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

Man jailed for parole violations after refusing to decrypt his Tor node

reddit.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–260 of 397 posts

Re: Man jailed for parole violations after refusing to decrypt his Tor node

#251

Post by [deleted] »

stockresearcher wrote: post #243
mothballed wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes there is, they can reargue the whole thing in another jurisdiction since he was never 'in jeopardy.' Considering he was convicted in another jurisdiction, and they can retry him in the 'right' one, why wouldn't a reasonable person anticipate that might happen? I don't think Weev is living in Ukraine/Transnistria to practice his Slavic languages. And the reason why I brought up it was overturned, was because I kne…

They could start over in the correct jurisdiction. Yes. The case that was being appealed is gone. Gone. I think that the type of person that excels at software development would also excel at lawyering. But they should probably go to law school and pay attention in class.

[deleted]

Re: Man jailed for parole violations after refusing to decrypt his Tor node

#252

Post by ethbr1 »

efdee wrote: post #222
boston_clone wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you a lawyer by chance? I seem to remember cases or interpretations of the CFAA in which even guessing the username password combo of "admin:admin" would violate the act, resulting in teenagers or children being caught up in cYbEr FrAuD

Breaking in in a system, whether or not the password was easy to guess, sounds like a crime to me.

It is a crime!

But CFAA charges should, and this is the issue a lot of people have with them afaict, have a sliding scale for premeditation though.

If I knock on a door, it swings open, and I walk inside and steal something, then imho there should be a lesser maximum charge for possessing burglary tools than if I show up with a lock gun, crowbar, and concrete saw.

A lot of the CFAA excesses are maximum penalties from the CFAA being thrown at people using minimally sophisticated / premeditated methods, in addition to charges about the underlying crime.

That doesn't seem just or fair.

In practice it's turned into an if(computer){increase maximum penalty} clause, solely at the government's discretion.

Re: Man jailed for parole violations after refusing to decrypt his Tor node

#253

Post by tptacek »

fwip wrote: post #248
tptacek wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Saying this only because I'm probably speaking for a lot of people here, but: I have no idea what any of that means.

Kiwifarms is a forum that mainly is about chronicling the life events of people it can laugh at, often those suffering from mental illness. Oftentimes, kiwifarms users directly harass or manipulate their targets to try to provoke more weird behavior, usually directly making the target's life worse in the process. I can see why it's entertaining for folk (kind of like watching reality television), but overall it seems…

What does it mean to be "closely tied to Ethan Ralph"?

Re: Man jailed for parole violations after refusing to decrypt his Tor node

#254

Post by bmn__ »

lokar wrote: post #182
pluc wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's par for the course in America

Law enforcement is the US is trained to use (often rapidly) increasing force to compel compliance. They are trained that this is the only way to keep themselves and partners safe.

Proportionality is law on the book. Throw enough LEO who violate this into prison, the problem solves itself over night.

Re: Man jailed for parole violations after refusing to decrypt his Tor node

#255

Post by NoMoreNicksLeft »

efdee wrote: post #222
boston_clone wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you a lawyer by chance? I seem to remember cases or interpretations of the CFAA in which even guessing the username password combo of "admin:admin" would violate the act, resulting in teenagers or children being caught up in cYbEr FrAuD

Breaking in in a system, whether or not the password was easy to guess, sounds like a crime to me.

It does sound like a crime to me too. But was it a password or other credential that was guessed, or was it just some sequential primary key? The latter is not an authorization system, and I do not believe it a crime to do that unless you have specific knowledge that it is likely to cause damage and/or the intent to cause that damage.

As far as I am concerned, I am allowed to send any traffic I wish to public-facing hosts, and if they respond with content that the owners would not wish me to see, I have no responsibility to refrain. The only traffic I am not permitted to send are credentials I am not authorized to use (this would include password guessing, because if I manage to guess correctly, I was still not permitted to use it).

So which was it?

Re: Man jailed for parole violations after refusing to decrypt his Tor node

#256

Post by alberth »

maz1b wrote: post #33
alberth wrote: post #25

[flagged]

By this logic, anyone who has had a Google Pixel and or is running GrapheneOS is guilty by association, right? Just wanted to understand your point.

There's a big difference between being the user of something (Pixel/GrapheneOS, though I find these as weird comparisons given) and being an operator of something.

Operating an exit node is by definition you acting in the distribution of such activity (legal or not).

