5 ms·

When are authorities, or people in general, going to realize that IP addresses are NOT a "smoking gun".

bluehazed 10y ago
Possibly this is more about trying to discourage people from running exit nodes rather than a matter of technical understanding (could be a little of both)
- jacquesm 10y ago
  It's about encouraging people not to oppose Putin in any way and they really don't care if those they make an example of are actually guilty in any way.
golergka 10y ago
They got a closed case, why would they care if they got the right guy?
086421357909764 10y ago
It's Russia, They don't likely believe him to be the culprit, instead they're trying to break down the spirit of the masses for using or the facilitation of TOR which they cannot control.
- apeace 10y ago
  Exactly. And what a silly move, since even shutting down all the Tor nodes in Russia would not stop Russians from using Tor for the same activities. It will be interesting to see if Russia adopts a network monitoring and censorship strategy as China has[0]. Of course, it would be tragic if they did. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Firewall https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Firewall
  - r721 10y ago
    They did meet with Chinese GFW experts recently: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/nov/29/putin-china-internet-great-firewall-russia-cybersecurity-pact https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/nov/29/putin-china-in...
    - wsinks 10y ago
      They already have publicly saleable data for every single citizen..
  - gspetr 10y ago
    It will be adopted in Russia. I have an acquaintance who's working on deep packet inspection for Rostelekom and he tells me it should be ready within the next 2 years.
    - M_Grey 10y ago
      I suspect we'll do it here in the US too eventually, under a "national security" umbrella to, "protect ourselves some foreign cyber-terror" or such nonsense. The UK will probably do it first... Edit: Remember that a huge portion of this country is demanding a 2000 mi long wall be built along one border... don't underestimate stupid and scared.
      - mirimir 10y ago
        > These men [Cheney and Rumsfeld] planned for suspension of the Constitution, not just after nuclear attack, but for any “national security emergency,” which they defined in Executive Order 12656 of 1988 as: “Any occurrence, including natural disaster, military attack, technological or other emergency, that seriously degrades or seriously threatens the national security of the United States.” http://www.finalcall.com/artman/publish/Perspectives_1/Cheney-Rumsfeld_surveillance_plans_date_back_to_19_2409.shtml http://www.finalcall.com/artman/publish/Perspectives_1/Chene...
      - __jal 10y ago
        It is already happening in the US, just slightly differently. Befitting our "national character", as the Chinese term it, our great wall is made of advertising. Deep packet inspection is here today for Comcast and other ISP customers. The nominal reason for the surveillance is typical adtech panty-sniffing, but of course the data is also available for subpoena, assuming ISPs actually ask for one, or just freely given out (that's more of an ATT thing). And given that we know the FBI recruits Geek Squad techs to become informants and collaborators[1], who really thinks the FBI, DEA or another TLA won't do the same/hasn't already started doing the same with, say, network techs at Comcast? The same come-ons that worked for the Stasi work just fine elsewhere. The people down-voting this comment, if they're doing so out of the belief that "it won't happen here", are simply wrong. The surveillance-entertainment complex was born in the US, and the tools are massively attractive to anyone who covets power. Anyone who doesn't think the world-empire of the day will use them is deluding themselves. [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/if-a-best-buy-technician-is-a-paid-fbi-informant-are-his-computer-searches-legal/2017/01/09/f56028b4-d442-11e6-9cb0-54ab630851e8_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/if-a-best...
