, and is unable even to assist in identifying those responsible for publishing PinkMeth, they will be dismissed from our lawsuit.Uh, think you could have done that research before filing a lawsuit, sparky? Anyway, Van Dyke is not done with Tor yet. He's pretty sure that even if they didn't break the law here, it's a bad thing and should be outlawed:
This is not so [sic] say that we endorse the types of service that TOR is providing. We believe condemn [sic] them in the strongest possible terms and strongly disagree with their assertion that there is any "right" for the publishers of online content to remain anonymous.For a guy who describes himself as "the most right wing lawyer in Texas" you'd think he'd be at least marginally familiar with the First Amendment, and things like the Supreme Court's decision in McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission, which pretty clearly states:
Protections for anonymous speech are vital to democratic discourse. Allowing dissenters to shield their identities frees them to express critical minority views . . . Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. . . . It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation . . . at the hand of an intolerant society.At the very least, you'd think he'd be familiar with things like the Federalist Papers and the importance of anonymous speech in the history of our democracy. But, no. Apparently not. He goes on to suggest that the legislature should ban Tor. Good luck with that.
Oh, and while most of the focus is on his lawsuit against the Tor Project, the other parts of his lawsuit against Pinkmeth seem fairly problematic as well. Nearly all of the claims are likely precluded by Section 230, because Van Dyke seems to pin the blame for what a user of Pinkmeth did on Pinkmeth itself. That's not how the law works, no matter how "mean" you might be. I'd be happy if there were a way to legally take Pinkmeth down, but this isn't it. Next, he makes a bizarre mention of how there isn't a fair use defense here, despite never actually making a copyright claim in the lawsuit:
Pinkmeth cannot claim "fair use" of any of the images they have misappropriated on its website because the illegal publication of child pornography and adult pornography (in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2257) can never be lawful. In the specific case of the Plaintiff, she owns all the copyrights to the images stolen by Defendant. She has never given Defendant, or any other person, permission to access or distribute her photographs.Given that, you'd think there would actually be a copyright claim somewhere in the filing. But there isn't. And I won't even bother getting into the question of why he's jumping back and forth between copyright law and child porn and a law about keeping records in porn production. Fair use has nothing to do with any of that. And, while it may be true that the Plaintiff holds the copyright on it, given Van Dyke's other problems understanding the law, it seems like there should be a bit more evidence to support that.
Then, the lawsuit goes even further, demanding "an all-encompassing order" which would impact a huge number of non-parties to the lawsuit, demanding a massive amount of prior restraint, all because of photos of one person. In particular, he demands that:
(a) All top level domain name providers and companies, including Verisign Inc. and ICAAN, cause "pinkmeth.com" and other websites containing the "pinkmeth" verbage to be obliterated or otherwise rendered permanently inaccessible;He further requests that, without any hearing, the court issue a temporary restraining order granting all of the above. I recognize that he doesn't understand Tor, doesn't understand the internet, doesn't seem to know about Section 230 and is a bit weak in his understanding of the First Amendment, but really, does he not understand the nature of prior restraint? The idea that this entity should be wiped off the face of the internet entirely, prior to any sort of hearing, flies in the face of basically all First Amendment law.
(b) All domain name registrars and hosting companies, including TOR, be enjoined and restricted from providing, or continuing to provide, any Internet-related services to the Pinkmeth;
(c) All search engines companies (e.g. Google and Yahoo) be enjoined from (i) including any pornographic photographs of Plaintiff in their search engine results; and (ii) including Pinkmeth in their search engine results;
(d) All social media websites (e.g. Facebook, Twitter) be enjoined from permitting Defendant to utilize their services.
You can be the meanest lawyer in Texas, but it might help to have some clue about the law and the technology you're suing. Unfortunately, Jason Lee Van Dyke seems to fail at most of that.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: first amendment, free speech, jason lee van dyke, jason van dyke, liability, meanest lawyer in texas, revenge porn, section 230, shelby conklin, tor
Companies: pinkmeth, the tor project
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
'Meanest' indeed
mean
adjective, meaner, meanest
1.offensive, selfish, or unaccommodating; nasty; malicious: a mean remark; He gets mean when he doesn't get his way.
2.small-minded or ignoble: mean motives. Synonyms: contemptible, despicable.
3.penurious, stingy, or miserly: a person who is mean about money. Synonyms: niggardly, close, tight, parsimonious, illiberal, ungenerous, selfish.
4.inferior in grade, quality, or character: no mean reward.
5.low in status, rank, or dignity: mean servitors. Synonyms: common, humble; undignified, plebeian.
