6 ms·

I get user data protection and all that, but when you know that the charges are drug-related and they'd get a warrant anyway, why not cooperate and make it easi

I get user data protection and all that, but when you know that the charges are drug-related and they'd get a warrant anyway, why not cooperate and make it easier for everyone? Would you risk having your servers seized for someone you know committed a crime? If you do, you make it very easy for competitors to shut you down. edit: I'm assuming they don't blindly trust the police, but can verify the transactions to the drug site themselves. If that's not the case, making the police get a warrant would be the right thing to do.

piker 9y ago
In the US: make them get the warrant. It's not the service provider's job to determine if probable cause exists, and the service provider is probably very bad at it. Police always go for the consent search first precisely because the standard for a warrant is so high.
DarkKomunalec 9y ago
But should we allow the police to threaten people with overbroad warrants? "Gives us the data on these 8 people, or we'll get a warrant for it." vs. "Gives us the data on these 8 people, or we'll get a warrant to confiscate all your servers, computers, laptops, and phones." And getting a warrant is not as large a barrier as people like to believe: https://www.popehat.com/2014/07/15/warrants-bulwark-of-liberty-or-paper-shield/ https://www.popehat.com/2014/07/15/warrants-bulwark-of-liber...
- skrause 9y ago
  In Germany the police can threaten all they want, getting a warrant for user data is the prosecutor's job. That's also why don't give out the data directly the police. If the prosecutor is asking that's a totally different level than the police.
- FRex 9y ago
  It might also be an indication that the police doesn't risk wasting the judge's time and get shitted on if they don't have rock solid reasons for suspecting someone. Is a bit over 20k drug related warrants over 10 years really that much for the country the size of USA with such a drug problem and such an axe to grind with drugs users (war on drugs, private prisons, blacks with crack and teens with weed being juicy targets to boost statistics, etc.)? Or 1300 warrants and 600 extensions in one fiscal year for a 'black bag job search' across all circuits?
skrause 9y ago
Because if you make it too easy for the police they'll just ask for too much all the time, even for things where they wouldn't get a warrant. This is happening in Germany all the time when a provider wants to be nice to the police. If they say "we'll get a warrant anyway", just response "okay, so get the warrant and come back and I'll give you the data". Then at least it's up to a judge to decide where giving out data is warranted, and not up to an oridinary policeman and sysadmin.
- teamhappy 9y ago
  > This is happening in Germany all the time when a provider wants to be nice to the police. All the time? Really?
  - skrause 9y ago
    Not literally. But if you make the police work much easier by voluntarily giving out data that you don't need to give them of course they are happy to take your offer to make their job easier whenever they can.
- yAnonymous 9y ago
  See my edit. I'm assuming they can verify the allegations, due to the nature of BTC transactions. A warrant possibly means that they go out of business, because the servers are physically seized. If you tell me you'd risk that for a stranger who you can tell probably committed a crime, I don't believe you.
  - Joe-Z 9y ago
    >A warrant possibly means that they go out of business, because the servers are physically seized Why would the police be interested in destroying a legitimate business just because they want data for 8 users? They can just as well get the warrant and then get the data the same way they did now.
    - cr1895 9y ago
jarman 9y ago
>but can verify the transactions to the drug site themselves Once you start selectively give out user data, you are basically giving out warrants yourself and acting as a judge.
- yorwba 9y ago
  And if you are allowed to do that and want to do it, why not? The purpose of a warrant is to verify that a judge has done due diligence and found the search to be justified, but if you check for yourself and come to the same conclusion, the warrant isn't really necessary.
  - jarman 9y ago
    Because search warrant is removal of privacy rights, which is something only court should be allowed do.
  - EpicEng 9y ago
    Because you're almost certainly not qualified to make that determination.
  - rad_gruchalski 9y ago
    But if you check yourself what. By looking at their data? How would that be okay? I'm not putting words in your mouth, just looking for a logical conclusion.
    - yorwba 9y ago
      If you look at their transaction history with your service, it's not just their data, it's also yours and you have every right to look at it. Now what's morally ambiguous is then deciding to reveal that data to others, and if you did it indiscriminately for all customers I'd be against it. But on a small scale, I don't think it's so wrong.
naasking 9y ago
> but when you know that the charges are drug-related and they'd get a warrant anyway Do you actually know though? Or is it really just an educated guess? > why not cooperate and make it easier for everyone? Because violating privacy isn't supposed to be easy. Those laws exist for a reason.
pavel_lishin 9y ago
> when you know that the charges are drug-related and they'd get a warrant anyway If it's that easy to get a warrant, why didn't they just go ahead and get the warrant?
lightedman 9y ago
"why not cooperate and make it easier for everyone?" Because the law in Germany EXPLICTLY forbids this - Bundesdatenschutzgesetz is the name of the law. Which means bitcoin.de doesn't care about following the law in the first place. Not a surprise for a company trying to make money off of a pyramid scheme currency.

piker 9y ago

In the US: make them get the warrant. It's not the service provider's job to determine if probable cause exists, and the service provider is probably very bad at it. Police always go for the consent search first precisely because the standard for a warrant is so high.

