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

Judge Who Authorized Police Search of Privacy Activists Wasn't Told About Tor

thestranger.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 236 posts

Re: Judge Who Authorized Police Search of Privacy Activists Wasn't Told About Tor

#31

Post by ianleeclark »

dsmithatx wrote: post #17
ianleeclark wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's actually really sad because I was wanting to see if I could implement an exit node all by myself as a side proejct, but then I realized the potential danger I'd be putting myself in. Naturally, I'd have to host it to test it, so I had to throw this one to the way-side

You still can but, make sure you don't do it in your house. Even one of the operators said, I guess I should have rented a server for this. Not that I agree with the warrant however, I'm not putting my dog's and children's lives in danger.

Realistically the only way that I could test it is by whitelisting my home box, but this isn't entirely reasonable given that I wouldn't truly be testing it, as I wouldn't know for certain the kind of throughput it offers.

Re: Judge Who Authorized Police Search of Privacy Activists Wasn't Told About Tor

#32

Post by ownagefool »

vidarh wrote: post #25
jobu wrote: post #11

Money quote in the last paragraph: "When we get into things like this," [Judge William Downing] said, "anonymizing stuff, that’s well over my head technologically, then it becomes very murky and hazy." That sounds to me like the judge likely wouldn't have known what a TOR node was if the police had told him these guys were running one. Technology isn't slowing down, so how can we make sure the law keeps up?

He is willing to admit that it goes over his head, which presumably also means that he'd be willing to read up on it or seek advice if necessary. The biggest problem isn't judges who doesn't know everything - they have to deal with cases covering every possible discipline and can't possibly know everything about everything put before them. The problem is when they believe they do, or don't care, or don't want to admi…

There's other problems, such as not having enough knowledge or context to know if what the paid for expert is telling is resonable.

Re: Judge Who Authorized Police Search of Privacy Activists Wasn't Told About Tor

#33

Post by 300bps »

vidarh wrote: post #25
jobu wrote: post #11

Money quote in the last paragraph: "When we get into things like this," [Judge William Downing] said, "anonymizing stuff, that’s well over my head technologically, then it becomes very murky and hazy." That sounds to me like the judge likely wouldn't have known what a TOR node was if the police had told him these guys were running one. Technology isn't slowing down, so how can we make sure the law keeps up?

He is willing to admit that it goes over his head, which presumably also means that he'd be willing to read up on it or seek advice if necessary. The biggest problem isn't judges who doesn't know everything - they have to deal with cases covering every possible discipline and can't possibly know everything about everything put before them. The problem is when they believe they do, or don't care, or don't want to admi…

Exactly. It's the job of the police to present exculpatory evidence in their possession and it is the job of the judge to understand it.

Re: Judge Who Authorized Police Search of Privacy Activists Wasn't Told About Tor

#34

Post by mulmen »

sickbeard wrote: post #21

what difference would it have made if the Judge was told about it?

He could do his job effectively by asking for more information about what Tor is. This understanding may impact his decision to issue the warrant. Law enforcement lied by omission, do you think they would take that risk if they thought the outcome would stay the same?

Re: Judge Who Authorized Police Search of Privacy Activists Wasn't Told About Tor

#35

Post by ethbro »

mistermann wrote: post #16
jobu wrote: post #11

Money quote in the last paragraph: "When we get into things like this," [Judge William Downing] said, "anonymizing stuff, that’s well over my head technologically, then it becomes very murky and hazy." That sounds to me like the judge likely wouldn't have known what a TOR node was if the police had told him these guys were running one. Technology isn't slowing down, so how can we make sure the law keeps up?

The tech community would undoubtedly volunteer resources in the interests of a better world, the problem is it seems the government has very little interest in the justice system actually dispensing justice, it seems to increasingly be one of many tools used to control the populace. It's not only "a" tool, it is almost a magical "wild card" where you can put any opponent away forever if you so choose, and it is compl…

Would it / they / we? From what I've seen, the tech community (on the whole, averaged) isn't great at synthesizing and communicating information to non-technical people.

Re: Judge Who Authorized Police Search of Privacy Activists Wasn't Told About Tor

#36

Post by merpnderp »

dsp1234 wrote: post #20
Overtonwindow wrote: post #15

Point of clarification: I know the police are allowed to lie and fudge the truth to suspects and defendant, but is there a legal requirement for them to be forthcoming and truthful to Judges in warrants? Also, tending to agree that even if they had included TOR in the search warrant, the judge would have most likely signed it anyways becasue child porn is a big "must do something" thing, and the technology would have…

is there a legal requirement for them to be forthcoming and truthful to Judges in warrants? This is called Perjury[0]. There is no law enforcement exception to it. [0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perjury

There is no legal exception to it, but there is in fact a de facto exception to it, since a DA must decide to press charges. How else can all those videos contradicting sworn testimony go nowhere?

Re: Judge Who Authorized Police Search of Privacy Activists Wasn't Told About Tor

#37

Post by r0m4n0 »

Overtonwindow wrote: post #15

Point of clarification: I know the police are allowed to lie and fudge the truth to suspects and defendant, but is there a legal requirement for them to be forthcoming and truthful to Judges in warrants? Also, tending to agree that even if they had included TOR in the search warrant, the judge would have most likely signed it anyways becasue child porn is a big "must do something" thing, and the technology would have…

It does get really hairy. Having read a few technical related warrants (and by no means can I speak to many), they are truly using every last bit of persuasion to convince a judge to sign the warrant and usually request to sweep as much information as possible. They start off with all their goofy worthless technical qualifications eg "3 week cyber security training at McAfee Sleuthing Summit". Then proceed to go into the facts of what they discovered, blending it with the story they believe is true (and in the case I know of wasn't true and was a narrative that was an extreme over exaggeration). The judge signs the warrant then later on if you were actually charged, you have the legal knowhow, and/or massive amounts of money, you could challenge the sweeping nature of the warrant or grounds it was signed upon.

In this case it didn't really matter much though... they were able to cause great annoyance to a third party and the law enforcement folks involved will likely never be held responsible.

I think its really important for the judge only to look at the facts and to decide to sign based only upon that. In this case, the facts were probably very weak. I'm not sure what other contents could be possible other than, "this was the last known IP address for this packet containing child porn, can we search their premises and copy all their data plz"

Post reply on HN