11 ms·

FBI Harassment

284 points by tga_d 10y ago

showerst 10y ago
At the risk of not taking it seriously enough, does this woman sound a little overly paranoid to anyone else? They call and ask to speak with her, and suddenly she's talking about flight records and backdooring software... admittedly the stuff about having teams in multiple cities looking for her was a little disconcerting, but if they wanted to arrest her or coerce her into something shady they'd have done it, and probably quickly and not very politely. I'd have just assumed they were investigating a case that was tor related and either 1. Didn't know enough to understand that she wasn't involved just because she contributed to the software or 2. (less likely) Wanted her opinion on some of the tech specifics of how Tor works. Maybe just show up to meet them, with an attorney (of course!) and if they start asking anything serious the attorney tells you to shut up and you leave. It sounds to me like the agents were doing their jobs in their normal, properly secretive if a bit ham-fisted way, and this person totally freaked out.
- Kinnard 10y ago
  I hope by now it's clear how hard it is to be "overly paranoid" about our government.
  - kordless 10y ago
    Being paranoid doesn't mean you should speculate wildly about intent. Maybe they also think she's an alien. Maybe they don't. Without more data, spinning around on it won't help and may possibly make the problem worse.
    - r3bl 10y ago
      Well, she is a core contributor to Tor, but I don't see any possible reason why the FBI could not say that they just wanted to ask her a couple of questions about Tor to her lawyer(s). I've been following her on Twitter for a couple of months now, and from me "getting to know her" from social media and her blog, I don't see a possible legal reason to ask her a few questions that could not be shared with her lawyer. After all, like she stated, her work is very transparent, so everything she's working on is available to the public.
  - joesmo 10y ago
    Yup. It's impossible to be overly paranoid about any government. Too bad the people who didn't realize this when it mattered are no longer with us because they're imprisoned, dead, or missing. Maybe growing up in the US where such occurrences are rare only because of the humongous population but still happen with regularity makes people soft or stupid or both. Seems to me like parents who fail to teach their children this are doing them a disservice.
- rudolf0 10y ago
  Yes, she sounds quite paranoid. More paranoid than is justifiable from the limited communication made by the FBI so far. That said, this seems pretty unacceptable. Regarding her attorney: >Five minutes later, Burnett called back and said, “I don’t believe you actually represent her.” Burnett stated additionally that a phone call from me might suffice, but that the FBI preferred to meet with me in person. After a pause he said, “But… if we happen to run into her on the street, we’re gonna be asking her some questions without you present.”
  - marcoperaza 10y ago
    What's wrong with that? The FBI is totally free to walk up to anyone and ask them questions. And yes, they're quite good at finding people since that's a big part of their job.
    - ocschwar 10y ago
      If they consistently decline to ask those questions to your lawyer, and drop the matter within hours of a foreign country giving you a long term resident worker visa, you're right to be concerned.
      - marcoperaza 10y ago
        Sure, but publishing an opinion piece blasting the FBI for things they did in your imagination is ridiculous. There's nothing wrong with what the FBI actually did.
        ocschwar 10y ago
        There is plenty wrong with hinting that they want to take you into their warm embrace without a lawyer present.
        marcoperaza 10y ago
        That's called getting arrested, if that's what they're planning at all. You don't have the right to set the time, place, and company for your arrest. They'd want a shot at a 1-1 interview. Convincing crooks to spill the beans is a valid part of their tactics. Yes, you have the right to have a lawyer present; they have to stop interrogating you once you ask. You also have the right to not have a lawyer present and answer questions anyway. The FBI of course hopes that crooks are stupid enough to exercise that latter right.
- chatmasta 10y ago
  Her name is literally Isis, and she is a core developer of Tor. If those aren't enough buzzwords to get the FBI swarming around her house, I don't know what is. I don't blame her for being paranoid, but I don't understand why she refused to talk to them at all. From the post it seems like she was okay with a phone call, but they wanted to meet her in person. So perhaps she was scared of being detained. That makes sense I guess, but if they really wanted to detain her, it would have been easy to do at the airport.
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    > I don't blame her for being paranoid, but I don't understand why she refused to talk to them at all. One possible explanation: because "Don't Talk to the Police".
    - chatmasta 10y ago
      If she wants to find out what they want, then she's going to have to talk to them. Of course, she can terminate the conversation by invoking her miranda rights at any time.
      - eric_h 10y ago
        Her lawyer should be able to do that just as easily.
      - avar 10y ago
        No, if you want to find out what the police want from you, you direct them to talk to your lawyer, you don't talk to them yourself.
      - jessaustin 10y ago
        Can we all come live in your world? It sounds so much nicer than real life.
      - jonknee 10y ago
        Absolutely false, she can ask her attorney what they wanted. It's actually great to see someone following best practices even when it is not the easiest thing to do.
- loeg 10y ago
  I think maybe appropriately paranoid. If the FBI called me and wouldn't tell me what it was about, I'd be concerned too.
- rayiner 10y ago
  > Maybe just show up to meet them, with an attorney (of course!) and if they start asking anything serious the attorney tells you to shut up and you leave. Cooperation is for people who did something and want to create a reason for the government to go easy. The proper course of action here is to politely state that they can deliver a subpoena to your lawyer. > It sounds to me like the agents were doing their jobs in their normal, properly secretive if a bit ham-fisted way, and this person totally freaked out. Telling someone's lawyer that you'll interview their client without them by picking her up on the street is more than "ham-fisted."
- epoxyhockey 10y ago
  If the FBI comes knocking on your door, you have already been tagged, and likely thoroughly investigated for something bad. Or more simply put: There is no good reason for the FBI to pay you a visit. She has every right to be "paranoid."