DarkKomunalec 9y ago

But should we allow the police to threaten people with overbroad warrants? "Gives us the data on these 8 people, or we'll get a warrant for it." vs. "Gives us the data on these 8 people, or we'll get a warrant to confiscate all your servers, computers, laptops, and phones." And getting a warrant is not as large a barrier as people like to believe: https://www.popehat.com/2014/07/15/warrants-bulwark-of-liberty-or-paper-shield/ https://www.popehat.com/2014/07/15/warrants-bulwark-of-liber...

skrause 9y ago
In Germany the police can threaten all they want, getting a warrant for user data is the prosecutor's job. That's also why don't give out the data directly the police. If the prosecutor is asking that's a totally different level than the police.
FRex 9y ago
It might also be an indication that the police doesn't risk wasting the judge's time and get shitted on if they don't have rock solid reasons for suspecting someone. Is a bit over 20k drug related warrants over 10 years really that much for the country the size of USA with such a drug problem and such an axe to grind with drugs users (war on drugs, private prisons, blacks with crack and teens with weed being juicy targets to boost statistics, etc.)? Or 1300 warrants and 600 extensions in one fiscal year for a 'black bag job search' across all circuits?

skrause 9y ago

Because if you make it too easy for the police they'll just ask for too much all the time, even for things where they wouldn't get a warrant. This is happening in Germany all the time when a provider wants to be nice to the police. If they say "we'll get a warrant anyway", just response "okay, so get the warrant and come back and I'll give you the data". Then at least it's up to a judge to decide where giving out data is warranted, and not up to an oridinary policeman and sysadmin.

teamhappy 9y ago
> This is happening in Germany all the time when a provider wants to be nice to the police. All the time? Really?
- skrause 9y ago
  Not literally. But if you make the police work much easier by voluntarily giving out data that you don't need to give them of course they are happy to take your offer to make their job easier whenever they can.
yAnonymous 9y ago
See my edit. I'm assuming they can verify the allegations, due to the nature of BTC transactions. A warrant possibly means that they go out of business, because the servers are physically seized. If you tell me you'd risk that for a stranger who you can tell probably committed a crime, I don't believe you.
- Joe-Z 9y ago
  >A warrant possibly means that they go out of business, because the servers are physically seized Why would the police be interested in destroying a legitimate business just because they want data for 8 users? They can just as well get the warrant and then get the data the same way they did now.
  - cr1895 9y ago

jarman 9y ago

>but can verify the transactions to the drug site themselves Once you start selectively give out user data, you are basically giving out warrants yourself and acting as a judge.

yorwba 9y ago
And if you are allowed to do that and want to do it, why not? The purpose of a warrant is to verify that a judge has done due diligence and found the search to be justified, but if you check for yourself and come to the same conclusion, the warrant isn't really necessary.
- jarman 9y ago
  Because search warrant is removal of privacy rights, which is something only court should be allowed do.
- EpicEng 9y ago
  Because you're almost certainly not qualified to make that determination.
- rad_gruchalski 9y ago
  But if you check yourself what. By looking at their data? How would that be okay? I'm not putting words in your mouth, just looking for a logical conclusion.
  - yorwba 9y ago
    If you look at their transaction history with your service, it's not just their data, it's also yours and you have every right to look at it. Now what's morally ambiguous is then deciding to reveal that data to others, and if you did it indiscriminately for all customers I'd be against it. But on a small scale, I don't think it's so wrong.

naasking 9y ago

> but when you know that the charges are drug-related and they'd get a warrant anyway Do you actually know though? Or is it really just an educated guess? > why not cooperate and make it easier for everyone? Because violating privacy isn't supposed to be easy. Those laws exist for a reason.

pavel_lishin 9y ago

> when you know that the charges are drug-related and they'd get a warrant anyway If it's that easy to get a warrant, why didn't they just go ahead and get the warrant?

lightedman 9y ago

"why not cooperate and make it easier for everyone?" Because the law in Germany EXPLICTLY forbids this - Bundesdatenschutzgesetz is the name of the law. Which means bitcoin.de doesn't care about following the law in the first place. Not a surprise for a company trying to make money off of a pyramid scheme currency.