21–30 of 70 posts
They didn't get him via TOR. If you start reading on page 26, it states that Jeremy hammond revealed personal info to the confidential witness (CW-1). It was this personal info he shared that was used to identify Hammond as the suspect.
This is why privacy is such a Hard problem: damn near everything you do leaks information. If I post anonymously somewhere, my choice of words would narrow down who I am. If I mention that I live in San Francisco, that immediately excludes all the people who live somewhere else and aren't lying. As I browse through web sites, I leave a trail across a bunch of sites' access logs that could all be pieced together and l…
This is why privacy is such a Hard problem: damn near everything you do leaks information. If I post anonymously somewhere, my choice of words would narrow down who I am. If I mention that I live in San Francisco, that immediately excludes all the people who live somewhere else and aren't lying. As I browse through web sites, I leave a trail across a bunch of sites' access logs that could all be pieced together and l…
I think this is actually a pretty strong endorsement of TOR, just based on what I briefly read here. They had a wiretap running, and all they got out of it was "he's definitely using TOR." That's pretty awesome, if you ask me.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's Courier, not an actual typewriter.
Haha, I got fooled by the by fact it's a scanned document + the ascii art in the corner. Well, I guess they're still using computers as if they were just typewriters...
It also seems they have a policy of using Courier, which is probably a carry-over from the days of paper records. It isn't the most readable font ever, but it is surely one of the most legible- a good thing for documents meant for preservation.
see page 31: "...An FBI TOR network expert analyzed the data from the Pen/Trap and was able to determine that a significant portion of the traffic from the CHICAGO RESIDENCE to the Internet was TOR-related traffic..." Guess they did not want to provide too much info on that - otherwise they would have had to acknowledge that they are actually screening all traffic with deep inspection.
Here's a site with these indictments as downloadable PDFs and without the annoying shaking ad: http://publicintelligence.net/lulzsec-indictments/
Ugh. Not downloadable (unless you want to download each page individually by saving it as an image), and it keeps giving me one of those shaking "Congratulations! You have WON!" banners. Here's a site with these indictments as downloadable PDFs and without the annoying shaking ad: http://publicintelligence.net/lulzsec-indictments/
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, this is now called lawful inspection. The deeper meaning of this is that all I-Net traffic can / is inspected through special interfaces at the ISPs (that could of course also be on the edge of the networks) and all (larger) ISPs have to make those available 24/7 without knowing who's accessing them. Generally speaking I guess it might be better to say that all traffic taking certain routes (I certainly don't w…
Yeah, we know about CALEA and ECHELON, but there's no evidence that they were used in this case so I don't know why you're bringing it up. It sounds like conspiracy-mongering.
This is what the congressional hearings with AT&T reg. Bush Mark 2 interceptions were all about - now its all legal so no press on that anymore.
And I guess you know that what can be done will be done.
No conspiracy, standard practice - 15 years ago everybody involved into such practices would have been called a terrorist, enemy no 1 to our democratic systems now seemingly its the other way around.