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    > There is no good reason for the FBI to pay you a visit. Conducting a background investigation on someone else applying for a security clearance is arguably a "good" (or at least, not-bad) reason for the FBI to pay you a visit. (Also, criminal investigations in which you are not a target may also be not-bad, depending on the exact circumstances.)
    - zyxley 10y ago
      There is no good reason for the FBI to pay you a visit and then refuse to tell your lawyer why they want to talk to you.
      - dragonwriter 10y ago
        Not disagreeing with that, just that the more general comment I was responding to was an overgeneralization.
      - deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
    - shepardrtc 10y ago
      Many years ago I had an FBI agent call me and ask if he could come and talk to me because he was doing a background check on someone who was going for Top Secret clearance. I said sure. He came to my work, asked a few questions, and then went on his way. Gave me his card just in case I remembered anything he might like to hear. Never heard from him again. Very polite, nice guy.
      - eric_h 10y ago
- vvanders 10y ago
  I'll have to dig up the source but anything you say to a federal officer(even if you believed it to be true at the time) that is false is a Felony. Small stuff that doesn't seem important can fall under this and then they have leverage against you.
  - yownie 10y ago
    basically if you lie you can be charged with "obstruction of justice" or "obstruction of a federal officer in executing their official duties"
    - vvanders 10y ago
      It's not a lie though, the distinction is subtle but important. Something like asking you what the closing stock price for GOOG was yesterday. If you said "I think it was 500" but say it was 505, boom insta-crime. There's been quite a few examples of the FBI then using the threat of prosecuting the above "crime" in order to get leverage so people will comply with things they may not have usually done.
      - wl 10y ago
        You should probably read 18 USC 1001 [1]. Your example doesn't work for several reasons. * The statement is about your belief, not the facts. If you actually believed that, it's not a false statement. * Even if the statement is a statement of fact and not belief (e.g. "The closing stock price for GOOG was 500 yesterday."), the statement has to be materially false. 500 vs 505? Close enough. * Even if the statement is materially false or fraudulent, (e.g. the stock price was really 50,000), the falsehood has to be given "knowingly and willfully." [1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1001 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1001
        vvanders 10y ago
        Yeah you're right, hence my first note that I'd have to dig up the source :).
- woodman 10y ago
  > ...and this person totally freaked out. It sounds to me more like old fashioned FBI "bumper lock". This is when they attempt to provoke some sort of action on the part of a person under investigation. This very publicly backfired for them in the anthrax investigation, when one target killed himself under the stress and the other got super pissed off and met them head on with press conferences.
- blazespin 10y ago
  She contributes to Tor. She's like, an enemy of the FBI. Why wouldn't she paranoid?
  - r3bl 10y ago
    Well I contribute(d) to Tor (in small, almost meaningless ways like translating it and managing the translations), but I never did anything illegal. In fact, I've never even been to the U.S. Why should I be labeled as FBI's enemy if I never even entered the U.S. and when all I wanted to do is to give something give back to the world by allowing the people of my country to browse the web anonymously? It's not my fault if someone from any country in the world decides to use the project I helped with in an illegal way.
- yarrel 10y ago
  No.
zyxley 10y ago
I'm reminded of Hemingway, who was in the last years of his life accused of delusional paranoia, and in part because of that forcibly committed, given shock treatments, and repeatedly attempted suicide (and, sadly, eventually succeeded). And then, decades later, it was revealed that the FBI actually was constantly watching him, following him, and tapping his phones and communications. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/02/opinion/02hotchner.html http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/02/opinion/02hotchner.html
- blazespin 10y ago
  Yes, Hemingway was a big fan of Cuba. Isis is a contributor to Tor. The analogy here is profound.
  - theptip 10y ago
    > Isis is a contributor to Tor Citation? A quick google search is split between "Isis uses Tor" and "Isis is waging war on Tor", with nothing specific to the above claim. EDIT - never mind, didn't spot that the author's name is Isis. That makes more sense :)
    - knowaveragejoe 10y ago
      The author's name is Isis.
      - cvwright 10y ago
        Oh good grief. They're not really that dumb, are they? "Hey, we have some questions to ask you about this war you're apparently waging in the Middle East..."
        chc 10y ago
        It was theptip in the comments above who confused the author and the terrorist organization, not the FBI.
gambiting 10y ago
" Should I be worried about what happens to me when I return? Why is the FBI trying to make a developer of an open source encryption tool feel unwelcome in their country of origin? Should I try to get a different citizenship? Is my family safe in the US? Should I worry about the FBI raiding my parents’ house and shooting our family dog? Should I worry about FBI agents stalking and harrassing my mother?" So, exactly like Soviet Union then? I guess you can't learn anything from history if you haven't actually lived through it.
- beamatronic 10y ago
  >> Should I worry about the FBI raiding my parents’ house and shooting our family dog? If you read the news, you should be afraid of this, even if you have never broken a law in your life.
  - DanBC 10y ago
    There are about 70million pet dogs in US. How many have been shot by FBI? The Puppycide documentary kickstarter guessed at one dog death every 98 minutes, which makes about 5300 a year. That's too many, but it's not something that pet owners should be worrying about. EDIT: (Compared to the say 1.2 million road traffic deaths of pet dogs each year in the US.)
    - eric_h 10y ago
      The moment that a weapon crosses the threshold of a building that was, moments before, weapon free, the odds of a pet dog, or a person, getting shot go from 0 to non-zero. Personally, cops make me nervous. Whenever I'm on the subway and a pair of cops end up in the same car I'm in, my odds of catching a stray bullet go up. Before the cops got on the train there were (very likely) 0 guns in the car with me, after they got on, there are (at least) 2. You can't get shot if there aren't any guns within range. Call it irrational, but the only place where I can be reasonably comfortable with guns is at a well managed shooting range.