Source:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/meanest?r=75&src=ref&ch=dic
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
no bullshit approach to law?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Kyle Bristow
Pinkmeth lists Kyle Bristow, Esq. as the attorney to whom removal requests should be directed.
Bristow is a friend of Van Dyke and works with him in this type of matter: http://american3rdposition.com/?p=9094
Pinkmeth obviously used Bristow's name and address for humor. Yet, when reading the complaint, Van Dyke states that Pinkmeth's office is Bristow's. He has to know this is false. Service of process will not be good and it borders on a fraud upon the court.
Not good. Ends do not justify means.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
He forgot to sue Intel and AMD...
They've got way more money than tor.org does, no?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: He forgot to sue Intel and AMD...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Communications Decency Act
Is the defendant, Tor Project, an "interactive computer service" under the § 230(f)(2) definition?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Communications Decency Act
FWIW, courts have interpreted that definition very broadly. Further, even if the Tor Project doesn't directly fit under that definition, courts have further interpreted the general intent of CDA 230, about placing liability on the actual party doing the action, to be applicable in these situations...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Communications Decency Act
The sort of harm caused in this case is perhaps foreseeable, an inevitable outcome of offering such a "service". it could also be argued that many of the people interested in using something like TOR are doing so because they desire to hide bad acts. In that situation, it is possible to argue that TOR created the circumstance under which the harm happened.
Yes, there are many ways to attack this argument in a court of law. But just like the Aereo case, you only need a judge to consider the situation as a whole to rule against them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Communications Decency Act
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Communications Decency Act
That's a might guilty-looking duck right there...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Communications Decency Act
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Communications Decency Act
..."or system." Tor would probably qualify on that account.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Communications Decency Act
https://www.torproject.org/about/overview.html.en
And you can learn what TOR is while you're there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Communications Decency Act
The "Tor Project: Overview" page which is included as Exhibit A to the complaint (and which you have kindly linked to), is a description of the Tor network, though, isn't it?
I was careless above, when I failed to carefully distinguish between an "interactive computer service" and a "provider ... of an interactive computer service". My mistake. But we shouldn't perpetuate that mistake. Rather, it's important to carefully distinguish the "Tor network" from "defendant, The TOR Project Inc. ('TOR'), a Massachusetts non-profit corporation."
The Tor Project Inc. develops and provides software to access the Internet through the Tor network.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Communications Decency Act
Meanwhile, as Mike notes, §230 is interpreted very broadly, and judicial trends are going the route that pretty much any argument that frustrates the purpose of §230 (i.e., not hold the tool responsible for its users) is not going to fly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
DMCA [was Re: ]
A Texas state court is the wrong place to bring a copyright infringement claim. Title 17 is federal law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
actually
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: actually
No.
He should have done his homework before filing a complaint. That would have been the professional thing to do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Conspiracy to Publish
Iow, plaintiff alleges a conspiracy to publish.
Compare that with 47 U.S.C. § (c)(1):
Is the Texas law of civil conspiracy preempted by the CDA, insofar as it purports to treat a co-conspirator to publish as a publisher or speaker?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Emailed him.
Received an email back.
"Go fuck yourself, twerp.
Jason L. Van Dyke
Attorney at Law, Receiver
200 Chisholm Place, #250
Plano, TX 75075
P – (469) 964-5346
F – (972) 421-1830"
lols
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Emailed him.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
CDA § 230 and proxy servers
Anonymous comments were posted through a proxy server, but the trace wend cold and the court held that providing access to the internet was covered by § 230.
The only way the plaintiff can get around § 230 imunity is by pleading that the service provider contributed to the illegality, which may explain the claims of conspiracy to publish, but fortunately courts are rather quick to plug that loophole.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: CDA § 230 and proxy servers
This case? Miller v Federal Express (Ind. Ct. App. 2014).
Thanks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Proxy servers also help Indian dissidents
"Proxy servers drive probe to dead end"
"NIA probe shows IM men tech savvy;"
"Derogatory FB post sent through proxy servers"
"Newslaundry – Not By Proxy"
"Those behind inflammatory Facebook posts identified"'
The takeaway from the story is that (1) India can't enforce its totalitarian hate speech law; (2) The Indian police, government and talking heads can't figure out why some dissidents elect to post through foreign proxy servers; (4) when the Indian press euphemisticly mentions that suspects have divulged information during 'interrogations' it probably means that the poor 'cybercriminals' got tortured until they confessed.
