I think the purpose of these platforms is very little to no moderation. But in order to comply they simply need a smaller staff referring to illegal activity. So legal counsel if you will who read and refer if needed.
2 Likes
I am going to just drop this here: https://nakamotoinstitute.org/trusted-third-parties/#:~:text=A%20security%20hole%20is%20any,risk%20of%20violating%20these%20goals.&text=The%20invocation%20or%20assumption%20in,security%20hole%20into%20that%20design.
No, that is not convincing. First of all it is the investigators choice after which entity they go. So I am stating, they can request the IPs in question and StorjLabs would comply.
I am comparing this situation with EMule/EDonkey uploads, which also only happend in parts, but we know users got prosecuted for.
Another comparision is running a Tor Exit node which frequently lead to investigations, because it was the IP of the Tor Exit node provider that showed up in the logs that accessed the illegal content.
If a fraction of an illegal content is not illegal, I am not sure about it. I donât know if that has been finally resolved. It would be the perfect loophole for providing illegal content though, so I donât believe such a claim is valid, even more as in the case of hosting and sharing encryption does not play a role. It means in such a case a SNO provides a piece of an illegal file plainly to anybody who accesses the link to that file.
1 Like
Tardigrade is not a file sharing service. Data is generally not public. So there is a clear path to go. First the customer (the owner of the data, the one responsible for the illegal activity), if that one is not identifiable, Storjlabs as the provider and they will already remove the data, if required. Then it already ends, there is no need to go further as there is no more harm done.
Unlike with EMule/EDonkey the SNOâs donât keep the data if Storjlabs decides to remove a file. On Emule you choose to share, you donât have to, also there was no encryption.
EDIT:
More clear Storj Nodes are the hard drives. SNOâs are the maintenance crew that makes sure the hard drive works as intended.
You donât procecute the maintenance crew of a computing center because they maintain a server that holds illegal data, which they donât know about and donât have access to.
1 Like
Technically, yes to both. The first amendment is a limitation to the power of government to limit speech. It doesnât apply to companies. In fact, the 1st amendment has already often been interpreted to protect companies moderation right. Disallowing companies to filter content on their platforms would be an infringement on their freedom of expression.
While the 1st amendment ensures you are free to speak your mind, it doesnât ensure you a platform for your speech or freedom of consequences of your speech. And lets be real here, weâre all still discussing the ideas that were posted on Parler anyway.
They have safe-harbor protection under the digital millenium copyright act and section 230 of the communications decency act. There was definitely illegal content on their platform, whether they actually broke the law themselves has to do with whether they removed that content on time when notified about it.
Regardless, platforms hosting them do not require them to actually break the law in order to break ties with them.
3 Likes
It should never get to that point. Storj Labs complies with take down notices. And nodes would technically have the same safe harbor protection as long as we would comply with take down notices as well. Thatâs perhaps where it becomes a bit tricky, since the Satellite should be doing that for us already.
SNOs wouldnât be the ones breaking the law in such cases, so the chances of Storj Labs getting that request to begin with are probably near non-existent.
Storj Labs can and should fight compliance to something like that in the courts. If they start complying to that they will bleed SNOs.
Though technically, they probably donât need to comply. If law enforcement seized the assets of the person uploading illegal content they could likely use their systems to find out which IPs are hosting that data anyway. Though only if the data hasnât been deleted by the satellite yet, which again, if Storj Labs complies with take down notices would have been the case. Or if they were never notified of the illegal content, wouldnât be illegal to not have taken down yet anyway.
Ps. Iâm not a lawyer, this is not legal advise.
1 Like
Sometimes it is not about taking down content. It is about the charge to make content accessible.
But what if we dont. Just a quick example where the file in question is illegal lets say in Australia but not in USA. Storj Labs would not take it down then an Australian SNO might still serve such a file. Why should investigators not go after a Australian SNO then who keeps providing pieces of an illegal file to share worldwide?
Correct. Which keeps the SNOs at risk of being (falsley or not) investigated for distribution of illegal content.
I agree. But I was referring to content hosted or shared which makes the content in question public.
As said in another post, charges exist for distribution of illegal content, so removing it has nothing to do with it. SNOs would face charges of distributing illegal content.