      - 10y ago
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
openmosix 10y ago
Well, there has been no harassment. Leaving a card on a door or having a phone call with the lawyer is the daily work of law enforcement. Most of this story is made up in the mind of the author - from the motive they had, to the fact she would have been detained any minute.
- zyxley 10y ago
  > "But... if we happen to run into her on the street, we’re gonna be asking her some questions without you present." That sure sounds like intended harassment to me.
  - openmosix 10y ago
    It does not seem a threat either. The police can stop you anytime, ask you anything and it's your right to say no. "I'm gonna ask you questions" does not sound so terrifying to me :)
    - zyxley 10y ago
      If they already know they will get nowhere with it, then there is no purpose to it but harassment.
      - openmosix 10y ago
        "If they already know they will get nowhere with it" - we are still putting a lot of thoughts in their mind. They have asked for a meeting in person. Everything else is wild speculation.
        zyxley 10y ago
        They already refused to talk to her lawyer. There is every reason to assume that any subject they would bring up in person is one that could easily affect her negatively, as they would have zero reason not to share any benign subject ("we're doing a background check on someone who knows you", "we'd like to have you appear as an expert witness", etc) with her lawyer.
eridius 10y ago
This certainly sounds like a very stressful situation, and I really hope the situation resolves in such a fashion as she no longer feels threatened. That said, I don't understand why, once she was in Germany, she didn't call the FBI at that time to find out what the heck was going on. Since she's not on US soil she doesn't have to worry about the FBI physically tracking her down, and if the FBI asks questions she doesn't want to answer she can hang up. Worst case I can think of is the FBI asks a question with at least one potential answer that would incriminate her, she feels uncomfortable answering for whatever reason, and the FBI then interprets her ending the call there as suspicious (I don't believe the right against self-incrimination applies in this particular circumstance). Edit: As mentioned in another reply (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11631827 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11631827), I'm not suggesting that she should give information to the FBI or otherwise cooperate. I'm suggesting she should seek information from them, with the proviso that she will not be answering questions (and therefore her refusal to answer after being asked a question will not be suspicious). Heck, since the FBI indicated they don't necessarily believe her lawyer represents her, she could just call them and say "Please talk to my lawyer <insert name here>, he represents me in this matter" and hang up.
- blazespin 10y ago
  The police are not your friends. They will leverage any slip up you make to squeeze you in to doing what they want. Thus the lawyer. SHe works for Tor. Could you imagine what they might squeeze her to do? Also, they're not going to say anything over the phone that they aren't willing to say to the lawyer.. so no real point in calling.
  - eridius 10y ago
    They already said earlier that they would accept a call. They changed their story to saying they'd really prefer to meet in person, but since they already admitted they'd accept a call then that should still work. In any case, the point isn't to cooperate with the police. The point is to just find out what the heck the FBI actually wants. Finding out what they want doesn't mean actually giving them what it is they want. She could say upfront that she's not answering any questions and just wants to know what they want from her. If they won't tell her under those conditions, well, she's no worse off than she is today.
dimino 10y ago
> I still planned to continue moving, of course, but now things would need to go to different places, and by different means. > I started having panic attacks, thinking that I’d need to get myself and literally every object, including electronics, that I cared about accross the border > Every device I owned could be compromised, I’d lose all my data, my pictures of family and loved ones, fiction I’d wrote as a teenager, and Lisp I’d wrote as a child > I’ll admit I actually cried, not knowing when I’d hug my mom again > I didn’t talk to anyone who wasn’t already in regular contact with me, fearing I might endanger them > I didn’t talk to anyone who wasn’t already in regular contact with me, fearing I might endanger them — some thug might show up at their mom’s door or make some threats to their lawyers — and I didn’t want to risk harming people I care about. It hurt to not tell my friends what was happening. I felt gagged and frightened. > I wanted to read the number theory papers I’d just downloaded and play with a new pairing-based cryptography library I’d just been given the source to, but I couldn’t do those things either, simply because I was too stressed out to think straight. None of this is the reaction of a healthy person. Panic attacks? Not talking to people for fear of endangering them? Crying herself to sleep? Not knowing when she'd hug her mom again??? It's also worth noting that the quotations of the FBI agents include all of their tics and stutters. This is often done in an effort to discredit the person being quoted. This is not harassment.
- zyxley 10y ago
  > "But... if we happen to run into her on the street, we’re gonna be asking her some questions without you present." That sure sounds like intended harassment to me.
  - oh_sigh 10y ago
    The person can always refuse to answer questions without their lawyer.
    - zyxley 10y ago
      If someone has already directed law enforcement to their lawyer, attempting to talk to them in person without their lawyer present is overwhelmingly likely to simply result in being referred to that lawyer again. The result is wasted time and an unpleasant experience. The law enforcement in question would already know this, so pursuing it anyway is harassment, regardless of it being legal.
throwaway934678 10y ago
Former interviewee of Mark here. His modus operandi is subtle harassment. Isis' lawyer should file a complaint with Mark's boss.
- willvarfar 10y ago
  Care to speculate whether this is a tech savvy agent who wants something interesting or a clown who will have misunderstood everything?
excalibur 10y ago
Oh by the way, the entire time this page has been open in your browser we've been using you as a FlashProxy to connect Chinese people to Tor. Thanks!
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- chucky_z 10y ago
