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

321–330 of 397 posts

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

#321

Post by rich_sasha »

Ray20 wrote: post #293
rich_sasha wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would breaking the privacy of Tor users be self -incriminating? If anything, surely it's the evidence of innocence - whatever unsavoury websites were visited via the Tor node were Tor users, not this guy.

> surely it's the evidence of innocence The obligation to provide evidence of self- innocence is equivalent to the obligation to provide evidence of self- guilt. Doesn't one follow logically from the other?

Not really. Protecting by law ones right to withhold information that would incriminate them is one thing. But the incarcerated guy doesn't seem to claim there's anything incriminating him in these files. He simply stated he doesn't want to share it with the cops.

My understanding is, it's not like the FBI got a warrant for this etc, and instead started flinging shit at him - which is clearly bad. But for this narrow argument, that's besides the point, IMHO (IANAL). Because in the first place, the guy simply didn't want to share this information with law enforcement. There is no claim that it incriminates him.

How that stacks up against actual US case law, I have no idea of course, but I don't see how it follows from the right to not self-incriminate.

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

#322

Post by ethbr1 »

JambalayaJimbo wrote: post #291
ethbr1 wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>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. Why? (I'm not a lawyer...) - shouldn't intent and harm (i.e. the value of the stolen item) be the only relevant details? Now of course its much easier to demonstrate intent if there's a crowbar involv…

Because that's the way most method-specific laws work, at least in the US.

There's an underlying result crime (eg causing business harm by destroying a database), then the method by which one chose to do it (eg exceeding authorized access to a computer with the intent to cause harm).

The CFAA was originally passed under the erroneous worry that existing laws wouldn't be enforceable against cybercrime, which turned out to generally be false.

When you cause damage, there's almost always a law by which someone can sue you for those damages.

What there wasn't, and what the CFAA created, were extra penalties for computer crimes and an ability to charge people with computer crimes where there were no damages (eg Aaron Swartz).

And why should those things need to exist? Theft is theft. Destruction is destruction.

It was an underspecified law, ripe for prosecutor overreach. See: https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/R/HTML/R47557...

It fit with 'premeditated intent' intensifiers (where penalties escalate if premeditated intent can be proven)... but that wasn't actually how it was written or how it is used. Instead, it's a method-based checkbox that allows prosecutors to tack on additional charges / penalties. If a computer was used to destroy this thing, add X years the sentence.

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

#323

Post by rich_sasha »

klibertp wrote: post #266
rich_sasha wrote: post #92

I certainly sympathise, but actually don't find it at all surprising. Tor is totally used for criminal activity. That doesn't mean it is inherently a bad thing, or that it is this guy's fault, but he can't completely wash his hands off it. If bad guys use the postal service, it's not the postman's fault, but he has to cooperate with law enforcement if they demand that. I don't know about the US, but contempt of court…

> You can't refuse to submit evidence to court, including things like encryption keys or things only stored in your head Out of curiosity, how does this work? If I claim I don't remember a particular password that I (provably) didn't enter for the past X months, how does the court force me to recall it? With an $8 wrench? Wouldn't that be cruel (if not unusual) punishment?

UK law runs on the "reasonable" adjective. The court would ask itself if it is "reasonable" in their own opinion that you don't have the info.

Typically it's applied to cases where the information is clearly available, like a drug dealer not remembering his daily driver laptop password, or refusing biometrics unlock. Not, we found this thumb drive within a mile of your house, decrypt it or else.

But of course the standard of "reasonableness" is murky, and you'll find plenty of cases that revolve on such contested judgment.

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

#324

Post by DannyBee »

aw1621107 wrote: post #263
mothballed wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Thanks for the reference! For the convenience of anyone else reading, the appeals docket is at https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67566242/united-states-... . Note that there are two appeals briefs; it seems the defendant replaced their attorney at some point during the appeals process. For what it's worth, I think this is the government's response to the argument you raise (on page 22 of the response brief, PDF pa…

The appeals court did not seem very impressed.

The oral argument is here: https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/OAarchive/mp3/23-4451-20250912....

The first question they asked is "why didn't you ask for a bill of particulars?".

Overall, they seemed very confused as to the argument made here - why is the indictment actually insufficient, and what words did you want them to use instead.