Neither Storj Labs not the SNO can do that though. This would require the customers encryption key. If they can get their hands on that, they can also get their hands on the data without needing to involve Storj Labs or the SNO at all. And yes, that means your IP will be known by them too. Your IP is by definition known by customers, so if their assets are seized, it will be known by law inforcement.
Well, this is not going to be a great response⌠but I donât knowâŚ
I doubt as a SNO weâd ever get those take down notices though. Since youâre still storing an encrypted blob, the right technical procedure would be to notify Storj Labs (or other satellite operator) to take down a file. If I were to get a takedown notice personally I would contact Storj Labs and ask them to remove the file I guess. If they canât or wonât comply, Iâd have to remove the piece myself and just accept the minor chance of a reputation hit. I really donât think this will ever happen though. Itâd be a ridiculous route for law enforcement to take, especially since the network will inherently try to repair the files again. They will almost certainly not bother with SNOs at all.
With this stuff you have to keep in mind weâre kind of in uncharted territory. The laws were not written with systems like this in mind. That does mean youâre taking a slight risk as legal protections may not yet in place to protect you. But given that Storj Labs can act as the platform in takedown decisions, I think itâs more than likely they will be held primarily accountable for what happens on their platform. And since Storj Labs operates in Australia, in your example that also means they will have to follow the law of the land there as well.
1 Like
Of course. But a customer who has set an Access Grant is providing all data required to receive the illegal content.
As said: At some point it is not about taking down a file. It is about getting prosecuted for providing access to it. If the file has been taken down or not does not matter in such cases.
In a way yes, but it requires knowledge of law enforcement how this decentralization works. Unless they know it, every single SNO is part of a crime.
Correct. And this is why law enforcement agencies will go after everything the can in their investigations which means a single SNO could get investigated.
You are not liable for providing access to it because of the protections under the DMCA or EUCD in Europe. Now Iâm not that familiar with Australian law, but everywhere the internet is able to exist legally, Iâm sure such a protection is also in place.
So it is about being able to take it down, because that protection only lasts as long as you comply with take down notices. Though check your local laws to be sure of course.
There are limitations on how much support they get from a foreign government over an encrypted piece of file stored in a computer of a SNO in another country. They have to follow international guidelines and involve varies agencies and diplomats. The foreign country may want âfavorsâ to get US law agency personnel their person of interest. Such favors would be reserved for high profile cases.
Interesting read. Some answers are posted by real cops/attorneys
Thtat is the point.
If a files in question is not illegal under US law. but illeagal under Australian law you seem to be fucked if you keep providing access to such a file because StorLabs will not take it down.
As platform provider that operates there, they would have to take it down.
And if they wonât, I will. Just tell me exactly which pieces contain illegal content. Iâll take care of it.
2 Likes
Let me give an example:
Some US customer share pictures of Nazi memoribilia via a Tardigrade link.
From my understanding this is perfectly within the granted freedom of speech from the US constition. So there should not be reason for Storj Labs to take this down.
In Germany however displaying and advertising such things is strictly forbidden.
A take down request from German police will probably not be successful as I do not believe Storj Labs would violate the constitutional rights of their US customers. So there is the single SNO storing illegal files and not just storing them but making them accessible due to the share that Storj Labs will not take down. It is easy to come to the conclusion that police could go after German SNOs in such a case for prosecution.
How will you know which German SNO has the piece ?
You can look at the map to see if German SNOs hold those pieces. After that you can request Storj Labs to submit the IPS.
Even if this would not work, you could keep downloading the files in question over and over and record all German Ips.
Here is another one: Children's Island (film) - Wikipedia
A movie that has been banned in Australia:
Anyone buying, selling or showing the film publicly will now face fines of up to $275,000 and a maximum 10 yearsâ jail. In Western Australia and parts of the Northern Territory, possessing the film would constitute a criminal offence.
I think Australia is the only place on earth which has banned this movie and it is still legal in most countries but I am not sure. So now what? A customer uploads this move to Tardigrade, sharing it publically. Some Australian SNO picking it up, serving the content to this movie for any interested party.
Australian police requests all Australian IPs in question and starts prosecuting the SNOs for distribution of child pornography.
Good luck, I might say.
I wasnât confused about the concept of things being illegal in one country, but not in the other. Iâm just fairly certain that Storj Labs would still be liable if they operate in those countries and donât ensure the content is taken down or geoblocked. So Iâm not entirely sure why youâre so certain they would leave that content up.