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

41–50 of 54 posts

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

#41

Post by BryanB55 »

AkThhhpppt wrote: post #37
BryanB55 wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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... ;

Thanks. I'll look it over.

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

#42

Post by ttt_ »

BryanB55 wrote: post #33
RyanMBoland wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 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.

In the case of the service disrupted, that private information on the server could be what's protecting other lives in a country where basic rights are being disputed in blood.

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

#44

Post by DanBC »

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…

Gathering, pre-processing, entering, and storing information costs time and money.

Having more data about more people increases the risks of false positives ("Innocent Bob is a terrorist!") and false negatives ("Terrorist Ann is innocent!"); and raises the risks of faulty data being gathered, processed and entered.

So, having data about innocent people just increases costs and decreases quality.

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

#45

Post by patrickgzill »

corin_ wrote: post #36
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.

Good point, it would in fact make a difference.

I read the article, they do say "colocation"; besides which, XO Communications does not rent servers as far as I know. So that seems to point that they were renting the physical space that their servers are in.

Would it make a difference if they were just renting a partial rack, or a full rack that goes all the way down to the floor and is enclosed? I don't know ...

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

#46

Post by corin_ »

patrickgzill wrote: post #45
corin_ wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Good point, it would in fact make a difference. I read the article, they do say "colocation"; besides which, XO Communications does not rent servers as far as I know. So that seems to point that they were renting the physical space that their servers are in. Would it make a difference if they were just renting a partial rack, or a full rack that goes all the way down to the floor and is enclosed? I don't know ...

Surely even then the rental contract would specify the equipment they rent, not the space - the data centre could move their rack to a different physical location at any time.

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

#47

Post by cnbeuiwx »

corin_ wrote: post #34
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?

The server was probably not running Windows.

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

#48

Post by corin_ »

cnbeuiwx wrote: post #47
corin_ wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

The server was probably not running Windows.

Was replying to "are now using a backdoor in the encryption".

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

#49

Post by BryanB55 »

ttt_ wrote: post #42
BryanB55 wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 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. In the case of the service disrupted, that private information on the server could be what's protecting other lives in a country where basic rights are being disputed in blood.

Right, but who is to say that the FBI would release that information into the wrong hands? If that is the case then it sounds like the problem is with the way confidential information is handled by our intelligence agencies.

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

#50

Post by patrickgzill »

corin_ wrote: post #46
patrickgzill wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good point, it would in fact make a difference. I read the article, they do say "colocation"; besides which, XO Communications does not rent servers as far as I know. So that seems to point that they were renting the physical space that their servers are in. Would it make a difference if they were just renting a partial rack, or a full rack that goes all the way down to the floor and is enclosed? I don't know ...

Surely even then the rental contract would specify the equipment they rent, not the space - the data centre could move their rack to a different physical location at any time.

I will tell you that unless something is on fire in my rack, no one from Level3 will even touch anything - and even then they would hit the fire suppression button and leave the room. They do not touch anything in a customer rack. (I have two racks in a local facility owned by Level3).

The contract I signed, had a clause that said if they had to move me somewhere else, they would pay all costs of doing so. I don't know how standard a clause this is.

Post reply on HN