51–60 of 229 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Likelihood that these are always on, dumping data directly to the Feds?
Zero, given that anyone can sniff the traffic.
> Agents built a detailed financial picture of Larry. Inspecting his cloud accounts, they found a Google Glass photo of a computer screen showing the Helix administrator page Wow, a picture taken with google glass is one of the things that got him
Likelihood that these are always on, dumping data directly to the Feds?
Jokes aside, my guess is zero. Transmitting that much data would probably be a lot. Maybe you could take a picture every 30 minutes and hide it away with other data if you really wanted to, but Google Glass was so short lived I imagine they had bigger things to worry about.
The wallets were simply protected by a passphrase and Larry couldn't be compelled to give the passphrase. The feds even told the judge they didn't have control of the funds and they could be moved to family/friends before it happened.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>> 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.
> 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?
And being surprised that another person got access to the photos and sold the originals on the market to another buyer.
It didn’t require breaking into the police evidence locker to make copies.
The key difference here in this analogy is that with pictures the cloned digital assets might have some value but not securing the original keys is like not securing the copyright.
> Agents built a detailed financial picture of Larry. Inspecting his cloud accounts, they found a Google Glass photo of a computer screen showing the Helix administrator page Wow, a picture taken with google glass is one of the things that got him
Likelihood that these are always on, dumping data directly to the Feds?
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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>> 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.