  I've confirmed this... It's an opt-out proxy in this situation (can be setup as opt-in). https://crypto.stanford.edu/flashproxy/ https://crypto.stanford.edu/flashproxy/ > There is an options page[1] (the same page you get by clicking on the badge) with which users can choose whether they want to be a proxy. By default, if a user has not made a choice, they will be a proxy. If you want only people who have explicitly clicked "yes" to be a proxy, add the cookierequired parameter. If a user has selected "no," they will never be a proxy, regardless of the presence of cookierequired. [1] https://crypto.stanford.edu/flashproxy/options.html https://crypto.stanford.edu/flashproxy/options.html
- mindslight 10y ago
  Much less offensive than showing unrelated images meant to confuse and disrupt my commercial decision making process, usually accompanied by persistent surveillance for increased effectiveness. In either case, your ire is better directed at your browser.
  - beamatronic 10y ago
    How does the flash proxy get around the same origin policy? Or does it only allow access to the page it's loaded from?
    - dzhiurgis 10y ago
      SOP/CORS does not apply to WebSocket
- rayiner 10y ago
the_cat_kittles 10y ago
this is totally tangential, but reading this "Personal or political views presented within this post absolutely do not reflect those of my employer(s), client(s), and/or legal counsel" reminded me how i've recently decided thats a silly thing, or at the very lease needs to be qualified. we all influence, and are influenced, by those around us. culturally, politically, etc etc. and if we work somewhere, our political and personal views will influence the company, sometimes in little ways, sometimes in bigger ways. i know the statement is meant like "the company does not formally hold my political opinion", but i guess i think the formal position on anything is secondary to how things shake out in practice.
- chc 10y ago
  So what? I'm sure my family and I influence each other's political opinions as you say, but my opinions certainly don't reflect theirs.
hartator 10y ago
Maybe it was something to do with ISIS being her username? Just speculating though.
- junto 10y ago
  I think that is genuinely her Christian name. Ancient Egyptian Goddess of health, marriage and wisdom. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isis https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isis
  - r3bl 10y ago
    And it is a beautiful name. Too bad the name got marked with a bad reference pretty much forever now. I remember elementary OS wanting to name their 0.3 version Isis. Unfortunately, they had to change it because that was the time when ISIS was all over the news. All of their releases so far got named after ancient god: Jupiter, Luna, Isis (that got renamed to Freya) and the next edition is going to be named Loki. I got really sad when they announced the change of the name because elementary OS is my primary operating system and I really liked the name Isis before all of this happened.
- taivare 10y ago
  I used Tor as my username on Youtube before I knew what Tor was ; thought the name was a Swedish god , should change it to avoid future harassment (ha, ha)
  - taivare 10y ago
    Wow,researching the name Tor, I found out they may have found the old Swedish god of thunders hammer. http://www.thelocal.se/20130401/46930 http://www.thelocal.se/20130401/46930
vermontdevil 10y ago
The FBI is very good at getting you to trip up when facing questioning and using that against you. Isis is wise to stick with a lawyer but the 'approach her in public without a lawyer' smacks of using this 'lying to the FBI' tactic to get her charged as the first step if the FBI is targeting her for some reason. See this from Popehat (Ken White) https://popehat.com/2013/05/01/shut-up-i-explained-mostly-pointlessly/ https://popehat.com/2013/05/01/shut-up-i-explained-mostly-po...
- r00fus 10y ago
  Man that was a chilling reminder. Nothing good comes from saying anything to law enforcement when they come calling.
troncheadle 10y ago
As a web developer wanting to dive into cryptography, where should I start? A goal of mine is to to contribute to an open source project in the next 6 months.
- medecau 10y ago
  Did you finish cryptopals? cryptopals.com
  - troncheadle 10y ago
    I had not even started, but now I have. Thank you!
phit_ 10y ago
site down here mirror: https://github.com/isislovecruft/patternsinthevoid/blob/master/content/hacking/fbi.md https://github.com/isislovecruft/patternsinthevoid/blob/mast...
vijayp 10y ago
The blog seems to be down. Does anyone have a link to a cached copy?
- Thoreandan 10y ago
  http://archive.is/loVuK#selection-389.255-409.27 http://archive.is/loVuK#selection-389.255-409.27
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
peterwwillis 10y ago
So, here's some things. 1) The FBI are monumentally stupid. In a technical sense, and in a practice-of-law-enforcement sense. They're beat cops without the experience and too much power over red tape. Generally expect them to treat you like a rookie detective who read a manual about tricks to coerce consent from perps. 2) Neither warrant canaries, nor giving the FBI information on how to track your work, is not going to help you. They don't care if you do cooperate, they only care if you give them something. 3) If they really wanted to abuse you and your family, they would just do it. There is no point in thinking up these scenarios and putting yourself through hell. You have to move on with your life. If you think the gov't might be interested in you, sure be prepared, but unless you're going to spend your time working connections and getting government influence to have leverage in a future confrontation: let it go.
joering2 10y ago
Her canary is from 22 Feb 2016. What conclusion should I draw from this??
ryanlol 10y ago
This blog post is complete bullshit. It could've been fit in a single tweet "FBI TRYING TO CONTACT ME. DO NOT KNOW WHY. IM FEELING VERY EMOTIONAL" The FBI wants to talk to the author, and she has avoided them. That doesn't mean the FBI is harassing her, they haven't even taken any active measures against her.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
Reef 10y ago
This blog post shows how to absolutely TERRORIZE a core developer using: 1. Bussiness card of an FBI agent, with a "call me" text hand-written on it 2. A phone and 10 minutes of time If you have a few business cards and an entire afternoon, you can nuke entire projects (?) Something is not right here! If you hurt your leg, you go to a doctor and he fixes you up. There is no shame in going to a doctor. If a postcard and a phone call can ruin your life, you can ALSO go to a doctor, and guess what, he will fix you up in that case as well! Try it. Go for one session with an open mind and (unless you have a really horrible doctor) it will help tremendously.
chatmasta 10y ago
Did anyone else notice she's very explicitly pointing to her warrant canary that she's maintained for over a year? Also, the Tor project retweeted her canary tweet. The canary is from Feb 22... https://fyb.patternsinthevoid.net/canary.html https://fyb.patternsinthevoid.net/canary.html
- chinathrow 10y ago
  Her canary updates bi-annually only though.

