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

311–320 of 397 posts

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

#311

Post by qingcharles »

unethical_ban wrote: post #18

3 years of pretrial detention for anything less than blowing up a building should be enough to enrage anyone. Even then, the legal system would be a failure. How is 3 years pretrial not blatantly unconstitutional and thrown out immediately?

I've known dozens of people in pretrial for a decade or more, it's not uncommon. Some are acquitted, most plead out or are found guilty of something at trial.

Under US law, pretrial detention is not prison. You are technically not being "punished" even though generally the conditions in pretrial are vastly worse than in prisons. (I did a deposition with a jail warden once and asked him why this was: "Because these facilities are designed for the average stay, which is 30 days if you run the numbers. Sure there are people here for a decade, but most people pay their bail within 24 hours.")

Technically most states have pretty short Speedy Trial statutes which require the gov to try you within several months of arrest. This almost universally doesn't happen because the defendants don't have all the information necessary for their defense, and because they want to run motions to try and quash any existing evidence.

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

#312

Post by rtkwe »

pkilgore wrote: post #159

The problem with the CFAA is that it is so (IMO unconstitutionally) broad it is feasible that _every American_ has arguably violated it in some way, completely accidentally. Thus, every time we see a CFAA charge we have to ask ourselves: "Is this an abuse of power?". We should have better, clearer laws.

There are a lot of bogus CFAA cases but it seems like this one is within the boundaries of reasonable law enforcement if the description posted above [0] is accurate.

The quick summary is (reddit) OP's husband was fired from a job and used old unrevoked access to crash their servers, was briefly contracted to fix it before the company found out they were the source of the crash and terminated them again, then after all that he then gained access to their DR facilities and physically damaged a number of servers.

If that's true it seems like a pretty cut and dry CFAA case (with some extra normal crime on top to boot) and the main issue to take with it is the FBI using it as leverage to get him to compromise his TOR node.

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45262053

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

#313

Post by trollbridge »

ranger_danger wrote: post #224
tptacek wrote: post #89

For whatever it's worth, the Reddit story here says that the federal courts used "fraudulent warrants to jail my husband again". Maybe! The other side of that story, via PACER, is a detailed parole violation warrant (you can hear the marshal refer to it in the video); the violations in that warrant: 1. Admitting to using cannabis during supervised release 2. Failing to make scheduled restitution payments and to coope…

It gets worse... both the wife and (either their husband or a previous partner) have their own threads on kiwi farms and are closely tied to both Encyclopedia Dramatica and Ethan Ralph. There's videos posted of them showing signs of severe mental illness. https://0x0.st/KcyY.jpg

People with severe mental illnesses still have Constitutional rights, including one not to get their head bashed in.

Running a Tor exit node is also not a crime, and he ran it long before there was any conviction. And asking to decrypt incoming traffic (from other nodes) is really sus; it has nothing at all do with the accused’s parole or alleged crimes.

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

#314

Post by somerandomdude2 »

throwaway234798 wrote: post #39

Taking OP at her word, this is a horrific tale of extra-judicial abuse of an individual for refusing to cooperate with the DoJ on a matter of digital privacy. The OP wants story amplification, but to what end? The DoJ, controlled by Trump and Pam Bondi, probably think this person is getting away lightly with only a severe head wound and a comfy 3-year stay in county jail. A trial isn't necessary cops know who's bad,…

Both sides do this: the last administration had tech giants censor anyone that that promoted the lab leak theory, or any alternative to treatment other that the new vaccines. Parents interested in managing their child's exposure to sexually related material were put on watch lists.

It's not one side or the other - any group with authority has to be watched closely and rebuked when they try to expand their power.

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

#315

Post by ptero »

account42 wrote: post #278
petcat wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn't matter if you brute forced their crappy login with commonly-used credentials. You think it's OK for someone to rummage around in your garage just because they correctly guessed your keycode was 12345? Of course not.

You think walking through an unlocked door should result in federal charges?

Walking through an unlocked door that has a sign "private property, do not enter", searching for sensitive information, finding it and exposing it surely could.

Or not, depending on how the party who owns what's inside that door feels. But if it feels he should be prosecuted, then hell yes, the state should do that. My 2c.

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

#316

Post by nerdsniper »

terminalshort wrote: post #292
kstrauser wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For sure, and I’m often the one who makes the list, and one with root. But the big thing is to do it quickly, like within the hour, and diligently. Don’t say, oh, I’ll give him a chance to access his email and download stuff, or whatever. No! Like, cut me off completely right now. Then, if something breaks down the road, there’s no temptation for them to wonder if I had anything to do with that weird failure. (And ob…

I agree with the overall point. (And WTH would you ever have things you need to download in your work email?) But there's not an employer I have ever left that I couldn't have done extensive damage to without any permissions at all. Not that I would ever add a felony charge to even the most bitter firing, but I could.

