6 ms·

Even behind a proxy, using TOR on some public/compromised wifi?

by rdudek 10y ago

runchberries 10y ago
When the stakes are treason and/or Guantanamo Bay, you are still bold no matter how many precautions you take or maybe just stupid.
- alexbock 10y ago
  Could any computer crime be reasonably interpreted as treason given the fairly strict definition in the constitution? Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. It wouldn't surprise me to see the government try to claim "cyber warfare" meets the bill for "levying War against them", but I can't imagine the supreme court letting that stick. edit: If you provided hacked information to a foreign power I could see that being considered giving aid to an enemy. My original question was more focused on the actual hacking itself than what you do with the information.
  - colinbartlett 10y ago
    Treason would be a hard one because I think it only applies during wartime. But would any of our various unending wars qualify? War on terror, war on drugs? Maybe not since they weren't declared by congress. It could be considered "light treason" however...
    - tptacek 10y ago
      No, "the war on drugs" does not qualify for treason.
    - chipperyman573 10y ago
      "The war on drugs" is not an actual war, it's just a catchphrase.
    - dailyrorschach 10y ago
      It's unlike it would be a Treason charge, though we are not required to be at war for that to apply. The reason would be the proof burden for Treason in court is very high, and set forth in Article III. In truth it'd be likely to fall under federal statutes governing systems access, and probably I'd guess the 1917 Espionage Act.
    - bdcravens 10y ago
      Aside from Presidential speeches, the "wars" in Iraq and Afghanistan were never formally ended.
nubianwarrior 10y ago
Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
alexbock 10y ago
It's just not worth tickling the dragon's tail. What would be the motivation for anyone to even try (except for maybe government-sponsored hackers in China who are probably safe from extradition and personal blame)? Even if you bought a laptop from someone in another state on Craigslist with cash and connected to public Wi-Fi (without a cellphone on your person, of course)... I still would not feel confident that NSA couldn't track you down if you gave them a good reason to.
- wcummings 10y ago
  >What would be the motivation for anyone to even try except for maybe government-sponsored hackers in China For the lulz
  - user_0001 10y ago
    and no better reason there is
- superuser2 10y ago
  Law enforcement will absolutely go interview the person you bought with cash from and get a sketch, maybe even a license plate off surveillance near your meeting place. Cash transactions make tracing involve more schlep than a SQL query, but they are not close to anonymous.
  - cb18 10y ago
    How is it possible to uniquely identify a computer's hardware from over the internet? Do you think there is a database that connects an identifying factor of all computers to their owners? A computer vendor could maybe keep a list of device serial numbers/MAC addresses, along with non-cash payment methods, but how could law enforcement legally acquire such data, if not authorized in a specific case? And if there is a specific case, what is the likelihood that an investigator could determine a device's serial number/MAC from over the internet(how is that even possible?) and then locate the original vendor then locate the original purchaser? The crux of this seems to be somehow uniquely identifying a device over the internet. A vendor having a database of items sold + payment method seems more plausible. Isn't an IP address the only identifying factor of a machine transmitted over the internet? And IP addresses aren't permanently tied to machines. Even if theoretically an IP address could somehow be used to acquire the connected MAC addresses, doesn't TOR prevent that? I'm not an expert on this, if something is wrong here, or I'm missing something, I'd be happy to learn.

Even behind a proxy, using TOR on some public/compromised wifi?

by rdudek 10y ago

Even behind a proxy, using TOR on some public/compromised wifi?

When the stakes are treason and/or Guantanamo Bay, you are still bold no matter how many precautions you take or maybe just stupid.

alexbock 10y ago
Could any computer crime be reasonably interpreted as treason given the fairly strict definition in the constitution? Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. It wouldn't surprise me to see the government try to claim "cyber warfare" meets the bill for "levying War against them", but I can't imagine the supreme court letting that stick. edit: If you provided hacked information to a foreign power I could see that being considered giving aid to an enemy. My original question was more focused on the actual hacking itself than what you do with the information.
- colinbartlett 10y ago
  Treason would be a hard one because I think it only applies during wartime. But would any of our various unending wars qualify? War on terror, war on drugs? Maybe not since they weren't declared by congress. It could be considered "light treason" however...
  - tptacek 10y ago
    No, "the war on drugs" does not qualify for treason.
  - chipperyman573 10y ago
    "The war on drugs" is not an actual war, it's just a catchphrase.
  - dailyrorschach 10y ago
    It's unlike it would be a Treason charge, though we are not required to be at war for that to apply. The reason would be the proof burden for Treason in court is very high, and set forth in Article III. In truth it'd be likely to fall under federal statutes governing systems access, and probably I'd guess the 1917 Espionage Act.
  - bdcravens 10y ago
    Aside from Presidential speeches, the "wars" in Iraq and Afghanistan were never formally ended.

nubianwarrior 10y ago

Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

alexbock 10y ago

It's just not worth tickling the dragon's tail. What would be the motivation for anyone to even try (except for maybe government-sponsored hackers in China who are probably safe from extradition and personal blame)? Even if you bought a laptop from someone in another state on Craigslist with cash and connected to public Wi-Fi (without a cellphone on your person, of course)... I still would not feel confident that NSA couldn't track you down if you gave them a good reason to.

wcummings 10y ago
>What would be the motivation for anyone to even try except for maybe government-sponsored hackers in China For the lulz
- user_0001 10y ago
  and no better reason there is
superuser2 10y ago
Law enforcement will absolutely go interview the person you bought with cash from and get a sketch, maybe even a license plate off surveillance near your meeting place. Cash transactions make tracing involve more schlep than a SQL query, but they are not close to anonymous.
- cb18 10y ago
  How is it possible to uniquely identify a computer's hardware from over the internet? Do you think there is a database that connects an identifying factor of all computers to their owners? A computer vendor could maybe keep a list of device serial numbers/MAC addresses, along with non-cash payment methods, but how could law enforcement legally acquire such data, if not authorized in a specific case? And if there is a specific case, what is the likelihood that an investigator could determine a device's serial number/MAC from over the internet(how is that even possible?) and then locate the original vendor then locate the original purchaser? The crux of this seems to be somehow uniquely identifying a device over the internet. A vendor having a database of items sold + payment method seems more plausible. Isn't an IP address the only identifying factor of a machine transmitted over the internet? And IP addresses aren't permanently tied to machines. Even if theoretically an IP address could somehow be used to acquire the connected MAC addresses, doesn't TOR prevent that? I'm not an expert on this, if something is wrong here, or I'm missing something, I'd be happy to learn.