India's human rights record is so bad that European nations can't extradite even the worst terrorists because they will probably be tortured by the Indian security services.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Communications Decency ActYet in simple terms, TOR is neither an interactive computer service or a message board, and thus not subject to any law related. You have to stretch the law very far to get it to cover a "service" which was created with t
law very far to get it to cover a "service" which was created with the intention of purposely hiding someone's identity so that they can do things they
otherwise would not feel empowered to do."
No we haven't. When the statutory text is unambiguous and all the terms of art are defined, an interactive computer service is so provided that it is within the definition of the CDA.
Whether or not it facilitates anonymity by failing or neglecting to retain records enabling identification of its users is irrelevant.
The first case under the CDA reaching the federal appellate level was Zeran v. America Online concerning online defamation in anonymous postings on AOL which were both anonymous and impossible to trace.
"The sort of harm caused in this case is perhaps foreseeable, an inevitable outcome of offering such a
"service". it could also be argued that many of the
people interested in using something like TOR are doing so because they desire to hide bad acts. In that situation, it is possible to argue that TOR created
the circumstance under which the harm happened."
You are wrong; and courts have shut down this
and similar theories most recent in the Sixth Circuit case Jones v. Dirty World.
In order to fall outside the immunity created by § 230, the service provider must contribute to the illegality of the message.
Later ratification or enabling the users to do bad things isn't enough.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Communications Decency ActYet in simple terms, TOR is neither an interactive computer service or a message board, and thus not subject to any law related. You have to stretch the law very far to get it to cover a "service" which was created wi
If the message exists only because of the source being intentionally hidden, then TOR did in some manner contribute to it's illegality. It can be shown that TOR's major reason to exist it to facilitate hiding, which in turn encourages and contributes to the existence of the message.
Put another way: Would they have done it without TOR? Probably not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Communications Decency ActYet in simple terms, TOR is neither an interactive computer service or a message board, and thus not subject to any law related. You have to stretch the law very far to get it to cover a "service" which was create
Clearly we must sue the manufacturers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Communications Decency ActYet in simple terms, TOR is neither an interactive computer service or a message board, and thus not subject to any law related. You have to stretch the law very far to get it to cover a "service" which was cr
Nice try, but that argument just doesn't fly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Communications Decency ActYet in simple terms, TOR is neither an interactive computer service or a message board, and thus not subject to any law related. You have to stretch the law very far to get it to cover a "service" which wa
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Communications Decency ActYet in simple terms, TOR is neither an interactive computer service or a message board, and thus not subject to any law related. You have to stretch the law very far to get it to cover a "service" which wa
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Communications Decency ActYet in simple terms, TOR is neither an interactive computer service or a message board, and thus not subject to any law related. You have to stretch the law very far to get it to cover a "service" whic
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Communications Decency ActYet in simple terms, TOR is neither an interactive computer service or a message board, and thus not subject to any law related. You have to stretch the law very far to get it to cover a "service"
Anyway, head over to the other thread you responded to me on today, where I'm asking you to prove your lie about blanket worldwide rights being something Netflix can buy. Looking forward to your citation to back your position, because I have plenty that show they don't exist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Communications Decency ActYet in simple terms, TOR is neither an interactive computer service or a message board, and thus not subject to any law related. You have to stretch the law very far to get it to cover a "servi
You honestly need to give it a break. Trolling me endlessly might be your source of amusement, but please. I tend not to follow stories that fall off of the first page or so of Techdirt. Blame the staff here for posting too many things, discussions tend to end on things as soon as they drop off of page 1. So if you come back in after that point and toss stuff in, you will always think you chased me away only because I didn't bother to keep looking at your inane responses.
For what it's worth, I went over there and answered you. Please stop saying I am lying when you have absolute nothing to back yourself up with. I don't know why you have a chip on your shoulder about things, but go take it out on the punching bag in your local gym instead of on here. You aren't adding much to the discussion, you just seem intent on starting an argument I am not intending to get into with you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Communications Decency ActYet in simple terms, TOR is neither an interactive computer service or a message board, and thus not subject to any law related. You have to stretch the law very far to get it to cover a "s
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Communications Decency ActYet in simple terms, TOR is neither an interactive computer service or a message board, and thus not subject to any law related. You have to stretch the law very far to get it to cover a "service" which wa
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Communications Decency ActYet in simple terms, TOR is neither an interactive computer service or a message board, and thus not subject to any law related. You have to stretch the law very far to get it to cover a "service" which wa
Also, Tor is substantially a peer to peer operation. The Tor "organization" is more akin to the manufacturer of the taxi, not the driver or the taxi company. The Tor organization doesn't provide services, they provide software.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Communications Decency ActYet in simple terms, TOR is neither an interactive computer service or a message board, and thus not subject to any law related. You have to stretch the law very far to get it to cover a "service" which was create
They were doing it before without TOR, so yes they would.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Communications Decency ActYet in simple terms, TOR is neither an interactive computer service or a message board, and thus not subject to any law related. You have to stretch the law very far to get it to cover a
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Communications Decency ActYet in simple terms, TOR is neither an interactive computer service or a message board, and thus not subject to any law related. You have to stretch the law very far to get it to cover a
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Communications Decency ActYet in simple terms, TOR is neither an interactive computer service or a message board, and thus not subject to any law related. You have to stretch the law very far to get it to cover a "service" which was
§ 230(f)(2) says " 'interactive computer service' means any ... access software provider".
