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

Ross Ulbricht Calls for New Trial, Alleging Feds Hacked Tor

wired.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 48 posts

Re: Ross Ulbricht Calls for New Trial, Alleging Feds Hacked Tor

#21

Post by maxerickson »

gwern wrote: post #14

Original, on Reddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/DarkNetMarkets/comments/2y9q55/fbi_... No one's quite sure why the FBI would be logging exit node traffic in an investigation aimed at the SR1 hidden service.

It doesn't seem so likely that the Fourth Amendment would protect information sent into Tor.

I mean, I have only a very basic understanding of it and still understand that exit nodes will have a lot of visibility into traffic, so I had better consider that before sending data over Tor. They've even made PSAs about this (I looked it up just now):

https://blog.torproject.org/blog/plaintext-over-tor-still-pl...

Re: Ross Ulbricht Calls for New Trial, Alleging Feds Hacked Tor

#22

Post by [deleted] »

300bps wrote: post #18
rayiner wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Post-trial motions are a standard part of trial practice. For example, a lawyer might argue that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support the jury's verdict. In fact, some of these arguments are waived on appeal if not made in a post-trial motion.

I'm not at all surprised about post-trial motions. What surprises me is attempting to introduce "fresh evidence" (as it is called in the article) in a post-trial motion immediately after their client is convicted. In fact, some of these arguments are waived on appeal if not made in a post-trial motion. What you're saying is accurate but it's not the point. They are basing their new argument on "fresh evidence". To be…

[deleted]

Re: Ross Ulbricht Calls for New Trial, Alleging Feds Hacked Tor

#23

Post by downandout »

300bps wrote: post #18
rayiner wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Post-trial motions are a standard part of trial practice. For example, a lawyer might argue that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support the jury's verdict. In fact, some of these arguments are waived on appeal if not made in a post-trial motion.

I'm not at all surprised about post-trial motions. What surprises me is attempting to introduce "fresh evidence" (as it is called in the article) in a post-trial motion immediately after their client is convicted. In fact, some of these arguments are waived on appeal if not made in a post-trial motion. What you're saying is accurate but it's not the point. They are basing their new argument on "fresh evidence". To be…

>" They are basing their new argument on "fresh evidence". To be successful, an appeal must be based on a legal argument and not on new evidence.

You are confusing an appeal with a motion for a new trial. New evidence cannot be heard by any federal appellate court. However, a motion for a new trial (which is what they filed here) is filed with the district court that heard the case, and can include new evidence as a basis for the motion.

Were this not possible, all of those people you hear about that are freed based on new DNA evidence, witnesses that admit to lying after trial, etc. would simply rot in prison. In fact, new evidence is one of the most common reasons for requesting a new trial.

Re: Ross Ulbricht Calls for New Trial, Alleging Feds Hacked Tor

#24

Post by rayiner »

300bps wrote: post #18
rayiner wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Post-trial motions are a standard part of trial practice. For example, a lawyer might argue that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support the jury's verdict. In fact, some of these arguments are waived on appeal if not made in a post-trial motion.

I'm not at all surprised about post-trial motions. What surprises me is attempting to introduce "fresh evidence" (as it is called in the article) in a post-trial motion immediately after their client is convicted. In fact, some of these arguments are waived on appeal if not made in a post-trial motion. What you're saying is accurate but it's not the point. They are basing their new argument on "fresh evidence". To be…

This is a filing under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 33: https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/rule_33.

I'm not sure about the exact contours of "new evidence" but you're right that if all the evidence was available before trial that'll weigh against him. But as you can see from the wording of the rule, there's enough discretion invested in the trial judge there that it's certainly worth a shot.

Re: Ross Ulbricht Calls for New Trial, Alleging Feds Hacked Tor

#25

Post by 300bps »

downandout wrote: post #23
300bps wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not at all surprised about post-trial motions. What surprises me is attempting to introduce "fresh evidence" (as it is called in the article) in a post-trial motion immediately after their client is convicted. In fact, some of these arguments are waived on appeal if not made in a post-trial motion. What you're saying is accurate but it's not the point. They are basing their new argument on "fresh evidence". To be…

>" They are basing their new argument on "fresh evidence". To be successful, an appeal must be based on a legal argument and not on new evidence. You are confusing an appeal with a motion for a new trial. New evidence cannot be heard by any federal appellate court. However, a motion for a new trial (which is what they filed here) is filed with the district court that heard the case, and can include new evidence as a…

You are confusing an appeal with a motion for a new trial

I must have worded it poorly because you are confusing two different points that I made. The first point was:

Most attorneys find it is more effective to present evidence during a trial than after their client has been convicted.

