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

FBI Harassing Core Tor Developer, Demand Meeting, but Refusing to Explain Why

techdirt.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–129 of 129 posts

Re: FBI Harassing Core Tor Developer, Demand Meeting, but Refusing to Explain Why

#121

Post by oldmanjay »

danielweber wrote: post #87
x1798DE wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not exactly sure of the legal situation about canaries, but generally they are constructed as a dead man's switch type situation, where you make a commitment to do something if something else hasn't happened. The idea being that compelling you to act and restraining you from action are two different things. Given that Reddit has exercised their warrant canary already and other big companies have them, apparently actu…

The idea being that compelling you to act and restraining you from action are two different things. Again: if you are told not to communicate something, you don't communicate it. How come the CEOs who try all sorts of crazy things to work around insider trading haven't tried this? Given that Reddit has exercised their warrant canary already and other big companies have them, apparently actual lawyers think it's a val…

Are you making some sort of case against canaries? The most direct reading of this thread is that you're shouting at clouds, because you've put forth no arguments, just contrary opinions.

Re: FBI Harassing Core Tor Developer, Demand Meeting, but Refusing to Explain Why

#122

Post by sk5t »

ryanl0l wrote: post #86
pfg wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interestingly, there's also this bit on their homepage[1]: > In order for your subpoena / order to be processed, it must be sent to my lawyer. Do not send subpoenas to vc@cock.li or abuse@cock.li. Instead, E-mail or call me to request my lawyer's contact information. It makes sense to have an established point of contact (which might be an email address) for LEAs if you're something like an ISP which regularly receiv…

The method of delivery doesn't really have any bearing on the validity of the subpoena, however with some methods it may be easier for the recipient to fraudulently claim that they didn't receive it. I'm sure they'll use alternate methods if the emails are ignored.

Service of process is regulated at the state, and sometimes local, level. For you to assert that email is a generally valid method requires some evidence.

Re: FBI Harassing Core Tor Developer, Demand Meeting, but Refusing to Explain Why

#123

Post by dang »

knorker wrote: post #14
penagwin wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point still stands. If a person tells you to stop an action they find uncomfortable for whatever reason in any way, no matter their gender, race, etc. It becomes harassment. The FBI is a government organization that you could argue has the job of doing this, however they fail to ever state why they require her assistance (and they seem kinda rude to me).

What? How over sensitive are people getting these days? Did you grow up on tumblr? Next you'll be saying she was "almost raped".

Please don't post uncivil and unsubstantive comments to HN, regardless of how wrong or annoying another comment is.

Re: FBI Harassing Core Tor Developer, Demand Meeting, but Refusing to Explain Why

#124

Post by mapt »

praptak wrote: post #48
nothrabannosir wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could an NSL require you to leave canaries in place?

The (untested) theory behind canaries is that they can forbid you from speaking the truth but they cannot order you to tell a lie. So you don't leave a canary in place, it just expires and you don't put up a new one.

You talk about warrant canaries being an untested legal theory; I say this is putting the cart before the horse.

When were National Security Letters with gag orders prohibiting disclosure tested for constitutionality, in cases when the gag orders are violated and the government wants to punish somebody for disclosure?

Re: FBI Harassing Core Tor Developer, Demand Meeting, but Refusing to Explain Why

#125

Post by dang »

hodwik wrote: post #78

"If they ask for information on anyone else, or think I witnessed or committed some crime: I solemnly invoke my Miranda rights. No joking. No snark. No fucking around. Everyone knows you don’t talk to the police." I'd just like to point out that 1984 and X-Files were works of fiction. I know you consumed them at a really impressionable age, and it was really exciting to think about, but this subculture's complete cre…

> I know you consumed them at a really impressionable age, and it was really exciting to think about, but

Please keep this sort of personal snark out of HN comments. It's uncivil and unsubstantive.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html

Re: FBI Harassing Core Tor Developer, Demand Meeting, but Refusing to Explain Why

#126

Post by appleflaxen »

Kristine1975 wrote: post #94
appleflaxen wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It /is/ terrorism, but the FBI is not the agent of terror. Rather, they are reacting to terrorist boogeymen in the shadows, exactly how the terrorists want them to. Terrorism is successful when our society becomes more of an authoritarian police state.

Are they reacting to terrorism? Or are they using terrorism as a pretext to expand their powers (or to achieve whatever goal they have)?

You're asking whether it's sincere or not? Not sure. But the political support from the public that they need to have power is, i think, sincere because the public is legitimately afraid of all this "risk" they're exposed to.

Re: FBI Harassing Core Tor Developer, Demand Meeting, but Refusing to Explain Why

#127

Post by hodwik »

dang wrote: post #125
hodwik wrote: post #78

"If they ask for information on anyone else, or think I witnessed or committed some crime: I solemnly invoke my Miranda rights. No joking. No snark. No fucking around. Everyone knows you don’t talk to the police." I'd just like to point out that 1984 and X-Files were works of fiction. I know you consumed them at a really impressionable age, and it was really exciting to think about, but this subculture's complete cre…

> I know you consumed them at a really impressionable age, and it was really exciting to think about, but Please keep this sort of personal snark out of HN comments. It's uncivil and unsubstantive. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html

How are conservatives on HN supposed to talk about what we perceive as psychological hangups and failings of our subculture, if you're going to simply cast them as snark/unsubstantive when you don't agree with them?

It's not like this sort of unpleasant psychological characterization is out of the norm on HN, it's just usually applied to the other side.

Re: FBI Harassing Core Tor Developer, Demand Meeting, but Refusing to Explain Why

#128

Post by cptskippy »

dave_sullivan wrote: post #106
at-fates-hands wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

She's smart by putting this out there now. Even if they detain her for some unknown reason, she can still contact her attorney, who then alerts the local and national media and now the FBI have a firestorm of publicity they don't want. Along with several lawsuits I'm sure her attorney would file immediately. Sure, they can do that, but the repercussions are something they certainly don't want to deal with.

What if it turns out that most of these agencies don't care about negative publicity (because they can't be fired) or lawsuits (because it's not their money)? That's the part that really scares me: no transparency, no accountability, and a bunch of secretive True Believers running things. Like the Chinese government!

Is there a government out there that doesn't operate like this?

Re: FBI Harassing Core Tor Developer, Demand Meeting, but Refusing to Explain Why

#129

Post by mcherm »

danielweber wrote: post #70
nothrabannosir wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could an NSL require you to leave canaries in place?

If you are required not to communicate something, then you don't communicate it. Period. Hackers are bad at thinking "oh, I'll just not not not not do the thing, and it will all be okay, I'm so clever." They imagine they are Captain Kirk talking a computer to death. No one has ever been as smart as them! We wouldn't let a CEO route around insider trading laws with a "I don't say this is a good time to buy my stock" c…

> If you are required not to communicate something, then you don't communicate it. Period.

Legal opinions vary on this subject. Some feel (as you apparently do) that an order not to reveal the receipt of a NSL would require someone to leave a "warrant canary" in place. Others[1] feel that the US legal system does not permit the government to require someone to lie. The only way to find out for sure is for the government to prosecute someone for deleting a warrant canary[2] and either succeed or fail. This has never happened.

Your basic point that "the judicial system isn't stupid, and you can't just violate the rules but with a squirrelly definition and expect to get away with it" is true in general. Your example of insider trading laws is correct. But there are reasonable arguments that a warrant canary is a legitimate legal tactic.

[1] For example, https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/04/warrant-canary-faq

[2] Or to make enough of a threat to do so that the person has standing for a declarative judgement.

Post reply on HN