4 ms·

This suggests a criminal defense strategy where if someone was up to no good, they should arrange it so that the investigators are forced to use sensitive and i

by gnu8 8y ago

This suggests a criminal defense strategy where if someone was up to no good, they should arrange it so that the investigators are forced to use sensitive and illegal techniques to obtain evidence, making the case not prosecutable.

grigjd3 8y ago
Would not be a new strategy.
benchaney 8y ago
Criminals can't force the government to use illegal strategies. This problem is entirely self inflicted.
- greggarious 8y ago
  >Criminals can't force the government to use illegal strategies. Parent said sensitive or illegal. I think it's perfectly possible to have such state of the art opsec, that the government would not be willing to out their investigative technique to bust a run of the mill criminal.
  - benchaney 8y ago
    Actually parent says sensitive and illegal, but it is beside the point. Criminals can't force the government to use their sensitive investigative techniques either.
    - greggarious 8y ago
      > Actually parent says sensitive and illegal, but it is beside the point. Criminals can't force the government to use their sensitive investigative techniques either. You're playing semantics. Written language is not machine code, try not to be a faulty compiler :) Sure, a criminal cannot literally force the government to use a sensitive technique. But since the government tends to want to investigate all crimes it is capable of investigating, a criminal can easily create a situation where the costs involved with a prosecution (disclosing a sensitive technique, causing people to update opsec accordingly) outweigh the benefits (prosecuting a small time criminal). The end result is that the government is figuratively forced to not prosecute a criminal despite having the capability to prove their guilt.
      - benchaney 8y ago
        > But since the government tends to want to investigate all crimes it is capable of investigating, a criminal can easily create a situation where the costs involved with a prosecution (disclosing a sensitive technique, causing people to update opsec accordingly) outweigh the benefits (prosecuting a small time criminal). This is the part I'm disputing. If a criminal could reasonably control what evidence is available to the government, a better and less risky strategy is to give them no evidence rather than to give them evidence that they don't want to use.
        heavenlyblue 8y ago
        What if that evidence reduces your bottom line considerably or reduces your risk, as opposed to other evidence?
      - akira2501 8y ago
        > But since the government tends to want to investigate all crimes it is capable of investigating Sure, but is that appropriate? Is that what we actually _want_ from _our_ government? > The end result is that the government is figuratively forced You can't start a problem with desire and then claim a forced hand when it doesn't go your way. The government is not forced to investigate or attempt to stop _every single_ crime.
        greggarious 8y ago
        >Sure, but is that appropriate? Is that what we actually _want_ from _our_ government? No, and sorry if it came off that I thought that's a good thing. >The government is not forced to investigate or attempt to stop _every single_ crime. No, but in a connected society it's harder to ignore crimes. The government doesn't like to "lose face" so they end up doing silly things like raiding marijuana dispensaries instead of using that manpower to target the heads of opiate dealing gangs - because the former is more visible it gets disproportionate attention.
    - salawat 8y ago
      Still means it is a viable strat. If your opsec requires an exploit that's currently invaluable to OPS targeting way bigger fish, You can operate with some degree of impunity until the exploit becomes moot for the bigger fish. It's why security researchers will in all odds never be the target of an "evil maid" attack. It isn't worth the time.
      - deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]

by gnu8 8y ago

grigjd3 8y ago

Would not be a new strategy.

benchaney 8y ago

Criminals can't force the government to use illegal strategies. This problem is entirely self inflicted.

greggarious 8y ago
>Criminals can't force the government to use illegal strategies. Parent said sensitive or illegal. I think it's perfectly possible to have such state of the art opsec, that the government would not be willing to out their investigative technique to bust a run of the mill criminal.
- benchaney 8y ago
  Actually parent says sensitive and illegal, but it is beside the point. Criminals can't force the government to use their sensitive investigative techniques either.
  - greggarious 8y ago
    > Actually parent says sensitive and illegal, but it is beside the point. Criminals can't force the government to use their sensitive investigative techniques either. You're playing semantics. Written language is not machine code, try not to be a faulty compiler :) Sure, a criminal cannot literally force the government to use a sensitive technique. But since the government tends to want to investigate all crimes it is capable of investigating, a criminal can easily create a situation where the costs involved with a prosecution (disclosing a sensitive technique, causing people to update opsec accordingly) outweigh the benefits (prosecuting a small time criminal). The end result is that the government is figuratively forced to not prosecute a criminal despite having the capability to prove their guilt.
    - benchaney 8y ago
      > But since the government tends to want to investigate all crimes it is capable of investigating, a criminal can easily create a situation where the costs involved with a prosecution (disclosing a sensitive technique, causing people to update opsec accordingly) outweigh the benefits (prosecuting a small time criminal). This is the part I'm disputing. If a criminal could reasonably control what evidence is available to the government, a better and less risky strategy is to give them no evidence rather than to give them evidence that they don't want to use.
      - heavenlyblue 8y ago
        What if that evidence reduces your bottom line considerably or reduces your risk, as opposed to other evidence?
    - akira2501 8y ago
      > But since the government tends to want to investigate all crimes it is capable of investigating Sure, but is that appropriate? Is that what we actually _want_ from _our_ government? > The end result is that the government is figuratively forced You can't start a problem with desire and then claim a forced hand when it doesn't go your way. The government is not forced to investigate or attempt to stop _every single_ crime.
      - greggarious 8y ago
        >Sure, but is that appropriate? Is that what we actually _want_ from _our_ government? No, and sorry if it came off that I thought that's a good thing. >The government is not forced to investigate or attempt to stop _every single_ crime. No, but in a connected society it's harder to ignore crimes. The government doesn't like to "lose face" so they end up doing silly things like raiding marijuana dispensaries instead of using that manpower to target the heads of opiate dealing gangs - because the former is more visible it gets disproportionate attention.
  - salawat 8y ago
    Still means it is a viable strat. If your opsec requires an exploit that's currently invaluable to OPS targeting way bigger fish, You can operate with some degree of impunity until the exploit becomes moot for the bigger fish. It's why security researchers will in all odds never be the target of an "evil maid" attack. It isn't worth the time.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]