FBI Harassing Core Tor Developer, Demand Meeting, but Refusing to Explain Why • Hacker News Board

Re: FBI Harassing Core Tor Developer, Demand Meeting, but Refusing to Explain Why

#71

Post by pfg » Fri, May 06, 2016, 2:07 PM UTC

ryanl0l wrote: post #57

pfg wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

There's no need to prove that the subpoena was delivered unless the recipient claims otherwise. Email is regularly used to deliver subpoenas (in fact, it's probably the most common way to deliver them). 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…

Interestingly, there's also this bit on their homepage[1]:

> In order for your subpoena / order to be processed, it must be sent to my lawyer. Do not send subpoenas to vc@cock.li or abuse@cock.li. Instead, E-mail or call me to request my lawyer's contact information.

It makes sense to have an established point of contact (which might be an email address) for LEAs if you're something like an ISP which regularly receives subpoenas. I'm more curious about subpoenas sent to individuals via email without any prior LEA contact.

It's also worth noting that the burden of proof for something like this is, at least in my country, on the sender's end, which is why all court communication is sent by registered post.

[1]: https://cock.li/abuse

Re: FBI Harassing Core Tor Developer, Demand Meeting, but Refusing to Explain Why

#72

Post by Bartweiss » Fri, May 06, 2016, 2:08 PM UTC

ryanlol wrote: post #37

cmurf wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No evidence of receipt. No witness.

And? Edit: Why the downvotes? cmurf certainly needs to elaborate as to why either of those would affect the validity of the thousands of subpoenas that have been served over email.

They absolutely affect the validity if people claim non-receipt. Subpoenaing cooperative people is easy - you use mail, or email, or whatever you want and they acknowledge the thing and respond. That's why email is common.

The question is how things go when someone doesn't feel like playing ball. With email and not-signed-for letters there's no reasonable way to prove that the person saw the content. "Spam probably ate it." "It must have gotten lost in the mail." And so on.

So hand-served (and signed letter) subpoenas remain relevant for when people are dodging you. The fact that many people do respond to email subpoenas doesn't relate to whether non-respondents can be charged for their failure.

Re: FBI Harassing Core Tor Developer, Demand Meeting, but Refusing to Explain Why

#73

Post by MacsHeadroom » Fri, May 06, 2016, 2:10 PM UTC

ryanlol wrote: post #37

cmurf wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No evidence of receipt. No witness.

And? Edit: Why the downvotes? cmurf certainly needs to elaborate as to why either of those would affect the validity of the thousands of subpoenas that have been served over email.

In most cases receipt of an e-mailed subpoena could be shown to have been opened by looking at a mail provider's logs (ex Gmail). It's likely that a core developer for the Tor Project does not receive email in such a way, meaning receipt could be trivialy denied.

But this is all beside the point, because an NSL could never be sent to anyone over internet postcard. Clinton discussed national secrets over email and look what happened to her.

Re: FBI Harassing Core Tor Developer, Demand Meeting, but Refusing to Explain Why

#74

Post by Bartweiss » Fri, May 06, 2016, 2:12 PM UTC

ryanlol wrote: post #39

chinathrow wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No idea why you get downvoted for this. There is a german word for it - 'Zersetzung'. It was used by Stasi in former divided Germany and for sure has been used in recent years against other folks of the Tor community. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zersetzung

>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.

If you'll count "people running exit nodes" in "community", it's fairly common. People get searched and possibly charged for whatever is coming out of their node, but not convicted since its not their traffic.

And yes, that could be the legal system working normally, but there have been cases where the government already knows about the exit node, but doesn't reveal that information to the judge while obtaining a warrant.

Re: FBI Harassing Core Tor Developer, Demand Meeting, but Refusing to Explain Why

#75

Post by MacsHeadroom » Fri, May 06, 2016, 2:12 PM UTC

ithkuil wrote: post #15

setra wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They can email those to you.

if emailed, what prevents you from leaking it (along with other recent content of your email inbox) claiming somebody hacked your email ?

