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

The FBI took -- and mysteriously returned -- their server

redtape.msnbc.msn.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 54 posts

Re: The FBI took -- and mysteriously returned -- their server

#31

Post by BryanB55 »

RyanMBoland wrote: post #18
BryanB55 wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I pretty much agree, they talked about "innocent peoples privacy" but if they are truly innocent then it shouldn't matter if the FBI sees their information. If my data were on that server and I was doing nothing wrong I really don't think I would mind handing it over to the FBI to help find even the smallest threat to our country.

But, was anyone's personal data really on that server? If it's an anonymous emailing service I would think that just the service was disrupted.

Could be. I'm curious to hear why my comment was down voted though, regardless of whether there was information on the server or not. It seems a lot of people are always screaming "privacy!" and when I mention I'm willing to give up some privacy to protect the safety of other people and our country others do not agree with me. What is it you think will happen if the FBI gets a hold of your data on a server? This of course is just my opinion and I respect everyone else's opinion but I would like to hear a counter argument.

Re: The FBI took -- and mysteriously returned -- their server

#33

Post by BryanB55 »

RyanMBoland wrote: post #29
CWuestefeld wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Up-vote because many people feel this way, so it's important to discuss. But I strongly disagree. From that point of view, this seems like a perfectly fine action to take. There's certainly an argument to be made in support of your statement. If we were to work in a purely utilitarian manner, there would be little room for argument. But the design of the structure of civil rights we have in America doesn't work that…

I think that you've taken this too far. We can't make blanket statements about peoples rights and expect them to be applicable in every situation. In this case, a legal authority made the decision to interrupt a service for a small period of time in order to investigate a terrorist act that was disrupting the lives of thousands of people daily. If this was, say, a service that was providing medical assistance to elde…

I agree... In one case you're talking about killing someone and taking their organs to give to others and in the other we're talking about disrupting someones email usage to prevent bomb detonation. Can we see the difference here? I still don't see any reason that I would not give up my private information on a server in order to protect our country and thousands of lives... looking up some counter arguments though. I can't think of any good ones off the top of my head.

Re: The FBI took -- and mysteriously returned -- their server

#34

Post by corin_ »

cnbeuiwx wrote: post #30

Im surprised nobody is discussing the reason for the pull. Obviously the FBI has copied all the data on the server and are now using a backdoor in the encryption or brute force cracking to get into the information. There is no such thing as safe data once the physical server is confiscated, and people shouldnt trust standard encryption algorithms to be safe from backdoors. Microsoft Windows has had backdoors for a lo…

If you were the FBI, and you had a backdoor already built into the software running on that server, would you really confiscate it and take four days to use it rather than leaving it running and hoping nobody notices you came by to activate it, and/or having it be activated over the network?

Re: The FBI took -- and mysteriously returned -- their server

#35

Post by andrewcooke »

RyanMBoland wrote: post #29
CWuestefeld wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Up-vote because many people feel this way, so it's important to discuss. But I strongly disagree. From that point of view, this seems like a perfectly fine action to take. There's certainly an argument to be made in support of your statement. If we were to work in a purely utilitarian manner, there would be little room for argument. But the design of the structure of civil rights we have in America doesn't work that…

I think that you've taken this too far. We can't make blanket statements about peoples rights and expect them to be applicable in every situation. In this case, a legal authority made the decision to interrupt a service for a small period of time in order to investigate a terrorist act that was disrupting the lives of thousands of people daily. If this was, say, a service that was providing medical assistance to elde…

We can't make blanket statements about peoples rights and expect them to be applicable in every situation.

yes you can. that's exactly what a right is. a right is the right to do something even when it seems wrong. you don't need a right to do what seems right.

my favourite quote, ever:

At first blush it may be thought surprising that one should have a right to do that which one ought not. Is it not better to confine rights to that which it is right or at least permissible to do? But to say this is to misunderstand the nature of rights. One needs no right to be entitled to do the right thing. That it is right gives one all the title one needs. But one needs a right to be entitled to do that which one should not. It is an essential element of rights to action that they entitle one to do that which one should not. To say this is not, of course, to say that the purpose or justification of rights of action is to increase wrongdoing. Their purpose is to develop and protect the autonomy of the agent. They entitle him to choose for himself rightly or wrongly. But they cannot do that unless they entitle him to choose wrongly. - Joseph Raz, The Authority of Law (p 266)

rights are very special things - they are used to protect a few essential freedoms that are so important they should be protected whatever else.

rights - real rights - are very powerful things. they're the last defense against tyranny. the absolute last thing you want is some dictator saying "well, times are hard, so you can't have free speech right now". that is why rights are absolute.

