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

The FBI Identified a Tor User

vice.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 367 posts

Re: The FBI Identified a Tor User

#211

Post by Synaesthesia »

SamoyedFurFluff wrote: post #20
donkeyd wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it isn't. That's not what he was charged for, it's just one piece of evidence in the case: > “From Mr. Al-Azhari’s attempt to acquire firearms through unlawful channels to his desire to provide material support to a designated foreign terrorist organization, it was clear Mr. Al-Azhari’s intention was to carry out an act of violence,” > According to the complaint, Al-Azhari was an ISIS supporter who planned and at…

I’m interested what the case law is for arresting someone for intent to perform a heinous act. I’ve heard a lot from stalking victims and the like that often times police will refuse to do anything until the stalker has assaulted or murdered the victim in question, despite clear indications the stalker is actively planning to do harm.

The FBI has actually set up terror plots and then recruited people to carry them out only to arrest them. It's outrageous IMO.

https://theintercept.com/2015/03/16/howthefbicreatedaterrori...

Re: The FBI Identified a Tor User

#212

Post by sneak »

nerbert wrote: post #187
dehrmann wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it would require them revealing zero days they have on Tor I always figured this was the case for a lot of common things like full-disk encryption schemes, AES, root certs, etc. If there's a break, they wouldn't use it in court unless it's taking down a very, very big target.

Indeed. Very big targets are taken by 0 days, and like Op above mentioned, low hanging fruits are taken by parallel construction. Looks like there is a sweet spot in the middle, where they can’t be bothered.

Parallel construction is illegal.

Why do we tolerate government corruption at the highest levels of law enforcement?

Re: The FBI Identified a Tor User

#213

Post by [deleted] »

VWWHFSfQ wrote: post #98
causi wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you did illegal things illegally. Yep. I said I don't understand people who do illegal things over their own connection, i.e., stupidly. And who owned the public AP? McDonald's.

McDonald's has video cameras pointing at every inch of their property 24/7. All they need is a timestamp from the AP and they'll go find your license plate in the parking lot on the surveillance tapes.

[deleted]

Re: The FBI Identified a Tor User

#214

Post by nibbleshifter »

Run_DOS_Run wrote: post #155
DarkmSparks wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

yep, this, I ran a tor webserver for discussing geopolitics with friends on a pi for a few months before finding it had been compromised. that was shortly after intel exchange had been taken down. Tor services just arent secure in any sense imho. especially not from the people who wrote them. sigh.

>I ran a tor webserver for discussing geopolitics with friends on a pi for a few months before finding it had been compromised. Not the fault of Tor. HSDir nodes could snoop on announced v1 .onion adresses. This isn't the case anymore for Onion v2 addresses. But even if an attacker has the onion address of your webserver, he needs a way to compromise it. Either through a vuln in your website or your webserver.

A vuln in the webserver is the usual way, I used to collect and scan .onion domains for misconfiguration issues a few years ago.

You would be amazed how many admins leave shit like PHPMyAdmin wide open.

Re: The FBI Identified a Tor User

#215

Post by pfisherman »

r3trohack3r wrote: post #95

I have second hand knowledge of lawsuits that have been dropped by the FBI during discovery because it would require them revealing zero days they have on Tor. Recently this has started getting increasing levels of press exposure[1] including in CSAM cases. The FBI has also continued to run CSAM websites after takeover to collect intel, and likely run honeypots for other content. If your adversary is a state actor, p…

> If you're sitting in front of a computer that you're using for something the U.S. government has significant interest in prosecuting, that device should be considered compromised and adversarial - you should act accordingly.

I would say that if you are doing something the US government has a significant interest in prosecuting, you might want to reevaluate your life choices and think about whether it is something you ought to be doing in the first place.

I know this is not going to be a hugely popular sentiment on here; but if you are doing something such that the US is going to burn a zero day to get you, the appropriate prior is that you are doing something supremely heinous and evil. You may in fact be on right the side of justice, but you do not get the benefit of the doubt by default.