284 points by tga_d 10y ago

At the risk of not taking it seriously enough, does this woman sound a little overly paranoid to anyone else? They call and ask to speak with her, and suddenly she's talking about flight records and backdooring software... admittedly the stuff about having teams in multiple cities looking for her was a little disconcerting, but if they wanted to arrest her or coerce her into something shady they'd have done it, and probably quickly and not very politely. I'd have just assumed they were investigating a case that was tor related and either 1. Didn't know enough to understand that she wasn't involved just because she contributed to the software or 2. (less likely) Wanted her opinion on some of the tech specifics of how Tor works. Maybe just show up to meet them, with an attorney (of course!) and if they start asking anything serious the attorney tells you to shut up and you leave. It sounds to me like the agents were doing their jobs in their normal, properly secretive if a bit ham-fisted way, and this person totally freaked out.

Kinnard 10y ago
I hope by now it's clear how hard it is to be "overly paranoid" about our government.
- kordless 10y ago
  Being paranoid doesn't mean you should speculate wildly about intent. Maybe they also think she's an alien. Maybe they don't. Without more data, spinning around on it won't help and may possibly make the problem worse.
  - r3bl 10y ago
    Well, she is a core contributor to Tor, but I don't see any possible reason why the FBI could not say that they just wanted to ask her a couple of questions about Tor to her lawyer(s). I've been following her on Twitter for a couple of months now, and from me "getting to know her" from social media and her blog, I don't see a possible legal reason to ask her a few questions that could not be shared with her lawyer. After all, like she stated, her work is very transparent, so everything she's working on is available to the public.
- joesmo 10y ago
  Yup. It's impossible to be overly paranoid about any government. Too bad the people who didn't realize this when it mattered are no longer with us because they're imprisoned, dead, or missing. Maybe growing up in the US where such occurrences are rare only because of the humongous population but still happen with regularity makes people soft or stupid or both. Seems to me like parents who fail to teach their children this are doing them a disservice.
rudolf0 10y ago
Yes, she sounds quite paranoid. More paranoid than is justifiable from the limited communication made by the FBI so far. That said, this seems pretty unacceptable. Regarding her attorney: >Five minutes later, Burnett called back and said, “I don’t believe you actually represent her.” Burnett stated additionally that a phone call from me might suffice, but that the FBI preferred to meet with me in person. After a pause he said, “But… if we happen to run into her on the street, we’re gonna be asking her some questions without you present.”
- marcoperaza 10y ago
  What's wrong with that? The FBI is totally free to walk up to anyone and ask them questions. And yes, they're quite good at finding people since that's a big part of their job.
  - ocschwar 10y ago
    If they consistently decline to ask those questions to your lawyer, and drop the matter within hours of a foreign country giving you a long term resident worker visa, you're right to be concerned.
    - marcoperaza 10y ago
      Sure, but publishing an opinion piece blasting the FBI for things they did in your imagination is ridiculous. There's nothing wrong with what the FBI actually did.
      - ocschwar 10y ago
        There is plenty wrong with hinting that they want to take you into their warm embrace without a lawyer present.
        marcoperaza 10y ago
        That's called getting arrested, if that's what they're planning at all. You don't have the right to set the time, place, and company for your arrest. They'd want a shot at a 1-1 interview. Convincing crooks to spill the beans is a valid part of their tactics. Yes, you have the right to have a lawyer present; they have to stop interrogating you once you ask. You also have the right to not have a lawyer present and answer questions anyway. The FBI of course hopes that crooks are stupid enough to exercise that latter right.
chatmasta 10y ago
Her name is literally Isis, and she is a core developer of Tor. If those aren't enough buzzwords to get the FBI swarming around her house, I don't know what is. I don't blame her for being paranoid, but I don't understand why she refused to talk to them at all. From the post it seems like she was okay with a phone call, but they wanted to meet her in person. So perhaps she was scared of being detained. That makes sense I guess, but if they really wanted to detain her, it would have been easy to do at the airport.
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  > I don't blame her for being paranoid, but I don't understand why she refused to talk to them at all. One possible explanation: because "Don't Talk to the Police".
  - chatmasta 10y ago
    If she wants to find out what they want, then she's going to have to talk to them. Of course, she can terminate the conversation by invoking her miranda rights at any time.
    - eric_h 10y ago
      Her lawyer should be able to do that just as easily.
    - avar 10y ago
      No, if you want to find out what the police want from you, you direct them to talk to your lawyer, you don't talk to them yourself.
    - jessaustin 10y ago
      Can we all come live in your world? It sounds so much nicer than real life.
    - jonknee 10y ago
      Absolutely false, she can ask her attorney what they wanted. It's actually great to see someone following best practices even when it is not the easiest thing to do.
loeg 10y ago
I think maybe appropriately paranoid. If the FBI called me and wouldn't tell me what it was about, I'd be concerned too.
rayiner 10y ago
> Maybe just show up to meet them, with an attorney (of course!) and if they start asking anything serious the attorney tells you to shut up and you leave. Cooperation is for people who did something and want to create a reason for the government to go easy. The proper course of action here is to politely state that they can deliver a subpoena to your lawyer. > It sounds to me like the agents were doing their jobs in their normal, properly secretive if a bit ham-fisted way, and this person totally freaked out. Telling someone's lawyer that you'll interview their client without them by picking her up on the street is more than "ham-fisted."
epoxyhockey 10y ago
If the FBI comes knocking on your door, you have already been tagged, and likely thoroughly investigated for something bad. Or more simply put: There is no good reason for the FBI to pay you a visit. She has every right to be "paranoid."
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  > There is no good reason for the FBI to pay you a visit. Conducting a background investigation on someone else applying for a security clearance is arguably a "good" (or at least, not-bad) reason for the FBI to pay you a visit. (Also, criminal investigations in which you are not a target may also be not-bad, depending on the exact circumstances.)
  - zyxley 10y ago
    There is no good reason for the FBI to pay you a visit and then refuse to tell your lawyer why they want to talk to you.
    - dragonwriter 10y ago
      Not disagreeing with that, just that the more general comment I was responding to was an overgeneralization.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
  - shepardrtc 10y ago
    Many years ago I had an FBI agent call me and ask if he could come and talk to me because he was doing a background check on someone who was going for Top Secret clearance. I said sure. He came to my work, asked a few questions, and then went on his way. Gave me his card just in case I remembered anything he might like to hear. Never heard from him again. Very polite, nice guy.
    - eric_h 10y ago
vvanders 10y ago
I'll have to dig up the source but anything you say to a federal officer(even if you believed it to be true at the time) that is false is a Felony. Small stuff that doesn't seem important can fall under this and then they have leverage against you.
- yownie 10y ago
  basically if you lie you can be charged with "obstruction of justice" or "obstruction of a federal officer in executing their official duties"
  - vvanders 10y ago
    It's not a lie though, the distinction is subtle but important. Something like asking you what the closing stock price for GOOG was yesterday. If you said "I think it was 500" but say it was 505, boom insta-crime. There's been quite a few examples of the FBI then using the threat of prosecuting the above "crime" in order to get leverage so people will comply with things they may not have usually done.
    - wl 10y ago
      You should probably read 18 USC 1001 [1]. Your example doesn't work for several reasons. * The statement is about your belief, not the facts. If you actually believed that, it's not a false statement. * Even if the statement is a statement of fact and not belief (e.g. "The closing stock price for GOOG was 500 yesterday."), the statement has to be materially false. 500 vs 505? Close enough. * Even if the statement is materially false or fraudulent, (e.g. the stock price was really 50,000), the falsehood has to be given "knowingly and willfully." [1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1001 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1001
      - vvanders 10y ago
        Yeah you're right, hence my first note that I'd have to dig up the source :).
woodman 10y ago
> ...and this person totally freaked out. It sounds to me more like old fashioned FBI "bumper lock". This is when they attempt to provoke some sort of action on the part of a person under investigation. This very publicly backfired for them in the anthrax investigation, when one target killed himself under the stress and the other got super pissed off and met them head on with press conferences.
blazespin 10y ago
She contributes to Tor. She's like, an enemy of the FBI. Why wouldn't she paranoid?
- r3bl 10y ago
  Well I contribute(d) to Tor (in small, almost meaningless ways like translating it and managing the translations), but I never did anything illegal. In fact, I've never even been to the U.S. Why should I be labeled as FBI's enemy if I never even entered the U.S. and when all I wanted to do is to give something give back to the world by allowing the people of my country to browse the web anonymously? It's not my fault if someone from any country in the world decides to use the project I helped with in an illegal way.
yarrel 10y ago
No.