Re: Man jailed for parole violations after refusing to decrypt his Tor node

#257

Post by kstrauser »

Almondsetat wrote: post #223
kstrauser wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good grief. This is also part of the reason why I have a pact with my coworkers: if I’m terminated, kill my access immediately and universally, and I’ll do the same for them. I don’t even want to have the ability to look at stuff anymore. Remove any shred of possibility that I could get into shenanigans later.

This is exactly what all big corporations (rightly) do, and when layoffs come around you see waves of people making sob stories about how nobody told them and suddenly their work laptop stopped working from one minute to the next, or they didn't even let them inside the office because they were terminated during their morning commute.

Yeah. That’s actually a favor in disguise. Now they can’t accuse you of stealing or destroying stuff on your way out.

BTW, last time I posted stuff like this, someone thought I was treating this like an alibi: “ah ha! Now I can run amok and not get blamed for it!” No. Don’t do that, lest ye end up with a felony and permanent unemployability. I just mean that when things inevitably break due to natural entropy, the first question is often of who had access, and you don’t ever want your name to be on that list.

Re: Man jailed for parole violations after refusing to decrypt his Tor node

#258

Post by busterarm »

Aurornis wrote: post #246
Molitor5901 wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So the post is really click bait and does not tell the whole story?

It’s a calculated appeal by a biased narrator (his wife) who knows how to exploit the anger and sympathies of a community that often doesn’t click links, read documents, or look for facts before passing judgment (Reddit)

This is why in some corners of the internet we adhere to the "not your personal army" mantra.

Re: Man jailed for parole violations after refusing to decrypt his Tor node

#259

Post by shagie »

tptacek wrote: post #198
shagie wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From reddit post, from transcript at https://rockenhaus.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/U.S.-v.-Ro... 8 Q. Due to the nature of the offense charged being a 9 computer-related crime, did he have specific 10 restrictions on his pretrial release as it relates to 11 his computer usage? 12 A. Yes. One of the conditions was that he must 13 participate in the Computer Restriction and Monitoring 14 Program. 15 Q. How is that…

As I understand it --- I haven't read deeply enough to confirm this, it's what I've pieced together from the Reddit thing --- the Tor stuff came long before any of this. What I gather is: 1. Back in 2014 this person committed a pretty grave computer offense, which was not at the time prosecuted. 2. Some time after that, he became a high-profile Tor relay operator. 3. Some time after that, he was asked to subvert thos…

The setup of Tor has some specific dates in the transcript. Page 10

     3 Q. So, Ms. Routh, having been acknowledged of his
     4 obligations to monitor and pay for the service on
     5 August 29th, can you please tell the Court how
     6 Mr. Rockenhaus complied or didn't comply with the terms
     7 of his release?
     8 A. Yes. On September 22nd the defendant did
     9 successfully download the monitoring software program
    10 on his computer. On October 11th Officer Ramos
    11 contacted the defendant regarding his lack of computer
    12 usage. So he reviewed some reports and realized that
    13 nothing was appearing, indicating that he was using his
    14 computer.
Page 11 and 12

    22 So Mr. -- Officer Ramos spoke to Phillip
    23 Danford with IPPC Technology and he stated that, yes,
    24 the defendant had downloaded the software. They showed
    25 that on September 22nd he said that the defendant --
     1 they see that the defendant looking at, it's called the
     2 TOR Network website on September 23rd, which is where
     3 you download software to access the dark web.
If I read this correctly... in August he was required to install the monitoring software (likely within 1 month).

On September 22nd, 2019, the monitoring software was downloaded. On September 23rd, Tor was installed. No internet activity was detected for the remainder of September or October by the monitoring software.

I don't believe that 2 or 3 come into play in terms of the parole violations (including the subverting of the monitoring software).

Re: Man jailed for parole violations after refusing to decrypt his Tor node

#260

Post by efdee »

ethbr1 wrote: post #252
efdee wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Breaking in in a system, whether or not the password was easy to guess, sounds like a crime to me.

It is a crime! But CFAA charges should, and this is the issue a lot of people have with them afaict, have a sliding scale for premeditation though. If I knock on a door, it swings open, and I walk inside and steal something, then imho there should be a lesser maximum charge for possessing burglary tools than if I show up with a lock gun, crowbar, and concrete saw. A lot of the CFAA excesses are maximum penalties from…

You have a point. But on the other hand you have no idea of what tools the intruder possesses, only (at best!) what they used.

I think intent probably matters a lot more than the technicality of how you succeeded.

Post reply on HN