- It doesn’t make you anonymous. Torrent protocol wasn’t designed with anonymity in mind and there are a million ways you’re going to leak your actual IP address.
- Tor is a TCP only network.
- While this doesn’t give you the anonymity you wanted, it will hurt the network for other users.
Maybe I am missing something but that just feels like you are arguing semantics.
Traffic exits the sub-WAN from basically any of the computers/nodes in it. So it might not be a Tor Exit Node ™ but it still has all the dangers of it.
No, that’s not how I2P works.
First, let’s start with the basics. An exit node is a node which interfaces between the encrypted network (I2P or Tor) and the regular Internet. A user attempting to access a regular Internet site over I2P or Tor would route their traffic through the encrypted network to an exit node, which then sends the request over the Internet without the I2P/Tor encryption. Responses follow the reverse path back to the user. Nodes which only establish encrypted connections to other I2P or Tor nodes, including ones used for internal (onion) routing, are not exit nodes.
Both I2P and Tor support the creation of services hosted directly through the encrypted network. In Tor these are referred to as onion services and are accessed through *.onion hostnames. In I2P these internal services (*.i2p or *.b32) are the only kind of service the protocol directly supports—though you can configure a specific I2P service linked to a HTTP/HTTPS proxy to handle non-I2P URLs in the client configuration. There are only a few such proxy services as this is not how I2P is primarily intended to be used.
Tor, by contrast, has built-in support for exit nodes. Routing traffic anonymously from Tor users to the Internet is the original model for the Tor network; onion services were added later. There is no need to choose an exit node in Tor—the system maintains a list and picks one automatically. Becoming a Tor exit node is a simple matter of enabling an option in the settings, whereas in I2P you would need to manually configure a proxy server, inform others about it, and have them adjust their proxy configuration to use it.
If you set up an I2P node and do not go out of your way to expose a HTTP/HTTPS proxy as an I2P service then no traffic from the I2P network can be routed to non-I2P destinations via your node. This is equivalent to running a Tor internal, non-exit node, possibly hosting one or more onion services.
Fair enough. Then you have the exact same risks as far as torrenting (the point of this thread) are confirmed. But still increased risks as far as csam.
What “increased risks as far as csam”? You’re not hosting any yourself, encrypted or otherwise. You have no access to any data being routed through your node, as it’s encrypted end-to-end and your node is not one of the endpoints. If someone did use I2P or Tor to access CSAM and your node was randomly selected as one of the intermediate onion routers there is no reason for you to have any greater liability for it than any of the ISPs who are also carrying the same traffic without being able to inspect the contents. (Which would be equally true for CSAM shared over HTTPS—I2P & Tor grant anonymity but any standard password-protected web server with TLS would obscure the content itself from prying eyes.)
You are still possessing csam while being used as a node to transit it.
A compromised (or even honey pot) node can show all the people who were “just holding it for a friend”. And ignoring that ISPs have historically cooperated in investigations, they also have many more lawyers.
So regardless of your ethical/moral concerns over facilitating the transit of csam, you are opening yourself up to being caught in a semi-tech savvy investigation.
This is not how the law is applied to packet switching.
If it was store and forward then maybe just maybe law enforcement would care, but anybody smart enough to set up an I2P node to research it and who tried to track where packets from from would first see the packets originate from their own local node at 127.0.0.1, then in the I2P console they could see that packet came in via an active half-tunnel from their own end interfacing with the endpoint node of the other side’s half-tunnel, and they would know that node has no idea what it’s sending (just like their ISP)
1: then they would go after literally anybody running a node
2: their client will not see peers on another IP. It will just see their own I2P node. Any I2P aware software will also not have any IP addresses as peers, only I2P specific internal addresses. They will not even be able to associate an incoming connection to any one node without understanding the I2P network statistics console.
3: by this argument all anonymization tools should be illegal, Signal too, etc, and nobody should help anybody maintain privacy. In the real world there’s plenty of reasons why anonymization tools are necessary. And there will be literally zero evidence tying you to a crime. Preexisting legal precedence says an IP address alone is not enough.
