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

381–390 of 397 posts

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

#381

Post by account42 »

Ekaros wrote: post #299
account42 wrote: post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

So what about using rakes or bump keys? Very low tech, very easy. Can defeat some poor quality locks.

Still sounds like petty crime that doesn't need the FBI to roll in.

The point is that in the physical world there is some notion of proportionality in the response to trespassing depending on the actual damage done and sophistication and premeditation of the act. We don't generally lock up people because they accidentally walked into an area they shouldn't have. But once computers are involved we have laws that automatically make even even minor infractions into a big scary issue that allows the government to essentially destroy someone's live.

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

#382

Post by zelphirkalt »

77pt77 wrote: post #60
potato3732842 wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The state does what it wants and in the end it doesn;t even need an excuse. It doesn't need an excuse because people let it not need an excuse. Every idiot, even on HN, heck, particularly on HN and other places where demographic factors result most never having been the target of government or think that they would be, is perfectly fine with it when the government behaves this way in pursuit of things they agree wit…

The state has more power and therefore does what it wants. Anything other than that is just wishful thinking.

I think the idea of the GP is, that people stand up for what they think is right, meaning that they gather in the millions on the streets to protest when injustice happens, instead of staying mostly at home and doing nothing.

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

#383

Post by rich_sasha »

cancerman wrote: post #380
NoImmatureAdHom wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the U.S. and much of the rest of the civilized world, you have rights. This includes the right to not self-incriminate (in the U.S. that's the 5th amendment). In general, except for very specific and limited circumstances, U.S. state and federal government actors cannot compel speech (telling your encryption keys is compelled speech). The U.K. is fast sliding down the slope to being a dystopian police state. The i…

I remember when I landed in UK for the first time. Instead of "welcome, hope you had a great flight/have a nice stay" or something, it was "SELLING CIGARETTES FROM ABROAD IS A CRIME!"

I mean... Comparing the arrival experience of UK to US specifically, I think the UK wins hands down!

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

#384

Post by dns_snek »

rnhmjoj wrote: post #274
nusl wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A VM would bypass monitoring software installed on devices the person uses. A VPN would obscure their traffic such that it is encrypted and not easily monitored. Even something like SSH is encrypted and not straight-forward to monitor, so a VPN isn't required to do this anyway. A remote VM would combine both of these things, where the device/computer is in a location that isn't monitored and accessed by means aimed a…

> A VM would bypass monitoring software installed on devices the person uses. Not really, no: a VM is just another userspace application and a monitoring software should be able to capture its traffic just fine. If he was also using a VPN, tor or conneting to a remote machine that's another story, but only saying he was using a VM doesn't really mean much.

It's possible to pass PCI devices directly to the VM at which point they don't exist as far as the host OS is concerned. You can pass an entire USB hub to the VM and anything plugged into it is invisible to the host OS (at least by default).

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

#385

Post by gtowey »

tptacek wrote: post #344
gtowey wrote: post #338

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If this is true then it sounds like the FBI targeted him specifically because they figured his previous crimes made for good leverage. It seems his mistake was not realizing that he was caught between a rock and a hard place. More colloquially he's in the FO stage after FA. It doesn't seem like anyone is morally in the right, but it also seems like the defendant here was in a legal grey area to begin with.

I mean, no, the defendant was definitely not in a legal grey area. You might think it's a moral grey area? But he broke into a data center facility and unplugged a bunch of servers, and brought a company down for a month in the process, out of spite. That's a pretty normal crime. He was lucky not to have been prosecuted, and his luck ran out.

I called it a grey area because there were mentions in this thread that the statute of limitations to prosecute those crimes were close to expiring. That means it looked like he could have gotten away with it without major consequences if not for the fact that he was doing enough shady stuff to attract the attention of the FBI.

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

#386

Post by tptacek »

gtowey wrote: post #385
tptacek wrote: post #344

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, no, the defendant was definitely not in a legal grey area. You might think it's a moral grey area? But he broke into a data center facility and unplugged a bunch of servers, and brought a company down for a month in the process, out of spite. That's a pretty normal crime. He was lucky not to have been prosecuted, and his luck ran out.