- imglorp 10y ago
  We do that in the US, too. Just last week, the government attempted to order Twitter to reveal the identity of a Trump critic. If they really going to prosecute anyone, they wouldn't have backed down after Twitter sued. No, it was intimidation for future critics, just to chill speech one more notch.
  - cmdrfred 10y ago
    I haven't heard of this. On what grounds did they ask for this?
    - kevin_thibedeau 10y ago
      “production of the indicated records is required in connection with an investigation or inquiry to ascertain the correctness of entries, to determine the liability for duties, taxes, fines, penalties, or forfeitures, and/or to ensure compliance with the laws or regulations administered by CBP and ICE.”
    - imglorp 10y ago
      https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/apr/07/twitter-trump-lawsuit-anonymous-account-dropped https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/apr/07/twitter-t...
paulddraper 10y ago
In order to convince everyone they're not, you'll have to show how virtually every lead based on IP is false. And I'm not so sure that is true.
- mcbits 10y ago
  If they're sensible, and I believe they have the ability to be, then you only have to show that many IP leads are dead ends (or rather, not the end). Tor exit nodes demonstrate that. Malware demonstrates that. Leads are fine. Follow the lead, see where it goes. But if it goes nowhere, don't just lock a guy up until June anyway just because.
  - paulddraper 10y ago
    > don't just lock a guy up until June anyway just because That's the idea of writ of habeas corpus, internet or no internet.
- Smushman 10y ago
  Your probably playing devils advocate but the issue overall applies to the concept of reasonable doubt being applied (supposedly) in a court of law in a criminal trial (at least a court of law in the US and others). Certainly if law stated we should convict people based instead on 'virtually' conclusive evidence your conclusion is valid. I just hope they are real, real careful with that evidence! To prevent the worry of getting caught up when you are innocent, we (and other countries) choose instead to base decision on a criminal matter conversely by rejecting a criminal case on reasonable doubt. With that understood; I ask you as a technical person (assuming you probably are as this is Hacker News); is it reasonable to say that an IP may not accurately tie to a particular individual in at least some non-extraordinary circumstances? As a technical engineer I already know the answer it does not; and it can happen due to admin negligence at a minimum (admin wipes out the leases or changes the address pool then changes it back because it was a mistake). At least I certainly hope no one was convicted based on their IP in any network I have managed (or at least they had a good enough attorney to know to check in with me!).
maxlybbert 10y ago
You seem to think the authorities are worried about the truth. Luckily, there are many countries where that is the case. But, almost by definition, oppressive regimes aren't so worried about the details.
smsm42 10y ago
Oh, they know it very well. They just don't care. It's not like they try to catch somebody specific. They just try to find somebody to blame, convict him and then report that they did their part.
mattbee 10y ago
They already know. The same thing happened to someone I know in the UK, a few years back. He was arrested at dawn and put in a cell for a whole day after an offence was committed from the IP address under his control. He said the officer interviewing him admitted he understood that the offender and node owner were probably different people, but it was close enough to justify an arrest. This was a high-profile case where they did actually find and arrest the actual offender, so they had real leads - could only conclude this was intimidation.