Re: The FBI took -- and mysteriously returned -- their server

#36

Post by corin_ »

patrickgzill wrote: post #26

Here is my question... If you rent an apartment, even though you don't own the building, you have "rights of tenant in possession". Basically the apartment is "yours" and you have rights. If a search warrant is to be served to search your place, it gets served on YOU, not the owner of the buildng. If you rent server space, like a rack in a datacenter, that space is "yours". So should the search warrant have been hono…

Generally speaking you aren't renting server space, you're renting server equipment i.e. the rack, hardware, power, networking, so I would imagine that would or at least could be the difference.

Re: The FBI took -- and mysteriously returned -- their server

#37

Post by AkThhhpppt »

BryanB55 wrote: post #31
RyanMBoland wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But, was anyone's personal data really on that server? If it's an anonymous emailing service I would think that just the service was disrupted.

Could be. I'm curious to hear why my comment was down voted though, regardless of whether there was information on the server or not. It seems a lot of people are always screaming "privacy!" and when I mention I'm willing to give up some privacy to protect the safety of other people and our country others do not agree with me. What is it you think will happen if the FBI gets a hold of your data on a server? This of c…

You're getting downvoted because you've just rephrased the "if you've nothing to hide, you've nothing to fear" argument. Here, have a counterargument: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=998565&#3...;

Re: The FBI took -- and mysteriously returned -- their server

#38

Post by ShabbyDoo »

patrickgzill wrote: post #26

Here is my question... If you rent an apartment, even though you don't own the building, you have "rights of tenant in possession". Basically the apartment is "yours" and you have rights. If a search warrant is to be served to search your place, it gets served on YOU, not the owner of the buildng. If you rent server space, like a rack in a datacenter, that space is "yours". So should the search warrant have been hono…

What are the US laws in regard to search and seizure of rented storage facilities? This seems like an interesting point on the continuum between an apartment and a data center rack.

Re: The FBI took -- and mysteriously returned -- their server

#39

Post by sopooneo »

BryanB55 wrote: post #17
RyanMBoland wrote: post #14

I'm a student at the University of Pittsburgh. From that point of view, this seems like a perfectly fine action to take. The FBI agents may have disrupted service to a few hundred users, but these threats were affecting thousands of people. I don't know if these anonymous email threats were unprecedented or not, but they certainly present a huge challenge to law enforcement. What would have happened if the people res…

I pretty much agree, they talked about "innocent peoples privacy" but if they are truly innocent then it shouldn't matter if the FBI sees their information. If my data were on that server and I was doing nothing wrong I really don't think I would mind handing it over to the FBI to help find even the smallest threat to our country.

Right to privacy is fundamental in the United States. People should never have to respond to the argument that if they are truly innocent they won't mind some breach.

Re: The FBI took -- and mysteriously returned -- their server

#40

Post by ShabbyDoo »

ahi wrote: post #19
maratd wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Are they legally prohibited from doing so? Yes. They can be charged with obstruction of justice or interfering with an investigation.

Still doesn't make much sense. The client is going to figure it out. Also, a search warrant doesn't give the Feds the ability to put it back. Maybe with a national security letter for the purpose of putting spyware on it? But even then the server owner is going to notice that their server went missing for a couple days. "Must have gone for a long walk. Glad it's back," is not how I would approach it.

Right. The data center owner had no obligation to allow the FBI to return the server. [IANAL] This was a convenient choice on their part. Is there any reason why this human rights organization can or should not post a torrent of the server's disk images so that knowledgeable folks can determine what the FBI might have done to the machine?
Post reply on HN