But § 230(c)(1) refers to "provider ... of an interactive computer service".
Substituting (f)(2) into (c)(1), don't we get "provider ... of an access software provider"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Communications Decency ActYet in simple terms, TOR is neither an interactive computer service or a message board, and thus not subject to any law related. You have to stretch the law very far to get it to cover a "service" which
The use of TOR isn't to post on their website or use them as a message board either. They don't provide access in and of itself, they provide means and opportunity to hide, disguise, or obfuscate your IP address, shifting that appearance to those silly enough to run TOR exit portals.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Communications Decency ActYet in simple terms, TOR is neither an interactive computer service or a message board, and thus not subject to any law related. You have to stretch the law very far to get it to cover a "service&
When you're referring to "TOR" (in all caps), are you referring to--
That is, are you using "TOR" (in all caps), in the same way as that term is used in paragraph 2.4 of the complaint embedded above?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Communications Decency ActYet in simple terms, TOR is neither an interactive computer service or a message board, and thus not subject to any law related. You have to stretch the law very far to get it to cover a "service&
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Communications Decency ActYet in simple terms, TOR is neither an interactive computer service or a message board, and thus not subject to any law related. You have to stretch the law very far to get it to cover a "
What you said was:
I usually don't try to load Masschusetts non-profit corporations up on a machine, whether or not those machines are internet-connected.You know, the TOR Project does actually have a blog and website.This assertion almost parses. But not quite.
Now why did you bother to say that stuff? It's pretty senseless.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Communications Decency ActYet in simple terms, TOR is neither an interactive computer service or a message board, and thus not subject to any law related. You have to stretch the law very far to get it to cover a "
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Communications Decency ActYet in simple terms, TOR is neither an interactive computer service or a message board, and thus not subject to any law related. You have to stretch the law very far to get it to cover a &q
But hey, if you want to play the game, consider two concepts:
DVD ripping software: They don't have to rip the DVD to be illegal.
Making false ID cards: You don't have to use the card to be guilty of a crime.
TOR (the non-profit corporation / attempted legal shield) created software that it knew would be used for illegal purposes, and in fact has few if any normal day to day uses. It's entire intent is to confuse, hide, obscure, and otherwise your online identity, thus aiding in fraudulent activities.
So TOR [defendant, The TOR Project Inc. ("TOR"), a Massachusetts non-profit corporation] putting out such software is on par with putting out DVD ripping software - you know what it's for, and thus are part of a conspiracy to use it to those ends.
Want to try to tackle false ID cards and documents?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Communications Decency ActYet in simple terms, TOR is neither an interactive computer service or a message board, and thus not subject to any law related. You have to stretch the law very far to get it to cover a &a
Paragraph 3.2 of the complaint:
You should just call the USNRL a bunch of bloody pirates, while you're at it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Communications Decency ActYet in simple terms, TOR is neither an interactive computer service or a message board, and thus not subject to any law related. You have to stretch the law very far to get it to cover a &a
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And this is why the NSA and similar agencies like them book-smart but obedient
Combine that with the NSA automatically classifying anyone interested and/or using TOR as 'extremists', and you have to wonder just how they spin that to themselves so they aren't obviously the bad guys.
'So TOR is designed as a way for people to anonymously communicate, allowing them to get around repressive government blocks and/or safely criticize governments that would otherwise crack down on people speaking out... yet my bosses in the agency say that anyone that uses TOR is an extremist and deserves extra scrutiny because of it... You know, I don't think I like where this line of thinking is going, so it's probably for the best that they discourage critical thinking.'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Communications Decency ActYet in simple terms, TOR is neither an interactive computer service or a message board, and thus not subject to any law related. You have to stretch the law very far to get it to cover a &a
Falsifying IDs is illegal, whether you use it or not.
