If my job requires me to have an understanding of something new, I learn it. Like an adult. Why the hell is technology the only exception for people on this front?
[deleted]
Judge Who Authorized Police Search of Privacy Activists Wasn't Told About Tor
81–90 of 236 posts
Re: Judge Who Authorized Police Search of Privacy Activists Wasn't Told About Tor
#82Earlier quoted context omitted.
Or when a judge is given a request with missing information and he can't ask an expert, do research, or say, "Wait, what is a Tor Exit Node and why did you mention it in your report?" The point of this article is given the fact that they left that off then he can't reasonably ask for more information.
Right. This is somewhat the point of the oppositional trial system; we can't expect a biased party to bring up all facts relevant to the case, so we bring in someone else with the opposite bias to give the judge the rest of the facts. In these expedited judicial-request hearings, there isn't an explicit defendant, so there's no oppositional counsel to bring in. Maybe we need to bring back the concept of a "devil's ad…
...Or more simply, the concept of an 'advocate'.
Re: Judge Who Authorized Police Search of Privacy Activists Wasn't Told About Tor
#83Earlier quoted context omitted.
The judge is allowed not to be an expert. The police are not allowed to lie by omission when getting a warrant.
A lie is a false statement, hence you cannot "lie by omission". This is an absurd assertion.
A statement made that leaves out pertinent information in order to suggest a different conclusion than would be reached with the information is an implicitly false statement.
Logic is fun, kids.
Re: Judge Who Authorized Police Search of Privacy Activists Wasn't Told About Tor
#84Maybe the omission from the warrant application was a plausible deniability arrangement between the judge and Seattle PD..
Re: Judge Who Authorized Police Search of Privacy Activists Wasn't Told About Tor
#85I'm all for privacy technologies like Tor, but this is one of the risks you assume when you operate an exit node. The alternative would be to give all Tor exit node operators not only legal immunity, but immunity from investigation, for illegal activities originating from any IP address associated with them. Even if the judge and the police were aware of the exit node, it wouldn't have changed the way this was investigated.
Re: Judge Who Authorized Police Search of Privacy Activists Wasn't Told About Tor
#86Here's what I don't understand: You go to a judge for a warrant and the only piece of evidence you have an IP address. How is an IP address even remotely considered "evidence" enough to search someone's home? An IP address is not an identity. It is not a location. It is not even permanent in most cases!
I cannot fathom that police are granted warrants to search and seize people's homes and property based solely on, "logs indicate an illegal file was uploaded from this IP address." That is incredibly flimsy evidence.
At the very least they should create a profile on the individuals and demonstrate that they were present in the home and appeared to be using their computers at the time of the crime. They didn't even do the most basic of police work in this case. WTF!?
Re: Judge Who Authorized Police Search of Privacy Activists Wasn't Told About Tor
#87Earlier quoted context omitted.
Would it / they / we? From what I've seen, the tech community (on the whole, averaged) isn't great at synthesizing and communicating information to non-technical people.
the same non technical people whose eyes glaze over and change the subject first chance they get ?
The blade cuts in both directions.
Yes it is a disservice to themselves and others that non-technical people zone out as soon as someone starts talking about technical issues.
But it is also a disservice to themselves and others when technical people don't even try to simplify (in a non-patronizing way) high level concepts for consumption by the general public.
Both sides aren't actually "trying". Both sides should be. Someone has to take the first step toward a halfway point, and history shows it ain't gonna be "joe/jane public".
Re: Judge Who Authorized Police Search of Privacy Activists Wasn't Told About Tor
#88The warrant is ridiculous even without the tor part. Read pages #6 and #7. http://www.thestranger.com/images/blogimages/2016/04/08/1460... ISPs maintain hash values of known child porn files? Show me a single ISP in the Seattle area that runs any of its residential customer http traffic through a caching proxy that examines and hashes each file, I'll eat my shoe.
That is an interesting read. They just seem to dump everything they know about how computers are used in relation to child pornography even if it's unrelated to the case at hand.
Even though they mention the hashing and Photo DNA (which is a real system that ISPs use) the warrant rests on regular old reporting of a video by site admins.
Re: Judge Who Authorized Police Search of Privacy Activists Wasn't Told About Tor
#89Earlier quoted context omitted.
For example, if the same illegal websites were accessed from someone's home wifi and their mobile phone? Or maybe the target used the same pseudonym for illegal activities that they used years ago on a public forum?
Thanks, that does make sense. How does this compare to a cash-only business? Say I run a banana stand that only accepts cash. What level of proof does law enforcement need in order to look into more personal aspects of my life and business if they believe I am using it launder money? IANAL but this feels similar to me.
I don't know what it's like in other countries, but I think in Austria the "finance police" routinely check random businesses for correct books and compliance with the law. No sign of actual wrongdoing necessary. Businesses don't have the rights to privacy that individuals have.
Re: Judge Who Authorized Police Search of Privacy Activists Wasn't Told About Tor
#90Let me pay devil's advocate for a moment: let's say I want to do bad things on the Internet and obviously I don't want to get my house raided. So now I set up a Tor node in my house. Doing that I created reasonable doubt and my house can't get raided.
No, you can/should just do the bad things through Tor, then you're not even a target of suspicion.
If they have some other link to you, the fact that the traffic is coming out of your house isn't doing you any favors.