zyxley 10y ago

I'm reminded of Hemingway, who was in the last years of his life accused of delusional paranoia, and in part because of that forcibly committed, given shock treatments, and repeatedly attempted suicide (and, sadly, eventually succeeded). And then, decades later, it was revealed that the FBI actually was constantly watching him, following him, and tapping his phones and communications. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/02/opinion/02hotchner.html http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/02/opinion/02hotchner.html

blazespin 10y ago
Yes, Hemingway was a big fan of Cuba. Isis is a contributor to Tor. The analogy here is profound.
- theptip 10y ago
  > Isis is a contributor to Tor Citation? A quick google search is split between "Isis uses Tor" and "Isis is waging war on Tor", with nothing specific to the above claim. EDIT - never mind, didn't spot that the author's name is Isis. That makes more sense :)
  - knowaveragejoe 10y ago
    The author's name is Isis.
    - cvwright 10y ago
      Oh good grief. They're not really that dumb, are they? "Hey, we have some questions to ask you about this war you're apparently waging in the Middle East..."
      - chc 10y ago
        It was theptip in the comments above who confused the author and the terrorist organization, not the FBI.

gambiting 10y ago

" Should I be worried about what happens to me when I return? Why is the FBI trying to make a developer of an open source encryption tool feel unwelcome in their country of origin? Should I try to get a different citizenship? Is my family safe in the US? Should I worry about the FBI raiding my parents’ house and shooting our family dog? Should I worry about FBI agents stalking and harrassing my mother?" So, exactly like Soviet Union then? I guess you can't learn anything from history if you haven't actually lived through it.

beamatronic 10y ago
>> Should I worry about the FBI raiding my parents’ house and shooting our family dog? If you read the news, you should be afraid of this, even if you have never broken a law in your life.
- DanBC 10y ago
  There are about 70million pet dogs in US. How many have been shot by FBI? The Puppycide documentary kickstarter guessed at one dog death every 98 minutes, which makes about 5300 a year. That's too many, but it's not something that pet owners should be worrying about. EDIT: (Compared to the say 1.2 million road traffic deaths of pet dogs each year in the US.)
  - eric_h 10y ago
    The moment that a weapon crosses the threshold of a building that was, moments before, weapon free, the odds of a pet dog, or a person, getting shot go from 0 to non-zero. Personally, cops make me nervous. Whenever I'm on the subway and a pair of cops end up in the same car I'm in, my odds of catching a stray bullet go up. Before the cops got on the train there were (very likely) 0 guns in the car with me, after they got on, there are (at least) 2. You can't get shot if there aren't any guns within range. Call it irrational, but the only place where I can be reasonably comfortable with guns is at a well managed shooting range.
    - 10y ago