I called it a grey area because there were mentions in this thread that the statute of limitations to prosecute those crimes were close to expiring. That means it looked like he could have gotten away with it without major consequences if not for the fact that he was doing enough shady stuff to attract the attention of the FBI.

He was prosecuted within the statute of limitations for the crime, and probably not too far out of the normal bounds between a criminal act and a federal prosecution. Federal prosecutions are relatively rare compared to state prosecutions, federal prosecutors don't take nearly as many "flyers" as states do, and the feds very often wait a long time before pouncing; this is all consistent with their M.O.

In this particular case, I don't disagree that there was probably motivation to the prosecution! They probably did want something from Rockenhaus, and, when they didn't get it straight up, looked for leverage. Unfortunately for Rockenhaus, he had given them a lot of leverage. It looks like it was a lay-up case.

You can call that a moral grey area and I won't disagree, but my point is just, it's not remotely a legal grey area. Rockenhaus' experience of this prosecution is probably no different than that of a typical federal defendant.

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

#387

Post by Strat296 »

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…

Am a lawyer - You're correct. Intent is key and almost all laws are based around intent or, in legal parlance, "Mens rea" or the guilty mind. That is what separates a legal act from an illegal act: the intention behind it.

Suppose you are leaving a store and heading to your car. For whatever reason, the button on your keys unlocks someone else's car that is the exact same make and model as yours. You hop into the car, your key starts the ignition, and you drive off (Yes, this has really happened). That isn't legally theft because you legitimately believed that was your car - aka you didn't intend to take something that wasn't yours.

For 98% of laws, in order to be convicted, the government needs to prove you intended to commit the crime. Obviously, I'm oversimplifying what is a very complicated topic you spent two years learning, but that's the gist

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

#388

Post by jrecyclebin »

ranger_danger wrote: post #149
jrecyclebin wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Idk the punishment just doesn't match the crime. Can't they just confiscate the computer? Or pressure the ISP to cancel his account? Tbh I get that the Feds are going route around and through anything that stands in their way. Instead we're left up to state thuggery.

Conveniently left out from the wife's story is the husband's corporate sabotage, FBI monitoring circumvention, CSAM searches and many parole violations. 3 years sounds about right to me.

Ok well - appreciate the further details.

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

#389

Post by rnhmjoj »

dns_snek wrote: post #384
rnhmjoj wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A VM would bypass monitoring software installed on devices the person uses. Not really, no: a VM is just another userspace application and a monitoring software should be able to capture its traffic just fine. If he was also using a VPN, tor or conneting to a remote machine that's another story, but only saying he was using a VM doesn't really mean much.

It's possible to pass PCI devices directly to the VM at which point they don't exist as far as the host OS is concerned. You can pass an entire USB hub to the VM and anything plugged into it is invisible to the host OS (at least by default).

Ok, but you certainly need root privileges to do that, in that case you could bypass the monitoring software in many other ways.

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

#390

Post by NaomiLehman »

NoImmatureAdHom wrote: post #362
NaomiLehman wrote: post #360

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Declaring "Antifa" a terrorist organization makes as much sense as declaring "MAGA" a terrorist organization

I don't actually know what "Antifa" is, if it is in fact anything specific (rather than, e.g., a banner used by many and disparate groups--maybe that was your concern?). What I did mean is that declaring certain organizations to be terrorist organizations (HAMAS, Al-Qaeda, etc.) seems to be well within the remit of the executive branch.

Antifa is not an organization. It's an ideology. There are groups that call themselves anti-fascists, which have different views and methods, and there is no HQ they answer to. Just like MAGA.

Another example: banning zionism/antizionism or banning racism.

It can't work like that.

The focus has to be on criminal acts committed by individuals, regardless of their ideological affiliation.

Banning an ideology would be a direct and fundamental attack on the 1st amendment of the constitution.

It would lead to "guilt by association." A concept the Supreme Court has found to be unconstitutional. (NAACP v. Alabama (1958), Scales v. United States (1961), Noto v. United States (1961), United States v. Robel (1967), etc.)

Post reply on HN