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

Feds seized $311M in Bitcoin, then hacker stole it back

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 229 posts

Re: Feds seized $311M in Bitcoin, then hacker stole it back

#41

Post by mNovak »

throw101010 wrote: post #22

> The prosecutors accuse Harmon of a very unusual crime: remotely swiping Bitcoin... As opposed to what, "locally" swiping Bitcoin? > ... Bitcoin stored on a computer device the government had already seized in another case Yeah that's your problem Mr. Prosecutor, you have no idea where bitcoins are "stored" or what the device you have seized is. Which leads me to think you are not qualified to "seize" this type of a…

>> you would think people in his position would know what private keys are and how to secure Bitcoin funds they pretend to "seize"

How exactly would you have handled this differently? They were well aware the account could be recovered via mnemonic, but they couldn't move the funds because they didn't have the PIN.

Re: Feds seized $311M in Bitcoin, then hacker stole it back

#42

Post by giancarlostoro »

cantSpellSober wrote: post #40
throw101010 wrote: post #22

> The prosecutors accuse Harmon of a very unusual crime: remotely swiping Bitcoin... As opposed to what, "locally" swiping Bitcoin? > ... Bitcoin stored on a computer device the government had already seized in another case Yeah that's your problem Mr. Prosecutor, you have no idea where bitcoins are "stored" or what the device you have seized is. Which leads me to think you are not qualified to "seize" this type of a…

> as opposed to what? There are more words in that sentence. Are there other examples where someone "remotely [swiped] Bitcoin stored on a computer device the government had already seized in another case ?" They seem to define "stored on service" in this case as "accessible only with access to device." It's an interesting case: is it harder to recover physical assets from a police storage locker than digital?

> It's an interesting case because it's harder to recover physical assets from a police storage locker than digital.

I feel like you missed the whole point the comment you replied to made. If the person who stored the cryptocoins on the physically seized computer had a copy of the private keys on another computer (COMPLETELY NORMAL) and the prosecutor never transferred the coins making the assumption that physically holding them was good enough, then that is an invaluable lesson they just learned.

As the previous comment says, if two people have access to the private keys for a wallet, whoever gets to it first is the real owner.

Re: Feds seized $311M in Bitcoin, then hacker stole it back

#43

Post by giancarlostoro »

mNovak wrote: post #41
throw101010 wrote: post #22

> The prosecutors accuse Harmon of a very unusual crime: remotely swiping Bitcoin... As opposed to what, "locally" swiping Bitcoin? > ... Bitcoin stored on a computer device the government had already seized in another case Yeah that's your problem Mr. Prosecutor, you have no idea where bitcoins are "stored" or what the device you have seized is. Which leads me to think you are not qualified to "seize" this type of a…

>> you would think people in his position would know what private keys are and how to secure Bitcoin funds they pretend to "seize" How exactly would you have handled this differently? They were well aware the account could be recovered via mnemonic, but they couldn't move the funds because they didn't have the PIN.

Sounds like they did not truly secure the crypto then. Shouldn't call it seizing if you don't have it digitally in your own secure wallet.

Re: Feds seized $311M in Bitcoin, then hacker stole it back

#44

Post by cantSpellSober »

giancarlostoro wrote: post #42
cantSpellSober wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> as opposed to what? There are more words in that sentence. Are there other examples where someone "remotely [swiped] Bitcoin stored on a computer device the government had already seized in another case ?" They seem to define "stored on service" in this case as "accessible only with access to device." It's an interesting case: is it harder to recover physical assets from a police storage locker than digital?

> It's an interesting case because it's harder to recover physical assets from a police storage locker than digital. I feel like you missed the whole point the comment you replied to made. If the person who stored the cryptocoins on the physically seized computer had a copy of the private keys on another computer (COMPLETELY NORMAL) and the prosecutor never transferred the coins making the assumption that physically…

So let's flip it: how long will it stay that way: where law enforcement is unaware they've left ostensibly seized assets unsecured?

Re: Feds seized $311M in Bitcoin, then hacker stole it back

#45

Post by Avshalom »

throw101010 wrote: post #22

> The prosecutors accuse Harmon of a very unusual crime: remotely swiping Bitcoin... As opposed to what, "locally" swiping Bitcoin? > ... Bitcoin stored on a computer device the government had already seized in another case Yeah that's your problem Mr. Prosecutor, you have no idea where bitcoins are "stored" or what the device you have seized is. Which leads me to think you are not qualified to "seize" this type of a…

of course now anyone who can be traced to a wallet that interacts with these coins is now a criminal for receiving stolen goods, or obstruction of justice or probably a dozen other things.

Re: Feds seized $311M in Bitcoin, then hacker stole it back

#46

Post by fshbbdssbbgdd »

Avshalom wrote: post #45
throw101010 wrote: post #22

> The prosecutors accuse Harmon of a very unusual crime: remotely swiping Bitcoin... As opposed to what, "locally" swiping Bitcoin? > ... Bitcoin stored on a computer device the government had already seized in another case Yeah that's your problem Mr. Prosecutor, you have no idea where bitcoins are "stored" or what the device you have seized is. Which leads me to think you are not qualified to "seize" this type of a…

of course now anyone who can be traced to a wallet that interacts with these coins is now a criminal for receiving stolen goods, or obstruction of justice or probably a dozen other things.

A lot of crimes require mens rea, ie. being guilty would require knowing the bitcoins are shady.

Re: Feds seized $311M in Bitcoin, then hacker stole it back

#47

Post by denkmoon »

cantSpellSober wrote: post #44
giancarlostoro wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's an interesting case because it's harder to recover physical assets from a police storage locker than digital. I feel like you missed the whole point the comment you replied to made. If the person who stored the cryptocoins on the physically seized computer had a copy of the private keys on another computer (COMPLETELY NORMAL) and the prosecutor never transferred the coins making the assumption that physically…

So let's flip it: how long will it stay that way: where law enforcement is unaware they've left ostensibly seized assets unsecured?

that goes right back to OPs point. If LEO are leaving these "seized" assets unsecured, they are simply not qualified to be doing what they are doing.

To directly answer your question, forever. Policing is sufficiently distributed and poor at retaining or integrating new knowledge that I am sure we will see these amateur-hour mistakes being made for as long as crypto exists in its current form.

Modern policing has not changed much since its inception with the Met Police and Robert Peel.

Re: Feds seized $311M in Bitcoin, then hacker stole it back

#49

Post by netheril96 »

mNovak wrote: post #41
throw101010 wrote: post #22

> The prosecutors accuse Harmon of a very unusual crime: remotely swiping Bitcoin... As opposed to what, "locally" swiping Bitcoin? > ... Bitcoin stored on a computer device the government had already seized in another case Yeah that's your problem Mr. Prosecutor, you have no idea where bitcoins are "stored" or what the device you have seized is. Which leads me to think you are not qualified to "seize" this type of a…

>> you would think people in his position would know what private keys are and how to secure Bitcoin funds they pretend to "seize" How exactly would you have handled this differently? They were well aware the account could be recovered via mnemonic, but they couldn't move the funds because they didn't have the PIN.

Don’t call it seizing then.
Post reply on HN