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

openmosix 10y ago

Well, there has been no harassment. Leaving a card on a door or having a phone call with the lawyer is the daily work of law enforcement. Most of this story is made up in the mind of the author - from the motive they had, to the fact she would have been detained any minute.

zyxley 10y ago
> "But... if we happen to run into her on the street, we’re gonna be asking her some questions without you present." That sure sounds like intended harassment to me.
- openmosix 10y ago
  It does not seem a threat either. The police can stop you anytime, ask you anything and it's your right to say no. "I'm gonna ask you questions" does not sound so terrifying to me :)
  - zyxley 10y ago
    If they already know they will get nowhere with it, then there is no purpose to it but harassment.
    - openmosix 10y ago
      "If they already know they will get nowhere with it" - we are still putting a lot of thoughts in their mind. They have asked for a meeting in person. Everything else is wild speculation.
      - zyxley 10y ago
        They already refused to talk to her lawyer. There is every reason to assume that any subject they would bring up in person is one that could easily affect her negatively, as they would have zero reason not to share any benign subject ("we're doing a background check on someone who knows you", "we'd like to have you appear as an expert witness", etc) with her lawyer.

eridius 10y ago

This certainly sounds like a very stressful situation, and I really hope the situation resolves in such a fashion as she no longer feels threatened. That said, I don't understand why, once she was in Germany, she didn't call the FBI at that time to find out what the heck was going on. Since she's not on US soil she doesn't have to worry about the FBI physically tracking her down, and if the FBI asks questions she doesn't want to answer she can hang up. Worst case I can think of is the FBI asks a question with at least one potential answer that would incriminate her, she feels uncomfortable answering for whatever reason, and the FBI then interprets her ending the call there as suspicious (I don't believe the right against self-incrimination applies in this particular circumstance). Edit: As mentioned in another reply (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11631827 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11631827), I'm not suggesting that she should give information to the FBI or otherwise cooperate. I'm suggesting she should seek information from them, with the proviso that she will not be answering questions (and therefore her refusal to answer after being asked a question will not be suspicious). Heck, since the FBI indicated they don't necessarily believe her lawyer represents her, she could just call them and say "Please talk to my lawyer <insert name here>, he represents me in this matter" and hang up.

blazespin 10y ago
The police are not your friends. They will leverage any slip up you make to squeeze you in to doing what they want. Thus the lawyer. SHe works for Tor. Could you imagine what they might squeeze her to do? Also, they're not going to say anything over the phone that they aren't willing to say to the lawyer.. so no real point in calling.
- eridius 10y ago
  They already said earlier that they would accept a call. They changed their story to saying they'd really prefer to meet in person, but since they already admitted they'd accept a call then that should still work. In any case, the point isn't to cooperate with the police. The point is to just find out what the heck the FBI actually wants. Finding out what they want doesn't mean actually giving them what it is they want. She could say upfront that she's not answering any questions and just wants to know what they want from her. If they won't tell her under those conditions, well, she's no worse off than she is today.

dimino 10y ago

> I still planned to continue moving, of course, but now things would need to go to different places, and by different means. > I started having panic attacks, thinking that I’d need to get myself and literally every object, including electronics, that I cared about accross the border > Every device I owned could be compromised, I’d lose all my data, my pictures of family and loved ones, fiction I’d wrote as a teenager, and Lisp I’d wrote as a child > I’ll admit I actually cried, not knowing when I’d hug my mom again > I didn’t talk to anyone who wasn’t already in regular contact with me, fearing I might endanger them > I didn’t talk to anyone who wasn’t already in regular contact with me, fearing I might endanger them — some thug might show up at their mom’s door or make some threats to their lawyers — and I didn’t want to risk harming people I care about. It hurt to not tell my friends what was happening. I felt gagged and frightened. > I wanted to read the number theory papers I’d just downloaded and play with a new pairing-based cryptography library I’d just been given the source to, but I couldn’t do those things either, simply because I was too stressed out to think straight. None of this is the reaction of a healthy person. Panic attacks? Not talking to people for fear of endangering them? Crying herself to sleep? Not knowing when she'd hug her mom again??? It's also worth noting that the quotations of the FBI agents include all of their tics and stutters. This is often done in an effort to discredit the person being quoted. This is not harassment.

zyxley 10y ago
> "But... if we happen to run into her on the street, we’re gonna be asking her some questions without you present." That sure sounds like intended harassment to me.
- oh_sigh 10y ago
  The person can always refuse to answer questions without their lawyer.
  - zyxley 10y ago
    If someone has already directed law enforcement to their lawyer, attempting to talk to them in person without their lawyer present is overwhelmingly likely to simply result in being referred to that lawyer again. The result is wasted time and an unpleasant experience. The law enforcement in question would already know this, so pursuing it anyway is harassment, regardless of it being legal.

throwaway934678 10y ago

Former interviewee of Mark here. His modus operandi is subtle harassment. Isis' lawyer should file a complaint with Mark's boss.

willvarfar 10y ago
Care to speculate whether this is a tech savvy agent who wants something interesting or a clown who will have misunderstood everything?

excalibur 10y ago

Oh by the way, the entire time this page has been open in your browser we've been using you as a FlashProxy to connect Chinese people to Tor. Thanks!

