Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Judge Who Authorized Police Search of Privacy Activists Wasn't Told About Tor

thestranger.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 236 posts

Re: Judge Who Authorized Police Search of Privacy Activists Wasn't Told About Tor

#111

Post by eric_arrr »

Overtonwindow wrote: post #15

Point of clarification: I know the police are allowed to lie and fudge the truth to suspects and defendant, but is there a legal requirement for them to be forthcoming and truthful to Judges in warrants? Also, tending to agree that even if they had included TOR in the search warrant, the judge would have most likely signed it anyways becasue child porn is a big "must do something" thing, and the technology would have…

Yes, there is. See Franks v. Delaware: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franks_v._Delaware

The instant case is one of material omission rather than false statement, but there is a substantial amount of case law recognizing that material omissions should be treated the same as false statements.

Re: Judge Who Authorized Police Search of Privacy Activists Wasn't Told About Tor

#112

Post by superkuh »

iadnal wrote: post #91
jakobegger wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that traffic originating from an IP address is very weak evidence, regardless of whether someone runs a Tor node or not. With all the malware and insecure, unsupported software running everywhere, it might be more likely than not that random illegal traffic is coming from IPs whose owners are oblivious. I would hope that law enforcement has more evidence than just an IP in a server log when they raid your pla…

It's unlikely that an exit node operator would be convicted in the US unless the raid turned up illegal content actually hosted on their computers.

You don't need to be convicted or even charged with a crime for police or the feds to steal all of your computer equipment and never return it.

Re: Judge Who Authorized Police Search of Privacy Activists Wasn't Told About Tor

#113

Post by losteric »

codyb wrote: post #99
TearsInTheRain wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder if there should be a certification system in place before judges can rule on technical topics

But then might there not need to be a certification for other areas as well? Might be a hard thing to set up.

We have certifications for building and maintaining networks. I don't understand why we don't certify people regulating networks.

On the other hand... that opens up questions on when certifications are required. Do judges need to be certified to rule on plumbing law?

Re: Judge Who Authorized Police Search of Privacy Activists Wasn't Told About Tor

#114

Post by downandout »

kempbellt wrote: post #94
walrus01 wrote: post #79

The 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.

There is so much explaining going on here that it seems like the judge has no understanding of how the internet works. If that's the case, how could the judge be able to give a reasonable response to this affidavit? Seems like a case that requires such a long-winded technical preface could at least be handled by a judge who knows what an IP address is...

Most of the text in the warrant appears to be boilerplate language that is legally required or at least legally advisable in case it is ever challenged in court. I'm sure FBI agents have template word documents they keep, detailing their experience and relevant basic facts about each kind of case and then they just fill in the blanks when they have a case of that genre. This way no one can argue that the judge was not apprised of the basic facts.

Re: Judge Who Authorized Police Search of Privacy Activists Wasn't Told About Tor

#117

Post by yeukhon »

downandout wrote: post #100
walrus01 wrote: post #79

The 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.

Apparently, the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children provides ISPs with a hash database of known illegal images [1]. ISPs are then required by statute to notify the government when images with matching hashes cross their network [2]. [1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2258C [2] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2258A

While good, sort of scary because a lot of small players would host ads to get revenue and some of the ads would be filed with sexual content, even though these websites aren't even porn sites. Just some random humor site or some fortunate teller site, so if this were really true, wouldn't we be be looked at!?

Re: Judge Who Authorized Police Search of Privacy Activists Wasn't Told About Tor

#118

Post by downandout »

yeukhon wrote: post #117
downandout wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apparently, the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children provides ISPs with a hash database of known illegal images [1]. ISPs are then required by statute to notify the government when images with matching hashes cross their network [2]. [1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2258C [2] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2258A

While good, sort of scary because a lot of small players would host ads to get revenue and some of the ads would be filed with sexual content, even though these websites aren't even porn sites. Just some random humor site or some fortunate teller site, so if this were really true, wouldn't we be be looked at!?

"Ads filled with sexual content"!="child porn"

Re: Judge Who Authorized Police Search of Privacy Activists Wasn't Told About Tor

#120

Post by yeukhon »

downandout wrote: post #118
yeukhon wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While good, sort of scary because a lot of small players would host ads to get revenue and some of the ads would be filed with sexual content, even though these websites aren't even porn sites. Just some random humor site or some fortunate teller site, so if this were really true, wouldn't we be be looked at!?

"Ads filled with sexual content"!="child porn"

yes, I know, but 1/1000 may be. what if it's loaded over http behind the scene without any display? still transmitted over your network. What if the site just got hacked?
Post reply on HN