91–100 of 111 posts
I do not understand the sledgehammer approach the FBI 'cybercrimes' division deals with things with. The FBI are not police, are not detectives, and are not competent in these matters. I'm sorry but covert monitoring of a server is going to be vastly more beneficial for an operation than taking the server and is going to net more targets and more evidence. I remember stories of the FBI sitting on a known front for or…
> The FBI are not police, are not detectives, and are not competent in these matters. Actually the FBI is a law-enforcement agency with the statutory power to investigate and arrest people for the violation of certain federal laws. I'd consider that police.
From a forensic evidence perspective, can an image or a drive clone suffice? And does anyone know what was this about, e-mail threat to do ... ?
I do not understand the sledgehammer approach the FBI 'cybercrimes' division deals with things with. The FBI are not police, are not detectives, and are not competent in these matters. I'm sorry but covert monitoring of a server is going to be vastly more beneficial for an operation than taking the server and is going to net more targets and more evidence. I remember stories of the FBI sitting on a known front for or…
The purpose was to disrupt and stop the service with minimal effort and without having to wait for a trial. They were able to judge and punish a business without trial.
Why would they do that? In this case it might be the very common law enforcement motivation of doing something, anything.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
When was the last time a bomb threat was followed up with an actual bomb in the US? Maybe it's time to stop blindly evacuating buildings in response to anonymous messages.
Traditionally don't people that bomb things like it to be a surprise?
The building I work in and practically live in as student was evacuated two hours ago due to a bomb threat, and as of today 11 bomb threats have been made across campus. The total of bomb threats made is now 126. It is ridiculous. I do not agree with the FBI confiscating servers to figure out where the anonymous bomb threats have been coming from, but I'm kind of glad they are and feel bad for that.
When was the last time a bomb threat was followed up with an actual bomb in the US? Maybe it's time to stop blindly evacuating buildings in response to anonymous messages.
With this rash of seize-servers-first-ask-questions-later, sounds like we're heading for a reprise of the glorious Steve Jackson Games era of blunt-weapon policing tactics when it comes to technology.
I'm sorry, but what are you referring to?
The E911 article is:
http://phrack.org/issues.html?issue=24&id=4#article
The funny thing is that after all the noise the FBI and government made, it was found that the same document was kind of publicly available (or easily obtainable by anyone).
Good times those :)
If this stuff is so gosh-darn important, I feel these users have put their faith in the wrong hosting organization...
So if riseup.net had been hosted on, say, EC2, what would the FBI have seized? The server hosting the VM and many other completely unrelated VMs? Scary thought. Also, if you haven't done so already I encourage you to read the FAQ at the end of the page. It has one of the best answers to "Doesn’t Mixmaster/anonymous remailers enable criminals to do bad things?" I've ever seen.
If previous seizures are any indication yes. They identify machines by IP and even if its a virtual machine they seize the server running it. Can't comment on whether or not its effective, and of course if you have a disaster recovery plan and your site pops back up I don't know what they do, I guess they play whack-a-mole with search warrants.