Hopefully you don't find fault with that statement.

The second point I was making was in response to rayiner stating that arguments can be waived on appeal if not made in a post-trial motion. That is not directly applicable here because the argument in the post-trial motion is based on supposedly new evidence which is not applicable to an appeal.

Regardless, their client would have had a better chance if they made the argument in trial than in a post-trial motion.

Re: Ross Ulbricht Calls for New Trial, Alleging Feds Hacked Tor

#26

Post by kpcyrd »

maxerickson wrote: post #21
gwern wrote: post #14

Original, on Reddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/DarkNetMarkets/comments/2y9q55/fbi_... No one's quite sure why the FBI would be logging exit node traffic in an investigation aimed at the SR1 hidden service.

It doesn't seem so likely that the Fourth Amendment would protect information sent into Tor. I mean, I have only a very basic understanding of it and still understand that exit nodes will have a lot of visibility into traffic, so I had better consider that before sending data over Tor. They've even made PSAs about this (I looked it up just now): https://blog.torproject.org/blog/plaintext-over-tor-still-pl...

hidden service connections are end-to-end encrypted. Also, there is no exit node in a hidden service circuit. I think it makes more sense that they're in fact referring to a guard node, like another comment has pointed out.

Re: Ross Ulbricht Calls for New Trial, Alleging Feds Hacked Tor

#27

Post by maxerickson »

kpcyrd wrote: post #26
maxerickson wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn't seem so likely that the Fourth Amendment would protect information sent into Tor. I mean, I have only a very basic understanding of it and still understand that exit nodes will have a lot of visibility into traffic, so I had better consider that before sending data over Tor. They've even made PSAs about this (I looked it up just now): https://blog.torproject.org/blog/plaintext-over-tor-still-pl...

hidden service connections are end-to-end encrypted. Also, there is no exit node in a hidden service circuit. I think it makes more sense that they're in fact referring to a guard node, like another comment has pointed out.

I think a similar argument would apply, that a reasonably informed user would understand that some metadata will be shared with (components of) the Tor network (I think this is a reasonable description of what controlling a guard node gains the FBI).

I understand why the FBI would need a warrant to capture traffic on some node owned by someone else. I don't see what would stop them from logging data from nodes that they placed on the network. Running a DOS is sketchier, but they do actually have some authority to not obey the law.

(please everybody try to separate the reality that they do have this authority from arguments about whether they should.)

edit: I fixed "Tor" in this comment and the one above, thanks to RemoteWorker.

Re: Ross Ulbricht Calls for New Trial, Alleging Feds Hacked Tor

#28

Post by chisleu »

drzaiusapelord wrote: post #12
chisleu wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It depends. I see him as a freedom fighter on the front lines. I will always remember his sacrifices. I guess it depends on your world view.

I'm sure if you were on his hit list you'd have a different view. Typically people who care about human rights and civil liberties aren't causal murderers over drug turf.

I haven't read anything about casual murders over drug turf.

I have read about government entrapping him by threatening to release information about vendors (IE, threatening violence to get out of a debt.)

No, I don't see that as murder. I see it as self defense.

Re: Ross Ulbricht Calls for New Trial, Alleging Feds Hacked Tor

#29

Post by chisleu »

Touche wrote: post #9
chisleu wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It depends. I see him as a freedom fighter on the front lines. I will always remember his sacrifices. I guess it depends on your world view.

He wasn't fighting for the freedom of those people he put hits out on.

No, but they were threatening his life...

Re: Ross Ulbricht Calls for New Trial, Alleging Feds Hacked Tor

#30

Post by spacehome »

hluska wrote: post #10
300bps wrote: post #2

Most attorneys find it is more effective to present evidence during a trial than after their client has been convicted.

I am not a lawyer, but I read the filing and none of this seems related to his guilt or innocence. Rather, it seems to argue that law enforcement violated his rights and that prosecution evidence should not have been admitted.

That's related to guilt in the American system. Evidence obtained illegally can't be used to convict. This is also why parallel construction wrong - it illegally routes around this concept.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fruit_of_the_poisonous_tree

Post reply on HN