> And WTH would you ever have things you need to download in your work email?

Because you got a university email as a student 20-30 years ago back when .edu emails were "for life". Then you started working at the university as a staff-person under the same email. Then 20-30 years later you're leaving, and much of your digital identity is inextricably linked to that old "personal" email.

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

#317

Post by ranger_danger »

trollbridge wrote: post #313
ranger_danger wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It gets worse... both the wife and (either their husband or a previous partner) have their own threads on kiwi farms and are closely tied to both Encyclopedia Dramatica and Ethan Ralph. There's videos posted of them showing signs of severe mental illness. https://0x0.st/KcyY.jpg

People with severe mental illnesses still have Constitutional rights, including one not to get their head bashed in. Running a Tor exit node is also not a crime, and he ran it long before there was any conviction. And asking to decrypt incoming traffic (from other nodes) is really sus; it has nothing at all do with the accused’s parole or alleged crimes.

> People with severe mental illnesses still have Constitutional rights, including one not to get their head bashed in.

Yes, I wasn't trying to imply that. But according to court records he got hurt because he was being combative during the execution of an arrest warrant.

> Running a Tor exit node is also not a crime

Probably correct, and the original headline seemed to try to imply that it was in fact what they got in trouble for (it has since been changed), but there's way more to this story than OP lets on... by a mile.

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

#318

Post by shagie »

tptacek wrote: post #308
shagie wrote: post #304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://trellis.law/doc/district/8373835/united-states-v-roc... The defendant plead nolo contendere (no contest) in 2014. Any activity between 2014 and 2019 was under supervision restrictions. Any use of Tor during that period would likely be an issue. Page 6 of 8: You must not purchase, possess, have contact with, or otherwise use any device that can be connected to the Internet or used to store digital materials, o…

I don't think this is accurate. I think the charged conduct occurred in 2014, but from what I see on PACER, the prosecution (and subsequent plea) was in 2019.

Hmm... You have something there (and I was likely off in my timeline). The case was filed in August 2019. The document was filed in 2022(?). The transcript was from 2020.

Given the plea in 2019 and those conditions... as shown in the judgement document, the things that were alleged in the 2020 transcript were a clear violation of those conditions.

Where there any pretrial bond conditions prior to 2019?

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

#319

Post by DannyBee »

mothballed wrote: post #190
aw1621107 wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We also know from prosecutions in other statutes that the government will often prosecute a a broad crime with many separate sub-definitions of the various way you can break it, then refuse to tell you under which sub-definition you're being charged, meaning you have no way to know if the jury even were unanimously convicting for the same thing and no way to know what you're even defending against. Could you give s…

Yes, https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/63291773/united-states-... . Navy sailor was convicted of possessing machine guns and destructive devices. The ATF for example put back together de-milled RPGs, which could be a destructive device However the statute says the following: (2) any type of weapon by whatever name known which will, or which may be readily converted to, expel a projectile by the action of an explos…

The normal answer to this is to request a bill of particulars, which was not requested here (afaict from the docket).

I think there is some slightly down-in-the-weeds confusion here - what does an indictment require vs ...

I think they screwed this up at trial and then tried to argue the indictment was insufficient, but i doubt they will get any appeals court to bite on this.

I posted it elsewhere, but you can listen to the oral argument of the appeal here:

https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/OAarchive/mp3/23-4451-20250912....

It is a very accessible argument (in the sense of not need legal knowledge to usefully process it).

You can hear the judges sort of struggle to understand how this is an indicment opportunity, but really do seem to be trying to understand. They give counsel an opportunity to try to distinguish and explain things. Att around 10 minutes, one of the judges asks counsel for the bset case he has that says he's right, and he can't come up with one at all.

Which is probably the point at which he lost this appeal. :)

As i said elsehwere, i don't blame the lawyer - this seems like it woudl be a very hard case to win because of choices made at the level below. They are essentially arguing things they know will lose because nobody objected to things they should have at the level below.

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

#320

Post by [deleted] »

tptacek wrote: post #105
tptacek wrote: post #89

For whatever it's worth, the Reddit story here says that the federal courts used "fraudulent warrants to jail my husband again". Maybe! The other side of that story, via PACER, is a detailed parole violation warrant (you can hear the marshal refer to it in the video); the violations in that warrant: 1. Admitting to using cannabis during supervised release 2. Failing to make scheduled restitution payments and to coope…

OK, I think I found the original thing Rockenhaus was convicted of. Back in 2014, Rockenhaus worked for a travel booking company. He was fired. He used stale VPN access to connect back to the company's infrastructure, and then detached a SCSI LUN from the server cluster, crashing it. The company, not knowing he was involved, retained him to help diagnose and fix the problem. During the investigation, the company figu…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN