51–60 of 129 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
She does (still) have a canary: https://fyb.patternsinthevoid.net/canary.html
Could an NSL require you to leave canaries in place?
The original story told about a couple of polite phonecalls where they have requested to talk with her. How does it get described as "harassment"? Of course, she also added a lot of paranoid speculation to her original blog post, but there's not a single confirmation of her fears so far, not even a hint.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think sending an email would legally count as a served subpoena, at least not unless you somehow (at the very least, but I doubt that's sufficient) indicated that you're fine with that? I'm not familiar with how this is practiced in the U.S., but in many EU countries, "regular" email is essentially useless in a court of law, even more so for something like a subpoena which needs to be served in person.
Email is definitely a valid way of serving subpoenas.
[1]: IIRC, in my country the courts ruled that a) SMTP logs of sending an email are not sufficient technical proof of delivery and b) even if it was, that's not enough because you cannot be expected to regularly check your email account and read new mail. Things might be different in the U.S., that's why I'm asking.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>and for sure has been used in recent years against other folks of the Tor community. Examples? Edit: Not really sure why asking for examples gets downvotes. Google news search definitely didn't turn up anything but this story.
http://www.dw.com/en/snowden-ally-appelbaum-claims-his-berli...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>The original story told about a couple of polite phonecalls where they have requested to talk with her. How does it get described as "harassment"? As soon as they continued after the very first 'no' it becomes harassment. Imagine this was a work setting, the FBI was a coworker of this individual, and they asked for a date. After the very first "no, please don't bring it up again" it becomes harassment.
Only that this is not a sexual setting and the fact it is a "she" changes nothing in this context.
This is terrorism. Given what we all know based on past events about how the FBI conducts their activities, there is no way any reasonably aware citizen can conduct their life normally after such an encounter. The last discussion thread on this topic had more than a few people complaining that Isis (the given name of the developer in the article) is overreacting and paranoid, which is a saddening response to see. It…
Terrorism is successful when our society becomes more of an authoritarian police state.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Email is definitely a valid way of serving subpoenas.
Can you provide a citation for that? It seems to be like it would be impossible to show proof that such an email was received[1], which I imagine is necessary to declare the subpoena served in a court of law. We do have some other means for sending things like that through the internet (mostly used by lawyers and courts), but I find it hard to believe that merely sending an email without (at the very least) prior con…
Quick google found several public examples of such subpoenas, like https://cock.li/transparency/2015-12-15-subpoena/00-2015-12-...
And in any case, if the recipient fraudulently claimed that they had not received the subpoena they'd be committing crime.
Edit: Am I wrong? Is the subpoena I linked a fake?
"the ends justify the means" at that point
But seriously, this really stinks. If talking to the FBI wasn't going to have negative consequences for her then why would they choose to approach her like that?
The whole attitude by law enforcement that "anyone who doesn't 100% cooperate with us on our terms is an enemy and should be treated as such" really doesn't foster cooperation but it does foster fear and resentment. I think the whole Apple/iPhone debacle demonstrates that perfectly. It's gotten to the point that businesses are finding that they're in a better position if they lock themselves out of their own data and tell law enforcement to fk off because their hands are tied. It's ironic because this non-cooperative behavior is a direct result of the abusive and hostile tactics law enforcement use against everyone.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They serve you the letter personally, don't give you a copy, and then tell you verbally what they require you to do. NSLs don't leave a paper trail on the recipient's side.
Yes, and they could've just gone to her and done it. When the FBI served me with a subpoena they were waiting in the tube when I walked out of a plane. I'm sure they'd be capable of going even further to serve someone with a NSL.