More importantly, what prevents half a dozen email servers from leaking it all over the place?

The notion that an NSL would be sent over internet postcard is laughable, whether or not it's true.

Re: FBI Harassing Core Tor Developer, Demand Meeting, but Refusing to Explain Why

#76

Post by MacsHeadroom » Fri, May 06, 2016, 2:13 PM UTC

ryanl0l wrote: post #62

MacsHeadroom wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, good luck "just going to" her now that she's been tipped off.

Based on my read of her blog post there was nothing stopping the FBI from doing just that while she was in the US. It'll definitely be very easy for them to do that if she ever wants to enter the US in the future.

Presumably the "matter of national security" has a time limit. That said, Applebaum and Snowden have seemingly managed to get comfortable enough without returning to their country of birth.

Re: FBI Harassing Core Tor Developer, Demand Meeting, but Refusing to Explain Why

#77

Post by MacsHeadroom » Fri, May 06, 2016, 2:18 PM UTC

maze-le wrote: post #69

MacsHeadroom wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>can the FBI operate in a foreign country What do you think embassies are for? It seems likely that Germany was cooperative, at the least. But they needn't be. These are spies we're talking about, afterall.

I always was under the assumption, that the FBI is a police-force, not a spy-agency (like the CIA or NSA). I kind of realize that the difference is getting smaller in recent years. There is good reason to keep them (Police and Intelligence) separated, in germany we call this 'Trennungsgebot', this is a direct historical consequence of the Gestapo. So, technically, is the FBI a police or an intelligence agency?

The FBI is an investigative law enforcement agency. So, I would say that they are intended to be both.

The CIA, a "pure" intelligence agency, has been competing with the FBI for decades, leading to the FBI becoming more and more of an intelligence agency over time (in addition to their law enforcement "police" activities).

Yes, the line continues to blur.

Re: FBI Harassing Core Tor Developer, Demand Meeting, but Refusing to Explain Why

#78

Post by hodwik » Fri, May 06, 2016, 2:18 PM UTC

"If they ask for information on anyone else, or think I witnessed or committed some crime: I solemnly invoke my Miranda rights. No joking. No snark. No fucking around. Everyone knows you don’t talk to the police."

I'd just like to point out that 1984 and X-Files were works of fiction.

I know you consumed them at a really impressionable age, and it was really exciting to think about, but this subculture's complete credulity with the dystopian anti-LEO narrative is making it really hard for us to have any meaningful impact on the world.

Re: FBI Harassing Core Tor Developer, Demand Meeting, but Refusing to Explain Why

#79

Post by zekevermillion » Fri, May 06, 2016, 2:20 PM UTC

The problem is the attitude that the NSL is just another "tool" in the FBI's toolbox, to be used as aggressively as can be in the pursuit of criminals. There is no effective check or balance against this -- we are forced to rely on the investigators to use their discretion, knowing that any challenge to such a warrantless request has about a zero % chance of being successful before the FISA court.

I would like to see an activist attempt to challenge such an order, or even refuse to cooperate in an NSL where the FBI is acting outside of its legislative and Constitutional authority. However, the overwhelming incentive in any such situation is to cooperate. And from what I have read, even if the FBI is acting illegally, the subject of the investigation aided by the NSL may still be a fairly loathsome criminal -- so, you have to be quite a principled activist to risk prison time to make a civil rights statement, when this is directly going to benefit a badguy in the specific instance.

Re: FBI Harassing Core Tor Developer, Demand Meeting, but Refusing to Explain Why

#80

Post by PeterisP » Fri, May 06, 2016, 2:20 PM UTC

maze-le wrote: post #40

modoc wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fear of prison?

You can get into prison because someone hacked your email account?

Did someone hack your email account?

You would expect such a claims to be severely scrutinied (including seizing all involved hardware for forensic analysis), and if you'd be making a false claim while having disseminated the information yourself, that would be a crime by itself in this scenario.