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

21–30 of 111 posts

Re: FBI seizes riseup.net server

#21

Post by 9999 »

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…

Are there any legal scholars, lawyers, or law enforcement around that can comment on why they would take this approach? Would the burden of proof required for wiretapping authorization be more stringent than for seizure of a server? Could they have actually already been tapping the communications in and out of riseup and performed the seizure to use the server as evidence in a case that was already prepared based on information pulled from the tap?

Re: FBI seizes riseup.net server

#22

Post by ssmall »

gee_totes wrote: post #16
ssmall wrote: post #12

Again? Didn't they get all their servers seized back in the late 90s early 00's too?

I want to say that they had servers seized running up to the 2004 Republican convention in Minnesota. However, I'm having a hard time finding news links about this. I also went to check their wikipedia page to see if there was a history section, and Riseup doesn't seem to have one. Now I'm going to go soothe my paranoia.....

If I remember correctly... it was because they were offering free hosting to political groups and someone was using it to host bomb plans without them knowing.

I'm sure the time I'm thinking of had to have been before 2004 because I remember not even having a drivers license at the time.

Re: FBI seizes riseup.net server

#23

Post by sciurus »

I met Jamie and some others associated with May First/People Link while volunteering to support the first US Social Forum. I was really impressed with their ideals and how they applied them to their work as technologists. I hope everything works out well for them and that this seizure brings more attention to what they are doing.

Re: FBI seizes riseup.net server

#25

Post by JoshTriplett »

siculars wrote: post #20
mayoff wrote: post #13

This seems like a no-brainer to me. The FBI has the duty to find the Pitt bomb threatener. Perhaps Mixmaster truly does make the email untraceable, but it's the FBI's duty to try tracing it - not to take the Mixmaster claims as fact. If the FBI has evidence that criminal emails passed through that server, I absolutely want the FBI to be able to obtain and execute a warrant to seize it and search it for evidence. Anal…

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.

> 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."

They do, actually, except most of the time they don't bother with the warrant, and it doesn't make the news because neither law enforcement nor the companies involved have any interest in disclosing it.

If secure anonymization technologies become a lot more common, law enforcement organizations will eventually learn not to bother. Until then, anyone running such a service (such as a Tor exit node) should expect to have this happen to them periodically.

Re: FBI seizes riseup.net server

#26

Post by mayoff »

siculars wrote: post #20
mayoff wrote: post #13

This seems like a no-brainer to me. The FBI has the duty to find the Pitt bomb threatener. Perhaps Mixmaster truly does make the email untraceable, but it's the FBI's duty to try tracing it - not to take the Mixmaster claims as fact. If the FBI has evidence that criminal emails passed through that server, I absolutely want the FBI to be able to obtain and execute a warrant to seize it and search it for evidence. Anal…

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 a warrant or subpoena.

It's 100% ok to run an anonymizing remailer, with no backup strategy in place. It's retarded to act surprised and indignant when the server gets seized because it was probably used to commit a crime.

Re: FBI seizes riseup.net server

#28

Post by watty »

mikeash wrote: post #18
ingrid wrote: post #15

The building I work in and practically live in as student was evacuated two hours ago due to a bomb threat, and as of today 11 bomb threats have been made across campus. The total of bomb threats made is now 126. It is ridiculous. I do not agree with the FBI confiscating servers to figure out where the anonymous bomb threats have been coming from, but I'm kind of glad they are and feel bad for that.

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.

I'd still like to be known if there was a bomb thread in a building I was in...

Re: FBI seizes riseup.net server

#29

Post by davidhollander »

mayoff wrote: post #13

This seems like a no-brainer to me. The FBI has the duty to find the Pitt bomb threatener. Perhaps Mixmaster truly does make the email untraceable, but it's the FBI's duty to try tracing it - not to take the Mixmaster claims as fact. If the FBI has evidence that criminal emails passed through that server, I absolutely want the FBI to be able to obtain and execute a warrant to seize it and search it for evidence. Anal…

Another question pertinent to the hypothetical situation you pose: Should the FBI be able to keep the store's records of purchases made by other citizens not under investigation if they are "accidently" discovered during the process of search?

Under previous federal administrations, such information was required to be destroyed if collected. However the current administration and counter-terrorism guidelines assert that such private information may be held for 5 years, and shared between government agencies.

Re: FBI seizes riseup.net server

#30

Post by samstave »

mikeash wrote: post #18
ingrid wrote: post #15

The building I work in and practically live in as student was evacuated two hours ago due to a bomb threat, and as of today 11 bomb threats have been made across campus. The total of bomb threats made is now 126. It is ridiculous. I do not agree with the FBI confiscating servers to figure out where the anonymous bomb threats have been coming from, but I'm kind of glad they are and feel bad for that.

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.

Post reply on HN