Here in the blog it was already once or twice about the old Bundeswehr bunker in Traben-Trarbach, which served as a server location for the Darknet for years. On September 26.09.2019th, XNUMX he was taken by the police after a nerve-wracking investigation. I have already reported on this once here and here . Now there is also a documentation of the NDR online format "Strg_F" on the subject. The investigating public prosecutor, an operator of the drug platform "Wall Street Market" and the operator of the bunker all have their say. You can find the video on YouTube and embedded below. What do you think of the topic? Feel free to leave a comment.
Jens has been running the blog since 2012. He appears as Sir Apfelot for his readers and helps them with problems of a technical nature. In his free time he drives electric unicycles, takes photos (preferably with his iPhone, of course), climbs around in the Hessian mountains or hikes with the family. His articles deal with Apple products, news from the world of drones or solutions for current bugs.
-
Did you like the article and did the instructions on the blog help you? Then I would be happy if you the blog via a Steady Membership or at Patreon would support.
The page contains affiliate links / images: Amazon.de
It's great that you brought this. The whole thing had somehow completely passed me by.
Basically, I am of the opinion that someone who provides, rents or sells technical structures cannot be held liable or prosecuted for what the borrower or purchaser does with them.
Any kitchen knife can also serve as a murder weapon and crimes can be committed with any car. Nobody here would come up with the idea of prosecuting the manufacturers.
But what about when the manufacturer delivers prohibited items, such as banned switchblades, brass knuckles and other weapons, and sells them to everyone in violation of the prohibition?
The question that arises for me: How should the provision of servers for the Darknet be assessed, if the protection is just as particularly emphasized as the suitability for non-traceable transactions?
For me it is a bit like a hotel operator who only rents out his rooms by the hour and then acts in astonishment when someone accuses him of prostitutes and clients going in and out.
I think it should be treated a bit like the gun thing. Anyone who provides such things should be forced to have a look at what is happening there. As the forum operator, I am responsible for what my visitors write in there, although it is explicitly not my opinion. If they regulate this so strictly, they would have to do the same with servers.
It's great that you brought this. The whole thing had somehow completely passed me by.
Basically, I am of the opinion that someone who provides, rents or sells technical structures cannot be held liable or prosecuted for what the borrower or purchaser does with them.
Any kitchen knife can also serve as a murder weapon and crimes can be committed with any car. Nobody here would come up with the idea of prosecuting the manufacturers.
But what about when the manufacturer delivers prohibited items, such as banned switchblades, brass knuckles and other weapons, and sells them to everyone in violation of the prohibition?
The question that arises for me: How should the provision of servers for the Darknet be assessed, if the protection is just as particularly emphasized as the suitability for non-traceable transactions?
For me it is a bit like a hotel operator who only rents out his rooms by the hour and then acts in astonishment when someone accuses him of prostitutes and clients going in and out.
I think it should be treated a bit like the gun thing. Anyone who provides such things should be forced to have a look at what is happening there. As the forum operator, I am responsible for what my visitors write in there, although it is explicitly not my opinion. If they regulate this so strictly, they would have to do the same with servers.