Re: The FBI Identified a Tor User

#216

Post by monero-xmr »

czx4f4bd wrote: post #193
monero-xmr wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bruce has also been hardcore anti-cryptocurrency. From a pure cryptography perspective the innovations around zero knowledge proofs are very intriguing and it’s highly unlikely they would have happened as quickly without the monetary benefit of cryptocurrency pushing such research forwards. However Bruce is an extreme statist, and if he had his way I’m sure all cryptography would be backdoored.

Really? Bruce is pro-backdoor? Where's that pro-backdoor advocacy in this essay from 2013 on evading NSA surveillance and warning about the risk of backdoored cryptography? https://www.schneier.com/essays/archives/2013/09/nsa_surveil... Or this essay from 2016 arguing that backdoors sabotage security? https://www.schneier.com/essays/archives/2016/04/the_value_o... Or this essay from 2019 decrying yet another effort t…

This is, without a doubt, the craziest thing I have ever seen pushed out by a someone who purports to know something about cryptography, law, and political advocacy:

https://www.lawfareblog.com/tornado-cash-not-free-speech-its...

Schneier has gone off the deep end

Re: The FBI Identified a Tor User

#217

Post by landemva »

notch656c wrote: post #154
jdfellow wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wait, there's bills for search warrants, like in Brazil (the movie)?

Yes. IF an officer accuses you of having controlled substances inside your body you'll be dragged to a hospital, which will perform the search, and then send you the bill. It doesn't matter that nothing was found and it was performed against your will at the behest of the government.

In USA I wonder how they forced you to enter contract with medical provider. A letter to debt collector to 'validate alleged debt and show me the signed contract' could be interesting.

Re: The FBI Identified a Tor User

#218

Post by josteink »

sneak wrote: post #212
nerbert wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed. Very big targets are taken by 0 days, and like Op above mentioned, low hanging fruits are taken by parallel construction. Looks like there is a sweet spot in the middle, where they can’t be bothered.

Parallel construction is illegal. Why do we tolerate government corruption at the highest levels of law enforcement?

> Parallel construction is illegal.

Sure. But then first you have to prove it is a parallel construction.

Re: The FBI Identified a Tor User

#219

Post by lcnPylGDnU4H9OF »

pfisherman wrote: post #215
r3trohack3r wrote: post #95

I have second hand knowledge of lawsuits that have been dropped by the FBI during discovery because it would require them revealing zero days they have on Tor. Recently this has started getting increasing levels of press exposure[1] including in CSAM cases. The FBI has also continued to run CSAM websites after takeover to collect intel, and likely run honeypots for other content. If your adversary is a state actor, p…

> If you're sitting in front of a computer that you're using for something the U.S. government has significant interest in prosecuting, that device should be considered compromised and adversarial - you should act accordingly. I would say that if you are doing something the US government has a significant interest in prosecuting, you might want to reevaluate your life choices and think about whether it is something y…

> the appropriate prior is that you are doing something supremely heinous and evil

Generally speaking I can agree but more specifically cases like Julian Assange come to mind. Certainly there are at least some people who are at risk of this kind of persecution and otherwise not doing something that would so immediately be considered in such a negative light.

Re: The FBI Identified a Tor User

#220

Post by mirkules »

pfisherman wrote: post #215
r3trohack3r wrote: post #95

I have second hand knowledge of lawsuits that have been dropped by the FBI during discovery because it would require them revealing zero days they have on Tor. Recently this has started getting increasing levels of press exposure[1] including in CSAM cases. The FBI has also continued to run CSAM websites after takeover to collect intel, and likely run honeypots for other content. If your adversary is a state actor, p…

> If you're sitting in front of a computer that you're using for something the U.S. government has significant interest in prosecuting, that device should be considered compromised and adversarial - you should act accordingly. I would say that if you are doing something the US government has a significant interest in prosecuting, you might want to reevaluate your life choices and think about whether it is something y…

The good, old “If you’ve done nothing wrong, you have nothing to hide” argument.

Just drop “US” in that statement and then reevaluate it. Then ask yourself why the US should be special in regard to (not) protecting people’s privacy.

Post reply on HN