This is like the SA treated people at the beginning. They knew they did not have any legal foundation for their harrasments, but that they would never hold accountable for that. After some time without uprising against that the SA was replaced by the SS.
FBI Harassing Core Tor Developer, Demand Meeting, but Refusing to Explain Why
81–90 of 129 posts
Re: FBI Harassing Core Tor Developer, Demand Meeting, but Refusing to Explain Why
#82Earlier 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.
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 war…
I'm aware of exit nodes as I've myself been subject to such attention, but I don't think that really fits chinathrows description.
Re: FBI Harassing Core Tor Developer, Demand Meeting, but Refusing to Explain Why
#83Earlier quoted context omitted.
Could an NSL require you to leave canaries in place?
If you are required not to communicate something, then you don't communicate it. Period. Hackers are bad at thinking "oh, I'll just not not not not do the thing, and it will all be okay, I'm so clever." They imagine they are Captain Kirk talking a computer to death. No one has ever been as smart as them! We wouldn't let a CEO route around insider trading laws with a "I don't say this is a good time to buy my stock" c…
Not exactly sure of the legal situation about canaries, but generally they are constructed as a dead man's switch type situation, where you make a commitment to do something if something else hasn't happened. The idea being that compelling you to act and restraining you from action are two different things.
Given that Reddit has exercised their warrant canary already and other big companies have them, apparently actual lawyers think it's a valid strategy.
In any case, I think that you may be able to play chicken with them over warrant canaries, since the people who use NSLs probably aren't interested in giving anyone standing to challenge them in court.
Re: FBI Harassing Core Tor Developer, Demand Meeting, but Refusing to Explain Why
#841) Imagine the position of people who can't afford a lawyer, don't work for the EFF and know their rights, can't easily move to anothher country, and don't have a platform from which to publicly tell their story.
2) Imagine this power in the hands of a President with fascistic tendancies.
Re: FBI Harassing Core Tor Developer, Demand Meeting, but Refusing to Explain Why
#85Earlier 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.
>> "As soon as they continued after the very first 'no' it becomes harassment." Untrue, legally, at least in the UK where at least two incidents that cause you distress are required to have been committed by the same person/group. And then it's up to a judge to decide if the 'distressing' behaviour would be considered distressing by any reasonable person.
I have to imagine most people would find both of an initial and a second call from the FBI distressing.
Re: FBI Harassing Core Tor Developer, Demand Meeting, but Refusing to Explain Why
#86Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 receiv…
The method of delivery doesn't really have any bearing on the validity of the subpoena, however with some methods it may be easier for the recipient to fraudulently claim that they didn't receive it.
I'm sure they'll use alternate methods if the emails are ignored.
Re: FBI Harassing Core Tor Developer, Demand Meeting, but Refusing to Explain Why
#87Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you are required not to communicate something, then you don't communicate it. Period. Hackers are bad at thinking "oh, I'll just not not not not do the thing, and it will all be okay, I'm so clever." They imagine they are Captain Kirk talking a computer to death. No one has ever been as smart as them! We wouldn't let a CEO route around insider trading laws with a "I don't say this is a good time to buy my stock" c…
Not exactly sure of the legal situation about canaries, but generally they are constructed as a dead man's switch type situation, where you make a commitment to do something if something else hasn't happened. The idea being that compelling you to act and restraining you from action are two different things. Given that Reddit has exercised their warrant canary already and other big companies have them, apparently actu…
The idea being that compelling you to act and restraining you from action are two different things.
Again: if you are told not to communicate something, you don't communicate it. How come the CEOs who try all sorts of crazy things to work around insider trading haven't tried this?
Given that Reddit has exercised their warrant canary already and other big companies have them, apparently actual lawyers think it's a valid strategy.
You have no idea what is going on with Reddit or Apple. I know the EFF is eager to get people to sacrifice themselves on this altar. That says more about the EFF than about the state of law.
I think being put under a security order you can't discuss is a serious liberty problem. It doesn't follow that some crazy scheme is the right reply.
Re: FBI Harassing Core Tor Developer, Demand Meeting, but Refusing to Explain Why
#88Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 a…
>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.
I'm well aware that it's easier to claim non-receipt, but that has no effect on the validity of the subpoena. An emailed subpoena is still valid.
>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.
I never claimed they don't, all I claimed was that email is a valid way of delivering subpoenas.
And I'm sure non-respondents can be charged for their failure if it can be proven that they actually saw the subpoena. Not all illegal activities are easy to prosecute.
Re: FBI Harassing Core Tor Developer, Demand Meeting, but Refusing to Explain Why
#89She lost my support at vegan gluten-free brownies . She's clearly a monster. 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 i…
The part about "meeting her on the street" is particularly slimy. Declining to pass questions through a lawyer is shady, but asking a person to confirm their lawyer's identity as a trap to question them is bizarre. The whole thing reads like its either an agency involved in something unethical, or an agency so far removed from decent behavior that they no longer notice when they're menacing innocents.
It sounds more like a subtle way to say "we'll meet you on the street, after a SWAT team drags you out of bed at 2:00AM"
Re: FBI Harassing Core Tor Developer, Demand Meeting, but Refusing to Explain Why
#90Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
It's obvious that the FBI isn't trying to serve a NSL here. If that's what they wanted to do, they'd have done it.