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

FBI seizes riseup.net server

help.riseup.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 111 posts

Re: FBI seizes riseup.net server

#71

Post by mikeash »

samstave wrote: post #30
mikeash wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When was the last time a bomb threat was followed up with an actual bomb in the US? Maybe it's time to stop blindly evacuating buildings in response to anonymous messages.

1993 World trade center And today is the anniversary of the 1995 Oklahoma city bombing. However I am uncertain if a "threat" was ever called in for either. This is evidence that a called in thread will likely never be real - real attacks aren't called in with warnings.

If you are uncertain if a threat was ever called in for either, how are those answers to my question? I was specifically asking about threats that were first called in, then followed up upon. To the best of my knowledge, neither of those qualify.

Re: FBI seizes riseup.net server

#72

Post by mikeash »

ingrid wrote: post #50
mikeash wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When was the last time a bomb threat was followed up with an actual bomb in the US? Maybe it's time to stop blindly evacuating buildings in response to anonymous messages.

Most people don't believe a bomb will actually blow up or something on campus. I think what freaks people out is notion that the person(s) making the bomb threats are trying to observe the patterns and behaviors of how people react during an evacuation. Pitt has the tallest educational building in the US (Cathedral of Learning - which has had 14 bomb threats), plus many other buildings on campus are rather tall too.…

Maybe the authorities should stop desensitizing these people by constantly subjecting them to false alarms, then.

Re: FBI seizes riseup.net server

#73

Post by gee_totes »

mayoff wrote: post #26
siculars wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Criminals (and worse) use all sorts of things, including technology, that everyone else uses. By your logic, the FBI should execute seizure warnings against GMail, Yahoo mail and Facebook... every time they have "evidence that criminal emails passed through that server." Frankly, your logic makes no practical sense.

The FBI should absolutely execute a seizure warrant against those companies, if doing so is effective, but: - Those companies probably have too many servers and too much data to make seizing all of it productive. - Those companies would be less likely to be effected, as they have backups and redundant servers for handling outages. - Those companies keep records that they provide to law enforcement when presented with…

It's retarded to act surprised and indignant when the server gets seized because it was probably used to commit a crime.

Did you read the press release? Riseup was not running the anonymizing remailer, it just happened to be on the same physical machine as some of Riseup's infrastructure/e-mail accounts/listservs/etc.

From the press release:

The seized server was operated by the European Counter Network (“ECN”), the oldest independent internet service provider in Europe, who, among many other things, provided an anonymous remailer service, Mixmaster, that was the target of an FBI investigation into the bomb threats against the University of Pittsburgh.

Re: FBI seizes riseup.net server

#74

Post by ambler0 »

suneilp wrote: post #34
alaskamiller wrote: post #6

America's online law enforcement shaping up to be pretty much like the war on drugs.

In other words, useless?

Useless with respect to the purported goal, but they both certainly serve a real purpose, providing a pretext to target undesirables.

Re: FBI seizes riseup.net server

#75

Post by rdl »

FBI actually has some good agents, but the only ones I've met were on counterterrorism, either in the us or overseas trying to find foreign links to us terrorism. I know most of the other law enforcement funding got repriorirized after 9-11, and I could imagine it is still attracting the better agents. Most of the really stupid FBI stuff originates from their bush league regional offices or is pushed by idiot US Attorneys in those places (e-gold, mmj raids, etc). The Secret Service, at least on computer crime, is far more uniformly competent.

Re: FBI seizes riseup.net server

#76

Post by sliverstorm »

electromagnetic wrote: post #4

I do not understand the sledgehammer approach the FBI 'cybercrimes' division deals with things with. The FBI are not police, are not detectives, and are not competent in these matters. I'm sorry but covert monitoring of a server is going to be vastly more beneficial for an operation than taking the server and is going to net more targets and more evidence. I remember stories of the FBI sitting on a known front for or…

I'm sorry but covert monitoring of a server is going to be vastly more beneficial for an operation than taking the server and is going to net more targets and more evidence.

They do this sometimes. You don't hear a lot about it, because it is covert, and nobody makes a stink about it in the headlines. But it is time-intensive and expensive, so you can't do it all the time to every target of interest. If you believe the servers already have all the evidence you need, and you can get the servers, it makes sense.

It's like the difference between hiring a private eye to shadow someone for a month, and simply requesting a subpoena. Both have their place.

Re: FBI seizes riseup.net server

#77

Post by carguy1983 »

samstave wrote: post #37
carguy1983 wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wow, you place an awful lot of faith in amazon.

Not really actually, I just mean having a discrete server that can be "seized" is not a particularly robust solution.

... and what do you think an Amazon slice is? It sits on a physical machine that can be identified, located, and handed over by Amazon given a lawful request, all without the site operators knowing.

You think they give a fuck about the other 4 slices on your server? No. They don't. In fact it says so right in their SLA.

Re: FBI seizes riseup.net server

#78

Post by Tuna-Fish »

echo-unity wrote: post #62
jfoutz wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, but they have to hold on to that stuff for a while. a 5 year old cash is still cash. a 5 year old computer is a doorstop.

I would point out the fallacy in your statement - but I will let you figure it out in the next 5-10 years.

I would be very interested in the fallacy you see, yet I see none.

Re: FBI seizes riseup.net server

#79

Post by damonpace »

electromagnetic wrote: post #4

I do not understand the sledgehammer approach the FBI 'cybercrimes' division deals with things with. The FBI are not police, are not detectives, and are not competent in these matters. I'm sorry but covert monitoring of a server is going to be vastly more beneficial for an operation than taking the server and is going to net more targets and more evidence. I remember stories of the FBI sitting on a known front for or…

I wouldn't say they use a sledgehammer approach. I used to own and operate an anonymous email service until the FBI called me one day for the user data. I never ended up giving it to them, but I immediately shut it down after that. They were nice, cordial and understood that I was not the one using the service maliciously.

Re: FBI seizes riseup.net server

#80

Post by ingrid »

mikeash wrote: post #72
ingrid wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most people don't believe a bomb will actually blow up or something on campus. I think what freaks people out is notion that the person(s) making the bomb threats are trying to observe the patterns and behaviors of how people react during an evacuation. Pitt has the tallest educational building in the US (Cathedral of Learning - which has had 14 bomb threats), plus many other buildings on campus are rather tall too.…

Maybe the authorities should stop desensitizing these people by constantly subjecting them to false alarms, then.

Honestly it seems like person(s) making the bomb threats becomes more agressive with the threats when the university makes a public statement about it or when the police think they've caught someone or have a lead. A part of me wonders if the university might provoke the person(s) behind this to do something more extreme if the bomb threats started to be ignored.
Post reply on HN