Anonymity is NOT illegal.
Your argument is invalid.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
He's having a temper tantrum on Facebook
https://www.facebook.com/pages/The-Van-Dyke-Law-Firm-PLLC/277847348981847?sk=reviews
So yeah, there's that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: He's having a temper tantrum on Facebook
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Thanks Ms. Conklin
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I read enough crap legal paperwork already, do they attempt to claim that they were stolen or are they just going to keep rolling with perjury?
Because EVERYONE who takes a naked picture never ever ever sends them to someone else. o_O
While I would have sympathy for someone targeted by revenge porn, hiring this idiot has killed any hope of anyone taking her seriously. She is out for a payday and nothing else.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Directory servers
The directory server caches hidden service descriptors and could maybe block a particular xxx.onion address.
So even though the Tor developers themselves are likely in the clear for offering the software, what about the narrow argument that The Project may be responsible on account that it has the ability to block out hidden service descriptors but fails to do so?
CDA § 230 should provide sufficient immunity for that part of the Tor Project offering the bootstrap directory server, but that immunity does explicitly not cover intellectual property claims.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Directory servers
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Directory servers
If the plaintiff wanted to make a copyright claim and file in federal court, I guess they could make that argument. But this was filed in state court, and the only count against Tor is conspiracy, not copyright infringement. (And the conspiracy count is ridiculous. Tor had a "meeting of the minds" with this revenge porn site? To me, it seems like that claim is ridiculous to the point of being borderline perjury. It's very doubtful that the Tor corporation even heard of this site before this lawsuit.)
Of course, DMCA immunity would apply to any copyright claim. Did they ever file a DMCA request with Tor asking them to take it down? If not, Tor probably isn't liable anyway.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Communications Decency ActYet in simple terms, TOR is neither an interactive computer service or a message board, and thus
"Making false ID cards: You don't have to use the card to be guilty of a crime."
Both situations are covered by an express prohibition, but there is no general law against 'fraud' or 'circumvention' or selling tools or services enabling obfuscation or lies.
The government can't consistent with the First Amendment forbid anonymity or lies in all contexts.
Contrary to your baseless claim, the Supreme Court has held that (1) You have a First Amendment right to anonymity and (2) You have a First Amendment right to lie about your social status.
"TOR (the non-profit corporation / attempted legal shield) created software that it knew would be used for illegal purposes, and in fact has few if any
normal day to day uses. It's entire intent is to confuse, hide, obscure, and otherwise your online identity, thus aiding in fraudulent activities."
And fraudulent activities are in fact not illegal in all or even most contexts.
I have a constitutional right to lie about my age, sex and marital status in a lot of social settings.
So care to try again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Communications Decency ActYet in simple terms, TOR is neither an interactive computer service or a message board, and thus
Contrary to your baseless claim, the Supreme Court has held that (1) You have a First Amendment right to anonymity and (2) You have a First Amendment right to lie about your social status.
Yup, yet they have not specifically said that you can use fraudulent means in order to do so. In other words, you can be anonymous, but you cannot misrepresent yourself as someone else. TOR (the software) allows you to do exactly that, stripping away information relating to your actual connection point and replacing it with someone else's.
Please show me the courts ruling otherwise.
And fraudulent activities are in fact not illegal in all or even most contexts.
Fraud is often related to the underlying act, such as using a fake ID to get into a bar or to enter the US illegally. The creation of the false ID / documents or falsely presenting someone as someone they are in themselves criminal acts.
I have a constitutional right to lie about my age, sex and marital status in a lot of social settings.
Yup, but the internet is not just a social setting. It is also a contractual situation in many cases. Services are obtained by entering into a contract, lying or making false statements in order to obtain such services would be fraud. Most people will never be prosecuted for it, but there ya go.
There are already cases being launched against TOR exit operators. Those will be interesting to see play out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Communications Decency ActYet in simple terms, TOR is neither an interactive computer service or a message board, and thus
Which isn't even in the same ballpark as fraudulently representing yourself as someone else. A connection point is not an individual identifier. It's a connection point.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Hell no. That research would mark him as an extremist!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
TOR should sue Van Dyke
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: TOR should sue Van Dyke
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Maybe the real objective is to bankrupt the non-profit organization depriving it of funds. If that is the case then it matters little if the funds are spent on lawyers or on a judgement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anyone check the document further down?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And he just dropped Tor from the suit....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Apparently stupid is the new mean.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
the author
[ link to this | view in chronology ]