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

221–230 of 367 posts

Re: The FBI Identified a Tor User

#221

Post by dmux »

PartiallyTyped wrote: post #99
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…

Is there really any way to hide from a motivated state actor? Asking about it on HN is definitely not one. Relevant xkcd: 538 [1] [1] https://xkcd.com/538/

One of my favorite HN comments of all time [0] suggested that MMO's provide plentiful means of covertly communicating:

>MMO's are packed with possible communication channels in addition to chat. Ever wonder if that annoying gnome in the auction hall is jumping in morse code? Could signals be sent with bids? Could a character's inventory contents be arranged to leave a message to someone else who shares the login info? Is that nonsense coming from what you presume to be a bot-controlled gold-farming crew really nonsense? When a game goes to great lengths to simulate a world, the possibilities for covert communication are nearly limitless!

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6874143

Re: The FBI Identified a Tor User

#222

Post by ohyoutravel »

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?

I don’t think this is true unless the original evidence was obtained in violation of the fourth amendment, which zero days are not necessarily. You’re right though using parallel construction to launder prohibited search is illegal.

Re: The FBI Identified a Tor User

#223

Post by brookst »

sokoloff wrote: post #201
brookst wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The vast majority the US government has significant interest in prosecuting, the general public is OK with. Did you really just shoot down your own argument by acknowledging that there are some things the government has a significant interest in prosecuting, but which the general public doesn’t find objectionable?

I read it as “the vast majority of people the government is after, the general public is okay with them being pursued.”

Sure. Which is the same as "for some minority of people the government is after, it is 100% acceptable and even desirable for them to use these technologies."

Re: The FBI Identified a Tor User

#224

Post by notch656c »

landemva wrote: post #217
notch656c wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I did that exact thing and they sent back a rejection of the dispute along with shitty screenshot of me listed as "guarantor" of ICE's health service corps lol. Obviously I refused to sign anything. I have no idea how the collectors even found me as I had no valid contact information as the feds put their own address as mine.

Re: The FBI Identified a Tor User

#225

Post by nomel »

DoItToMe81 wrote: post #22

I wouldn't get so excited about this. There have been tons of javascript exploits to leak IP addresses in the past, it's more likely that than the FBI running thousands of servers.

> it's more likely that than the FBI running thousands of servers.

Why? What's the hurdle for running a bunch of servers? How much does a server cost?

Re: The FBI Identified a Tor User

#226

Post by CrazyPyroLinux »

Fnoord wrote: post #110
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. Yep: stop breaking the law. The vast majority the US government has significant interest in prosecuting, the general public is OK with.

I hope you're not hiding any dissidents, Comrade.

Re: The FBI Identified a Tor User

#227

Post by remram »

advisedwang wrote: post #171
adenozine wrote: post #83

From Bruce of all people, this is a wildly provocative, unsubstantiated claim about routine takedown behavior from the feds. I mean, nobody hates the gov side of the cryptography wars more than me, but this type of article is well below table-stakes for discussion. Especially by legendary professionals of repute like Bruce. It's very disappointing to me. The price of clicks truly deconstructs the modern man's integri…

> unsubstantiated claim There's a court document from a defender specifically referring to the evidence the FBI is presenting. Lawyers can be severely sanctioned if they lie in a briefing, so the lawyer drafting that has certainly seen a court document by the FBI stating that they got the IP of this user despite Tor. Bruce never claims more than that.

"Got the IP despite Tor" might just be user error, visited the site once with Tor disabled, or logged into the same account elsewhere with both their clear IP and their Tor browser. The exact same thing that happened to Silk Road.

Re: The FBI Identified a Tor User

#228

Post by jstarfish »

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.

> clear indications the stalker is actively planning to do harm.

You might be interested in the "cannibal cop" case.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Valle

Where, exactly, is the line crossed between "this guy is talking shit" and "this guy is actively planning to do harm?"

(I don't know where I even stand on that case. The ramifications of every alternate outcome is equally unsettling.)

Re: The FBI Identified a Tor User

#230

Post by pfisherman »

mirkules wrote: post #220
pfisherman wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Oh, I am well aware that governments have all kinds of unjust laws. I know some ex-Panthers who were on the business end of COINTELPRO. But they were open about what they were doing, and publicly articulated a compelling case for their cause - which was censored. Not to mention they weren’t actually breaking any laws.

Similarly, the public performance of civil disobedience was an integral part what MLK was doing with his civil disobedience.

Again I am not saying that the US government is always right. Just the person who is using Tor to hide illegal activity should not receive the benefit of the doubt.

And the “US” part of my comment is key here. There is a big qualitative difference between the US government and the N Korea government.

Post reply on HN