11–20 of 20 posts
Honestly not using a VPN is a pretty lenient ban. He could have been banned from using computers, and forced to use a court appointed intermediary for everything...
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2023/02/sam-bankman-fried-go...
Honestly not using a VPN is a pretty lenient ban. He could have been banned from using computers, and forced to use a court appointed intermediary for everything...
A VPN is an "encrypted messaging application". The judge should have revoked SBF's bond and tossed him into the slammer. And b/c SBF broke the agreement, the bond should be collected in full.
I am skeptical that the Judge (or whoever else was involved here) understands what precisely they're talking about. By my reading, HTTPS would also violate the order, and there isn't anything you can do with an explicit VPN protocol that you can't do with a day or two of infra setup using another technology. I am reminded of when weev set up services for himself so prison phone calls to a particular number would be a…
when a judge orders you to not hide your online activity, it literally means that and doesn't matter how easy or inadvertant it is. "but judge, if I..." okay, don't do that either. "but judge, i can't..." ok, don't do that either. > I am skeptical that the Judge understands what precisely they're talking about. the judge knows s/he's not an expert in every domain but the law and plain English. You are required to und…
Weev is definitely an interesting case. He was released after conviction for being tried apparently in the wrong jurisdiction. It appears his prosecution was incompetent, or stupid. He somehow ended up with a Transnistria passport and resides in Ukraine, afraid they will re-prosecute the case in the correct court next time. He still appears here occasionally under the name 'rabite'.
On the one hand it's nice judges are patient and lean towards liberty. On the other hand people who keep blatantly, knowingly breaking bail conditions should go to jail.
I don't like the guy but if the judge had to amend the bail conditions to exclude VPNs did he really break the bail conditions in the first place by using a VPN? It was a gray area that has been clarified by the judge. That's all really.
His previous conditions banned him from using encrypted communication apps except Whatsapp which he could use only with monitoring software.
To my techie brain, setting up a VPN seems like an obvious breach of that since a VPN will presumably encrypt anything that passes over it (all of which is reasonably communication even if it's just communicating with Uber to request a taxi).
Maybe the judge didn't understand (or fully accept) that.
Maybe there is some legalise question about how specific bail conditions have to be.
Either way, specifically banning vpns solves that.
But i don't think it's the courts job to play whack-a-mole while SBF plays the fool. I wouldn't expect that if I got very generous conditions then broke them twice...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't like the guy but if the judge had to amend the bail conditions to exclude VPNs did he really break the bail conditions in the first place by using a VPN? It was a gray area that has been clarified by the judge. That's all really.
Oh nonsense. This is just an attempt at hacking the legal system by playing definition games. It's like being told not to shoplift and argue that you never touched anyone else's goods because you wore gloves the whole time. His lawyers just responded to the allegation by trying to turn it into a basis for negotiation.
I am skeptical that the Judge (or whoever else was involved here) understands what precisely they're talking about. By my reading, HTTPS would also violate the order, and there isn't anything you can do with an explicit VPN protocol that you can't do with a day or two of infra setup using another technology. I am reminded of when weev set up services for himself so prison phone calls to a particular number would be a…
The law isn’t a computer program and nor does it care about technical hair-splitting. The order is saying use of a VPN for chat/call purposes is violating an existing ban on using encrypted or ephemeral chat/call programs. Basically, he is not allowed to have secret communications with people. For a specific example: Facebook messenger uses SSL, but law enforcement can easily request records of what he said. Being ab…
I am skeptical that the Judge (or whoever else was involved here) understands what precisely they're talking about. By my reading, HTTPS would also violate the order, and there isn't anything you can do with an explicit VPN protocol that you can't do with a day or two of infra setup using another technology. I am reminded of when weev set up services for himself so prison phone calls to a particular number would be a…
A VPN is an "encrypted messaging application". The judge should have revoked SBF's bond and tossed him into the slammer. And b/c SBF broke the agreement, the bond should be collected in full.
Then he should be banned from using the web. Any interaction with an ssl website is an encrypted messaging application. You might not be able to say much, and your data is almost definitely not secure, but it is def encrypted, and sending messages, and usually an application (excluding I guess static websites on https, which I guess the resolver is still an application? But have to draw the line somewhere, windows ex…
You can’t “well, technically” your way out of obvious breaches of clear court instructions.