I don't think this will be a successful appeal at all - they seem to all agree this is not stuff that goes in an indictment, and to the degree that there was ambiguity, the correct answer was to request a bill of particulars.

At around 10 minutes, one of the judges asks counsel for the best 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. :)

To be fair, i don't blame the lawyer, and i expect why the judges are being not too hard on him, is because he's doing his best to argue a losing case because of choices made at the district court level.

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

#325

Post by steveklabnik »

NoMoreNicksLeft wrote: post #273
steveklabnik wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not a fan of this kind of thing, and I think that weed should be legal, but don't forget that federally, it is still illegal, and "don't do illegal stuff while out on parole" at least has a pretty basic logic to it.

Booze is legal, and parole can limit your drinking. By law. If you don't like the terms of parole, you are permitted to refuse it and remain incarcerated for your full sentence, at which point you are released and there are no parole restrictions at all. Parole is "you agree to behave and they release you early". And "behaving" is whatever they want it to mean.

Sure, I'm just saying that you don't need to reach for "Why does "sobriety" matter in a computer crime?" to get at why this might be a term of parole.

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

#326

Post by nerdsniper »

IncreasePosts wrote: post #267
klibertp wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I think sobriety is a reasonable condition of freedom for someone with psychiatric self-control issues, that have lead them to commit felonies in the past. Were he high on weed, maybe he'd not commit the felony in the first place. Yeah, banning him from alcohol is fine, from stimulants broadly - also OK, but weed? Honestly? How often, statistically speaking, does smoking weed make a person aggressive? While this pe…

Weed for normal people isn't a big deal, but weed for people on the cusp of mental illness or even just mental unwellness can exacerbate whatever issue they are facing. Alcohol on the other hand mostly just knocks you out from doing anything too cerebral after you pass the ballmer peak. I say this as a person who prefers weed to alcohol 100x.

> Alcohol on the other hand mostly just knocks you out from doing anything too cerebral after you pass the ballmer peak.

That's pretty minimizing of alcohol's contribution to violent acts (bar fights, escalating disagreements at supermarkets/etc, domestic violence) as well as vehicle collisions.

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

#327

Post by JadeNB »

stockresearcher wrote: post #230
JadeNB wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> > his overturned conviction only for wrong jurisdiction > What are you getting at? > If an appeals court says “wrong jurisdiction”, that’s an “rm -rf” on the whole entire case. There’s nothing left to argue about. I think your parent comment meant something like "the case wasn't overturned on the basis of deficiencies in the legal theory of the crime."

If it’s in the wrong jurisdiction, the court doesn’t get to the point where they look at the legal theory.

Right. I think your parent comment was pointing out that it's not that the legal theory failed, but that it was never tested, and so might (or might not) still be sound.

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

#328

Post by tptacek »

shagie wrote: post #318
tptacek wrote: post #308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

There wasn't any "pretrial" before 2019, because he hadn't been charged.

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

#329

Post by bryanrasmussen »

incone123 wrote: post #90
bryanrasmussen wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

people talk a lot about how much they're against punching down, but I don't actually see that many people itching to take on Dwayne Johnson. The fact is for humans and organizations who are punching, punching down is generally their preferred method.

The man who is the subject of the original post did indeed take on the FBI, who have then given him a figurative and possibly literal good kicking.

I didn't say there are no people who ever punch up, but nowhere near as many people who talk about it, most people punch down when they're in a punching mood.

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

#330

Post by mikeyouse »

mikeyouse wrote: post #193
plorg wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe this is the primary case being currently contested: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69848942/united-states-... This appears to be the earlier filing, but I'm not savvy enough to pull the underlying docs if indeed I can (where I am used to viewing PACER documents I get a permissions error): https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/66960649/united-states-... (If you install the RECAP extension in your browse…

Your second case was in the WD of Texas which is where he was arrested - it's just minutia to have him 'removed' to the ED of Texas to face charges where he was indicted - this is the main case there: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/16517474/united-states-... Here's his plea: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txed.19... My recap is acting up a bit so I'll just copy/paste in case it doesn't gra…

Edit; Recap worked,

Here's the link to the full docket: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/16117870/united-states-...

And the factual basis for his plea: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/16117870/158/united-sta...

Post reply on HN