Possibly this is more about trying to discourage people from running exit nodes rather than a matter of technical understanding (could be a little of both)

jacquesm 10y ago
It's about encouraging people not to oppose Putin in any way and they really don't care if those they make an example of are actually guilty in any way.

golergka 10y ago

They got a closed case, why would they care if they got the right guy?

086421357909764 10y ago

It's Russia, They don't likely believe him to be the culprit, instead they're trying to break down the spirit of the masses for using or the facilitation of TOR which they cannot control.

apeace 10y ago
Exactly. And what a silly move, since even shutting down all the Tor nodes in Russia would not stop Russians from using Tor for the same activities. It will be interesting to see if Russia adopts a network monitoring and censorship strategy as China has[0]. Of course, it would be tragic if they did. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Firewall https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Firewall
- r721 10y ago
  They did meet with Chinese GFW experts recently: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/nov/29/putin-china-internet-great-firewall-russia-cybersecurity-pact https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/nov/29/putin-china-in...
  - wsinks 10y ago
    They already have publicly saleable data for every single citizen..
- gspetr 10y ago
  It will be adopted in Russia. I have an acquaintance who's working on deep packet inspection for Rostelekom and he tells me it should be ready within the next 2 years.
  - M_Grey 10y ago
    I suspect we'll do it here in the US too eventually, under a "national security" umbrella to, "protect ourselves some foreign cyber-terror" or such nonsense. The UK will probably do it first... Edit: Remember that a huge portion of this country is demanding a 2000 mi long wall be built along one border... don't underestimate stupid and scared.
    - mirimir 10y ago
      > These men [Cheney and Rumsfeld] planned for suspension of the Constitution, not just after nuclear attack, but for any “national security emergency,” which they defined in Executive Order 12656 of 1988 as: “Any occurrence, including natural disaster, military attack, technological or other emergency, that seriously degrades or seriously threatens the national security of the United States.” http://www.finalcall.com/artman/publish/Perspectives_1/Cheney-Rumsfeld_surveillance_plans_date_back_to_19_2409.shtml http://www.finalcall.com/artman/publish/Perspectives_1/Chene...
    - __jal 10y ago
      It is already happening in the US, just slightly differently. Befitting our "national character", as the Chinese term it, our great wall is made of advertising. Deep packet inspection is here today for Comcast and other ISP customers. The nominal reason for the surveillance is typical adtech panty-sniffing, but of course the data is also available for subpoena, assuming ISPs actually ask for one, or just freely given out (that's more of an ATT thing). And given that we know the FBI recruits Geek Squad techs to become informants and collaborators[1], who really thinks the FBI, DEA or another TLA won't do the same/hasn't already started doing the same with, say, network techs at Comcast? The same come-ons that worked for the Stasi work just fine elsewhere. The people down-voting this comment, if they're doing so out of the belief that "it won't happen here", are simply wrong. The surveillance-entertainment complex was born in the US, and the tools are massively attractive to anyone who covets power. Anyone who doesn't think the world-empire of the day will use them is deluding themselves. [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/if-a-best-buy-technician-is-a-paid-fbi-informant-are-his-computer-searches-legal/2017/01/09/f56028b4-d442-11e6-9cb0-54ab630851e8_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/if-a-best...
imglorp 10y ago
We do that in the US, too. Just last week, the government attempted to order Twitter to reveal the identity of a Trump critic. If they really going to prosecute anyone, they wouldn't have backed down after Twitter sued. No, it was intimidation for future critics, just to chill speech one more notch.
- cmdrfred 10y ago
  I haven't heard of this. On what grounds did they ask for this?
  - kevin_thibedeau 10y ago
    “production of the indicated records is required in connection with an investigation or inquiry to ascertain the correctness of entries, to determine the liability for duties, taxes, fines, penalties, or forfeitures, and/or to ensure compliance with the laws or regulations administered by CBP and ICE.”
  - imglorp 10y ago
    https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/apr/07/twitter-trump-lawsuit-anonymous-account-dropped https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/apr/07/twitter-t...

paulddraper 10y ago

In order to convince everyone they're not, you'll have to show how virtually every lead based on IP is false. And I'm not so sure that is true.

mcbits 10y ago
If they're sensible, and I believe they have the ability to be, then you only have to show that many IP leads are dead ends (or rather, not the end). Tor exit nodes demonstrate that. Malware demonstrates that. Leads are fine. Follow the lead, see where it goes. But if it goes nowhere, don't just lock a guy up until June anyway just because.
- paulddraper 10y ago
  > don't just lock a guy up until June anyway just because That's the idea of writ of habeas corpus, internet or no internet.
Smushman 10y ago
Your probably playing devils advocate but the issue overall applies to the concept of reasonable doubt being applied (supposedly) in a court of law in a criminal trial (at least a court of law in the US and others). Certainly if law stated we should convict people based instead on 'virtually' conclusive evidence your conclusion is valid. I just hope they are real, real careful with that evidence! To prevent the worry of getting caught up when you are innocent, we (and other countries) choose instead to base decision on a criminal matter conversely by rejecting a criminal case on reasonable doubt. With that understood; I ask you as a technical person (assuming you probably are as this is Hacker News); is it reasonable to say that an IP may not accurately tie to a particular individual in at least some non-extraordinary circumstances? As a technical engineer I already know the answer it does not; and it can happen due to admin negligence at a minimum (admin wipes out the leases or changes the address pool then changes it back because it was a mistake). At least I certainly hope no one was convicted based on their IP in any network I have managed (or at least they had a good enough attorney to know to check in with me!).

maxlybbert 10y ago

You seem to think the authorities are worried about the truth. Luckily, there are many countries where that is the case. But, almost by definition, oppressive regimes aren't so worried about the details.

smsm42 10y ago

Oh, they know it very well. They just don't care. It's not like they try to catch somebody specific. They just try to find somebody to blame, convict him and then report that they did their part.

mattbee 10y ago

They already know. The same thing happened to someone I know in the UK, a few years back. He was arrested at dawn and put in a cell for a whole day after an offence was committed from the IP address under his control. He said the officer interviewing him admitted he understood that the offender and node owner were probably different people, but it was close enough to justify an arrest. This was a high-profile case where they did actually find and arrest the actual offender, so they had real leads - could only conclude this was intimidation.