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

31–40 of 48 posts

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

#31

Post by chisleu »

mattdotc wrote: post #11
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'd argue the real freedom fighters are the ones trying to make policy changes rather than exploiting the current system for a quick buck.

Policy changes?

Do you really think anyone has the power to change the US drug policy? In the next 100 years?

I doubt we will even have federally-legal pot in the next hundred years simply because of the trouble it would be to repeal the UN resolutions.

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

#33

Post by lotsofmangos »

chisleu wrote: post #31
mattdotc wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd argue the real freedom fighters are the ones trying to make policy changes rather than exploiting the current system for a quick buck.

Policy changes? Do you really think anyone has the power to change the US drug policy? In the next 100 years? I doubt we will even have federally-legal pot in the next hundred years simply because of the trouble it would be to repeal the UN resolutions.

Do you really think anyone has the power to change the US drug policy? In the next 100 years?

Yes. The cops and the doctors.

Between them, they are largely the reason that drugs policy has been moving towards liberalisation in Europe and the USA. Pot smokers have been batting for pot legalisation for a very long time, but it was people doing research into the role of cannabinoids in the nervous system, and organisations like LEAP http://www.leap.cc/, that have managed to shift drug policy in a very short space of time.

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

#34

Post by at-fates-hands »

Unfortunately, this doesn't change anything. But for the record, let's just review a few facts:

1 - Ulbricht has never asserted the server belonged to him, as such, he has no assumption of privacy for whatever is on the servers. He could have claimed the servers belonged to him in order to challenge the search, which his legal team opted not to do.

2 - By running a site which engages in criminal activity (legally speaking of course) he violated the 3rd paty hosting companies terms of service, which invalidates his right to privacy for anything located on said server.

3 - Since the site was trafficking drugs (which is defined as criminal activity) the hacking of the site would still be legal since the FBI doesn't need warrants for such a search:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vo...

The Fourth Amendment does not apply to the search and seizure by United States agents of property owned by a nonresident alien and located in a foreign country. Pp. 264-275.

Pretty sure this request will be denied since his legal team didn't assert the information on the server belonged to him in the first place, regardless if the FBI hacked it or not.

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

#36

Post by RemoteWorker »

maxerickson wrote: post #27
kpcyrd wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 t…

> the TOR network

You mean the Tor network.

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

#37

Post by drzaiusapelord »

chisleu wrote: post #28
drzaiusapelord wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

He tried to get six murders for hire:

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/02/the-hitman-scam-d...

>about government entrapping him

Quote from your hero while setting up a hit on FriendlyChemist:

"Don't want to be a pain here, but the price seems high. Not long ago, I had a clean hit done for $80k. "

and

"Thank you R&W. I've only ever commissioned the one other hit, so I'm still learning this market. "

Everyone is a victim right? I thought you libertarians were big on personal responsibility and law and order. Oh right, these things matter only when it serves you.

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

#38

Post by [deleted] »

RemoteWorker wrote: post #36
maxerickson wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 t…

> the TOR network You mean the Tor network.

[deleted]

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

#39

Post by jessaustin »

lotsofmangos wrote: post #33
chisleu wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Policy changes? Do you really think anyone has the power to change the US drug policy? In the next 100 years? I doubt we will even have federally-legal pot in the next hundred years simply because of the trouble it would be to repeal the UN resolutions.

Do you really think anyone has the power to change the US drug policy? In the next 100 years? Yes. The cops and the doctors. Between them, they are largely the reason that drugs policy has been moving towards liberalisation in Europe and the USA. Pot smokers have been batting for pot legalisation for a very long time, but it was people doing research into the role of cannabinoids in the nervous system, and organisati…

The cops and the doctors.

I'm glad some of them are doing the right thing now, but what the hell took so long? USA has been drug-war-crazy since the 1970s, and pot had been prohibited in slightly saner fashion much longer than that. Millions of lives have been destroyed by our drug prohibition, both here and abroad.

This is a slightly rhetorical question. Of course there were incentives at work. Few medical researchers are so committed to the truth that they would do research for which grants are unavailable. Asking cops not to enforce unjust laws is like asking a fish not to swim. If they could do that, they wouldn't be cops. That's why nearly everyone in LEAP is a retired cop. Generous pensions for municipal employees have afforded them some time to assuage their guilty consciences through activism.

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

#40

Post by lotsofmangos »

jessaustin wrote: post #39
lotsofmangos wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you really think anyone has the power to change the US drug policy? In the next 100 years? Yes. The cops and the doctors. Between them, they are largely the reason that drugs policy has been moving towards liberalisation in Europe and the USA. Pot smokers have been batting for pot legalisation for a very long time, but it was people doing research into the role of cannabinoids in the nervous system, and organisati…

The cops and the doctors. I'm glad some of them are doing the right thing now, but what the hell took so long? USA has been drug-war-crazy since the 1970s, and pot had been prohibited in slightly saner fashion much longer than that. Millions of lives have been destroyed by our drug prohibition, both here and abroad. This is a slightly rhetorical question. Of course there were incentives at work. Few medical researche…

It had to start with the doctors, so it didn't start moving till the research led there.

Police are very risk-averse. Even if they see drug policy ruining lives, they will assume those drugs are very dangerous and have no benefits unless they have it on very good authority otherwise and doctors are the only people with the authority on that subject to really convince police.

Also, police are one of the few groups with the authority to convince politicians, who are generally very suspicious of doctors who want to try and legalise drugs.

Post reply on HN