ACAB? Also, I’ll get back to this
And only people with similar politics to you will ever gain that understanding? Again, more on this
And countries around the world are increasingly pushing legislature to make “anonymization” and “encryption” tools illegal (or at least require backdoors).
Which gets back to the politics aspect. Even among those of us who care about personal security (which, again, has nothing to do with torrenting but here we are), the likelihood of others to use it for nefarious and evil purposes is a problem. I’ve taught a few journalist friends how to use tor but I personally do not because that, and tools like i2p, tend to also be used for csam and I have pretty strong morals and ethics about not facilitating the dissemination of that.
And, as we remember once or twice a year, there are “hacktivist” groups out there who like to have a field day. And compromising tools used for the distribution of csam is something that many groups do.
But also? Those piece of shit cops and governments trying to get their fascism on? It is a lot easier to push for “extreme measures” when it is going up against pedophiles and child abuse. We saw similar with how the US (and other western nations) cracked down on immigration under the guise of “stopping the Muslims from doing another 9-11”. And we are likely to see similar come out of the Israel/Palestine war.
MAYBE you get a really good lawyer so that you can get off on… Maybe you get a really good lawyer who cites the proper legal precedents AND a judge AND a jury who actually care about that. You have still had your reputation ruined for “being a pedophile” and laws are already being pushed to make using any of these tools illegal to begin with. And The People will generally support it because CSAM.
And getting back to “an IP address isn’t enough”: Yes, some judges have decided that. Was it Avatar that was the big case people like to cite? Been a minute. But that doesn’t stop other judges who just don’t give a shit about precedent still providing the subpoenas. And considering that getting the equivalent of a peer list requires “understanding the i2p network statistics console”: There are likely to be additional “fingerprints” involved. I’ve not spend much time looking at said console so am assuming there is nothing as stupid as a mac address, but it becomes a lot harder to say “Old Lady Withers across the street was using my wifi”.
Just because people are stupid and this is the inevitable drive by from the peanut gallery:
No, I am not saying that everyone who uses tor or i2p or whatever are pedophiles. What I am saying is that those are tools that are pretty notorious for being used to distribute and share csam. And while some people are okay with “Oh yeah, my private browsing of this website helped to mask child porn but I personally didn’t look at or share any”, I am not.
You never had anything but an opaque blob of encrypted data and a forwarding address which may or may not be its final destination. Without the decryption key this is indistinguishable from random noise—meaning you never possessed any CSAM yourself. Even considering the pitifully low standards to which prosecutors are held in this area there is zero evidence of any intent on your part to receive, store, or transmit CSAM and no reason at all for anyone to take an interest in you or your node. Coming after you won’t lead to any convictions and would just be a waste of everyone’s time.
If you’re going to assume bad faith and/or reckless disregard for facts or reason—never mind justice—on the part of law enforcement they could just plant whatever evidence they need to secure a conviction. No one is safe in that scenario, whether they’re participating in the I2P or Tor networks or not. Having lots of lawyers wouldn’t help the ISPs either in a hypothetical alternate reality where merely routing someone else’s encrypted data made one liable for the content.
Forget hypotheticals for a moment. How many years have Tor and I2P been in operation by this point? Over 20? And just how many people have actually been convicted of possessing CSAM just for running an internal routing node on either network? Zero?
You do manage to highlight the absurdity of criminalizing mere unknowing possession of CSAM (even unencrypted) in a world where computers are constantly sending messages to each other which their users have no awareness of. Even more so if you try to apply that to encrypted content the user has no access to. You can’t control what you receive and you won’t necessarily be aware that you received it. Under the same reasoning you just applied to I2P you could go to jail on CSAM charges for picking up a USB flash drive or other storage media (even paper) off the street and returning/delivering it to the address marked on the side—either without looking at the contents (which is safer in terms of avoiding malware), or having found it to be full of what appears to be random noise. Or even seemingly innocuous data, given the possibility of steganography. It’s absurd. Fortunately in the real world while they throw around the term “possession” you generally would have needed to have had reason to be aware that this particular data contains CSAM, and failed to report it, before they could secure a conviction. Actus reus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea still counts for something even when it comes to CSAM.