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

To keep Tor hack source code secret, DOJ dismisses child porn case

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 142 posts

Re: To keep Tor hack source code secret, DOJ dismisses child porn case

#61

Post by gpm »

sanswork wrote: post #25
xorcist wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. That does not follow at all. What it means is that the undercover police illegally collecting evidence is convicted, _and_ the child pornographer is convicted.

How do you trust the evidence of someone who you can prove(to the point of conviction) is willing to do illegal things to gather the evidence?

It's still evidence, just less credible evidence. Hopefully the prosecutor has other evidence as well.

It could also be the case that it's evidence that was collected by someone who didn't commit the crime, but would currently be excluded by the fruit of the poisoned tree doctrine.

Re: To keep Tor hack source code secret, DOJ dismisses child porn case

#62

Post by Frogolocalypse »

gpm wrote: post #60
ChuckMcM wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The structure is to keep police officers honest which is more important than a particular person going to jail. The operating principle is that a dishonest police force is more dangerous than a criminal who was caught using illegal evidence. Typically the criminal will commit another crime and if you get evidence against them legally, then you can prosecute them for the new crime.

The "we both go to jail" policy would probably do even betting at keeping police officers honest. The threat of the officer going to jail being significantly worse than the threat of allowing the criminal to walk free. The details are sketchy, who prosecutes the police/prosecutors? But in principle I think it makes sense.

> worse than the threat of allowing the criminal to walk free.

Alleged criminal. You realize you're innocent until proven guilty, right?

Re: To keep Tor hack source code secret, DOJ dismisses child porn case

#63

Post by [deleted] »

Huffers2 wrote: post #14
woolly wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While the majority of it probably isn't 'how the world should be', a man is going free because (we speculate) that the evidence against him was gathered illegally. This bit probably is 'how the world should be'.

I've never understood this. If I gather evidence against somebody illegally, and it proves their guilt, shouldn't we both go to jail?

[deleted]

Re: To keep Tor hack source code secret, DOJ dismisses child porn case

#64

Post by throwawasiudy »

In case it isn't obvious to everyone, the government runs or has tapped most or all TOR exit nodes. This has been going on forever.

Nobody knows exactly what the attack is...but if they're willing to drop cases to cover it up, its probably something that either: 1) completely breaks TOR permanently 2) is easy to bypass/block

Since TOR has withstood a lot of scrutiny I'm betting on option #2. They found a total break but it's really brittle. Either an exploit in software, or more likely, some protocol hiccup that allows them to de-anonymize users running certain popular software or OS.

Re: To keep Tor hack source code secret, DOJ dismisses child porn case

#65

Post by sanswork »

gpm wrote: post #61
sanswork wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you trust the evidence of someone who you can prove(to the point of conviction) is willing to do illegal things to gather the evidence?

It's still evidence, just less credible evidence. Hopefully the prosecutor has other evidence as well. It could also be the case that it's evidence that was collected by someone who didn't commit the crime, but would currently be excluded by the fruit of the poisoned tree doctrine.

The only proof you have that it IS evidence is the word of someone who you know is willing to break the rules to secure a conviction.

Re: To keep Tor hack source code secret, DOJ dismisses child porn case

#66

Post by waqf »

tptacek wrote: post #26
Huffers2 wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've never understood this. If I gather evidence against somebody illegally, and it proves their guilt, shouldn't we both go to jail?

You're getting a lot of huffy responses to this question, but it is an entirely legitimate one. In fact, many (maybe most?) western countries don't have the same exclusionary rules the US has. There are other remedies to police misconduct. If you were starting a nation from first principles, it's not an iron law of justice that your courts have that rule. The reason we believe the exclusionary rule works so well is t…

> incentive structure for the police

That assumes that the police's incentive is simply to convict as many people as possible. Which, if true, raises other concerns.

Re: To keep Tor hack source code secret, DOJ dismisses child porn case

#67

Post by Cerium »

gpm wrote: post #60
ChuckMcM wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The structure is to keep police officers honest which is more important than a particular person going to jail. The operating principle is that a dishonest police force is more dangerous than a criminal who was caught using illegal evidence. Typically the criminal will commit another crime and if you get evidence against them legally, then you can prosecute them for the new crime.

The "we both go to jail" policy would probably do even betting at keeping police officers honest. The threat of the officer going to jail being significantly worse than the threat of allowing the criminal to walk free. The details are sketchy, who prosecutes the police/prosecutors? But in principle I think it makes sense.

A "we both go to jail" policy would have the same incentives we see in the Wells Fargo example. We need top down incentive to follow the law at all levels. The current situation means that nobody profits from failure to follow the law.

Re: To keep Tor hack source code secret, DOJ dismisses child porn case

#68

Post by daxelrod »

throwawasiudy wrote: post #64

In case it isn't obvious to everyone, the government runs or has tapped most or all TOR exit nodes. This has been going on forever. Nobody knows exactly what the attack is...but if they're willing to drop cases to cover it up, its probably something that either: 1) completely breaks TOR permanently 2) is easy to bypass/block Since TOR has withstood a lot of scrutiny I'm betting on option #2. They found a total break…

I was under the impression from reporting on the sting that Playpen was an onion site, not a clearnet site. If that's the case, traffic wouldn't be going through an exit node to get there, right?

Re: To keep Tor hack source code secret, DOJ dismisses child porn case

#69

Post by setr »

waqf wrote: post #66
tptacek wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're getting a lot of huffy responses to this question, but it is an entirely legitimate one. In fact, many (maybe most?) western countries don't have the same exclusionary rules the US has. There are other remedies to police misconduct. If you were starting a nation from first principles, it's not an iron law of justice that your courts have that rule. The reason we believe the exclusionary rule works so well is t…

> incentive structure for the police That assumes that the police's incentive is simply to convict as many people as possible. Which, if true, raises other concerns.

I think it more assumes that the police's incentive is to maximize the ratio of accusation to conviction as much as possible, which is a reasonable goal.

If they were simply trying to maximize the total number of convictions, then this wouldn't necessarily help; the police would just make broaden the kind of cases they'd accuse

And ofc, it's the function of the police to maximize the misdemeanor to conviction ratio; it's the function of the court to judge the quality of misdemeanor.

It is the function of whatever social/moral arm of the government to minimize misdemeanors. A police officer minimizing the number of accusations should only be doing so for practical reasons; In the ideal world he shouldn't be trying to interpret the law itself, and if it should exist (because it should in general be explicit what is and is not legal, and in general, it is not the policeman's job to decide what is moral, it is to enforce the standing morals.)

But its not an ideal world, and nobody wants to spend time/effort/money on a trash case, so the general incentive is to successfully convict; not to simply try.

Re: To keep Tor hack source code secret, DOJ dismisses child porn case

#70

Post by jemfinch »

bsder wrote: post #20
MilnerRoute wrote: post #18

The prosecutors said they may file charges later (according to the article). They may just want to keep from revealing the details as long as possible -- but could re-file the same charges years later, right before the Statute of Limitations.

This actually bothers me greatly. Not carrying through once charges are filed should be equivalent to "not guilty".

So, in a timeline this:

* "We have an eyewitness! File the charges."

* "Our eyewitness recanted, dismiss."

* "We now have DNA evidence, refile the charges."

You actually think the trial should not be allowed to go forward?

Post reply on HN