posted on Aug, 6 2014 @ 01:13 PM
It seems that they were exploiting a Firefox vulnerability that was already known, but when one downloads the Tor bundle, which includes a version of
Firefox, the software does not automatically update as time goes on. So when they had fixed this vulnerability a month prior to discovering the
exploit, only those individuals who had manually installed updates were protected. That is the way I understand it anyway. The creators of Tor are not
responsible for the things their software is used for, and they will work to fix any vulnerabilities, as well as allowing automatic updates out of the
I hate child pornography as much as the next person, but I still want to see the laws followed in all instances. Just because I dislike someone who
uses or creates this stuff does not mean I want to see them go without a trial for instance. And part of the problem here is the way these situations
have been handled, and whether it was within the bounds of the law. It was mentioned in the article that the 30 day search warrant period had expired
or something, without the prosecutors giving any information or something like that, which could be a problem for them.
I really dislike grey areas in the law as it allows for authorities to get away with things that may not be legal. The problem with allowing them to
do something illegal in certain instances, even if you agree with them on a certain issue, is that there is a very good chance that the same methods
will be used in an increasing number and variety of situations, to the point where it becomes commonplace. It basically sets a precedent or standard
that should not have been allowed in the first place.
It could be argued that these people are going to websites dealing in illegal materials, which is true, but in all instances this does not make a
person a criminal. Like the article states I can go to a Jihad website where people are talking about killing US citizens, but that doesn't make me a
terrorist. The child pornography thing of course is different, and I only use that example because of its prevalence in the original article. So as
far as we know they are only using this on "illegal" sites accessed by the onion router. As far as we know. Is there anything preventing them from
using this on regular .com sites? What if they keep expanding with their success and decide to use exploits to install malware or other software on
computers that access subversive or counter-culture or anti-government sites? This is why I say there should never be any grey area.
The absence of grey area does not mean that authorities cannot use their common sense, but we should still eliminate stupid laws as well. For instance
like arresting a mother for letting her children play outside. Ridiculous, and lacking in common sense on the part of the authorities, who are not
tasked with using common sense and human decency.