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
chucky_z 10y ago
I've confirmed this... It's an opt-out proxy in this situation (can be setup as opt-in). https://crypto.stanford.edu/flashproxy/ https://crypto.stanford.edu/flashproxy/ > There is an options page[1] (the same page you get by clicking on the badge) with which users can choose whether they want to be a proxy. By default, if a user has not made a choice, they will be a proxy. If you want only people who have explicitly clicked "yes" to be a proxy, add the cookierequired parameter. If a user has selected "no," they will never be a proxy, regardless of the presence of cookierequired. [1] https://crypto.stanford.edu/flashproxy/options.html https://crypto.stanford.edu/flashproxy/options.html
mindslight 10y ago
Much less offensive than showing unrelated images meant to confuse and disrupt my commercial decision making process, usually accompanied by persistent surveillance for increased effectiveness. In either case, your ire is better directed at your browser.
- beamatronic 10y ago
  How does the flash proxy get around the same origin policy? Or does it only allow access to the page it's loaded from?
  - dzhiurgis 10y ago
    SOP/CORS does not apply to WebSocket
rayiner 10y ago

the_cat_kittles 10y ago

this is totally tangential, but reading this "Personal or political views presented within this post absolutely do not reflect those of my employer(s), client(s), and/or legal counsel" reminded me how i've recently decided thats a silly thing, or at the very lease needs to be qualified. we all influence, and are influenced, by those around us. culturally, politically, etc etc. and if we work somewhere, our political and personal views will influence the company, sometimes in little ways, sometimes in bigger ways. i know the statement is meant like "the company does not formally hold my political opinion", but i guess i think the formal position on anything is secondary to how things shake out in practice.

chc 10y ago
So what? I'm sure my family and I influence each other's political opinions as you say, but my opinions certainly don't reflect theirs.

hartator 10y ago

Maybe it was something to do with ISIS being her username? Just speculating though.

junto 10y ago
I think that is genuinely her Christian name. Ancient Egyptian Goddess of health, marriage and wisdom. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isis https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isis
- r3bl 10y ago
  And it is a beautiful name. Too bad the name got marked with a bad reference pretty much forever now. I remember elementary OS wanting to name their 0.3 version Isis. Unfortunately, they had to change it because that was the time when ISIS was all over the news. All of their releases so far got named after ancient god: Jupiter, Luna, Isis (that got renamed to Freya) and the next edition is going to be named Loki. I got really sad when they announced the change of the name because elementary OS is my primary operating system and I really liked the name Isis before all of this happened.
taivare 10y ago
I used Tor as my username on Youtube before I knew what Tor was ; thought the name was a Swedish god , should change it to avoid future harassment (ha, ha)
- taivare 10y ago
  Wow,researching the name Tor, I found out they may have found the old Swedish god of thunders hammer. http://www.thelocal.se/20130401/46930 http://www.thelocal.se/20130401/46930

vermontdevil 10y ago

The FBI is very good at getting you to trip up when facing questioning and using that against you. Isis is wise to stick with a lawyer but the 'approach her in public without a lawyer' smacks of using this 'lying to the FBI' tactic to get her charged as the first step if the FBI is targeting her for some reason. See this from Popehat (Ken White) https://popehat.com/2013/05/01/shut-up-i-explained-mostly-pointlessly/ https://popehat.com/2013/05/01/shut-up-i-explained-mostly-po...

r00fus 10y ago
Man that was a chilling reminder. Nothing good comes from saying anything to law enforcement when they come calling.

troncheadle 10y ago

As a web developer wanting to dive into cryptography, where should I start? A goal of mine is to to contribute to an open source project in the next 6 months.

medecau 10y ago
Did you finish cryptopals? cryptopals.com
- troncheadle 10y ago
  I had not even started, but now I have. Thank you!

phit_ 10y ago

site down here mirror: https://github.com/isislovecruft/patternsinthevoid/blob/master/content/hacking/fbi.md https://github.com/isislovecruft/patternsinthevoid/blob/mast...

vijayp 10y ago

The blog seems to be down. Does anyone have a link to a cached copy?

Thoreandan 10y ago
http://archive.is/loVuK#selection-389.255-409.27 http://archive.is/loVuK#selection-389.255-409.27

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

peterwwillis 10y ago

So, here's some things. 1) The FBI are monumentally stupid. In a technical sense, and in a practice-of-law-enforcement sense. They're beat cops without the experience and too much power over red tape. Generally expect them to treat you like a rookie detective who read a manual about tricks to coerce consent from perps. 2) Neither warrant canaries, nor giving the FBI information on how to track your work, is not going to help you. They don't care if you do cooperate, they only care if you give them something. 3) If they really wanted to abuse you and your family, they would just do it. There is no point in thinking up these scenarios and putting yourself through hell. You have to move on with your life. If you think the gov't might be interested in you, sure be prepared, but unless you're going to spend your time working connections and getting government influence to have leverage in a future confrontation: let it go.

joering2 10y ago

Her canary is from 22 Feb 2016. What conclusion should I draw from this??

ryanlol 10y ago

This blog post is complete bullshit. It could've been fit in a single tweet "FBI TRYING TO CONTACT ME. DO NOT KNOW WHY. IM FEELING VERY EMOTIONAL" The FBI wants to talk to the author, and she has avoided them. That doesn't mean the FBI is harassing her, they haven't even taken any active measures against her.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

Reef 10y ago

This blog post shows how to absolutely TERRORIZE a core developer using: 1. Bussiness card of an FBI agent, with a "call me" text hand-written on it 2. A phone and 10 minutes of time If you have a few business cards and an entire afternoon, you can nuke entire projects (?) Something is not right here! If you hurt your leg, you go to a doctor and he fixes you up. There is no shame in going to a doctor. If a postcard and a phone call can ruin your life, you can ALSO go to a doctor, and guess what, he will fix you up in that case as well! Try it. Go for one session with an open mind and (unless you have a really horrible doctor) it will help tremendously.

chatmasta 10y ago

Did anyone else notice she's very explicitly pointing to her warrant canary that she's maintained for over a year? Also, the Tor project retweeted her canary tweet. The canary is from Feb 22... https://fyb.patternsinthevoid.net/canary.html https://fyb.patternsinthevoid.net/canary.html

chinathrow 10y ago
Her canary updates bi-annually only though.