3 ms·

Right, but then they'd be prosecuted, and the means would come out. You wouldn't be able to both put people in jail based upon evidence gained from compromisin

Right, but then they'd be prosecuted, and the means would come out. You wouldn't be able to both put people in jail based upon evidence gained from compromising TOR, as well as keep secret the fact that TOR was compromised. Not for long, at any rate.

46Bit 15y ago
Pretty simple really, at least in the UK. Just get someone to make an allegation against them (underage porn, etc), and their computers get seized. If the police just happen to discover a ton of other things they're really involved in whilst analysing them, there you go. If encrypted, under UK law you have to divulge the keys or go to jail, so you're guaranteed to get them some jail time.
- SwellJoe 15y ago
  Just get someone to make an allegation against them (underage porn, etc), and their computers get seized. Is that legal in the UK? Because in the US it'd be unconstitutional.
  - glassx 15y ago
    I've seen news about child porn allegations in the UK that usually lead to nowhere in the latest years, mostly because of some credit card issues. I remember it happening with Pete Townshend (from The Who) and Robert Del Naja (from Massive Attack), plus some football player whose name I can't remember.
  - redthrowaway 15y ago
    Unconstitutional doesn't mean it doesn't happen.
  - ZoFreX 15y ago
    In the UK they can seize your computers from your home for creating a public nuisance or wasting police time (they actually did this to a journo a few years back). Oh, and they don't give them back. I mean yeah I think they're supposed to but they don't exactly get around to it quickly.
trotsky 15y ago
I'm pretty sure confidential informants are tailor made for covering up illegal or undisclosed investigation techniques. It's not like they haven't had a little practice trying to protect wiretaps. Which isn't to say that I think the feebs have compromised TOR, because I think that's pretty unlikely.
- redthrowaway 15y ago
  That's an interesting perspective. Still, in order for the anonymous source's testimony to carry any weight, there'd have to be some solid evidence. Either they'd have to show traffic logs, or they'd have to show the results of forensics done on the suspect's hdd. If you've properly distanced yourself from your activities, then there shouldn't be anything on your hard drive to implicate you. Ultimately, it comes down to human fuckups. Bradley Manning is not in jail because he didn't take security precautions, he's in jail because he talked to someone he shouldn't have. The same will be true of any reasonably sophisticated hacking organization. They can take all the precautions in the world, but a vengeful ex can bring the whole thing crashing down.
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]
  - trotsky 15y ago
    If they were serious about the investigation they'd probably get a sneak and peak warrant to install a keylogger/etc. (either electronically or physically) instead of just a smash and grab. That way they'd have some good trial evidence, because as you say relying on forensics for computer crime is quite dicey - something the bureau is all too familiar with. If they can beat the system electronically this also gives them a chance to see whether there is anything that'd make a quick seizure worth it. The law enforcement exposure they just did undoubtedly made it much easier to get warrants or FISA approval if they did have some targets.

46Bit 15y ago

Pretty simple really, at least in the UK. Just get someone to make an allegation against them (underage porn, etc), and their computers get seized. If the police just happen to discover a ton of other things they're really involved in whilst analysing them, there you go. If encrypted, under UK law you have to divulge the keys or go to jail, so you're guaranteed to get them some jail time.

SwellJoe 15y ago
Just get someone to make an allegation against them (underage porn, etc), and their computers get seized. Is that legal in the UK? Because in the US it'd be unconstitutional.
- glassx 15y ago
  I've seen news about child porn allegations in the UK that usually lead to nowhere in the latest years, mostly because of some credit card issues. I remember it happening with Pete Townshend (from The Who) and Robert Del Naja (from Massive Attack), plus some football player whose name I can't remember.
- redthrowaway 15y ago
  Unconstitutional doesn't mean it doesn't happen.
- ZoFreX 15y ago
  In the UK they can seize your computers from your home for creating a public nuisance or wasting police time (they actually did this to a journo a few years back). Oh, and they don't give them back. I mean yeah I think they're supposed to but they don't exactly get around to it quickly.

trotsky 15y ago

I'm pretty sure confidential informants are tailor made for covering up illegal or undisclosed investigation techniques. It's not like they haven't had a little practice trying to protect wiretaps. Which isn't to say that I think the feebs have compromised TOR, because I think that's pretty unlikely.

redthrowaway 15y ago
That's an interesting perspective. Still, in order for the anonymous source's testimony to carry any weight, there'd have to be some solid evidence. Either they'd have to show traffic logs, or they'd have to show the results of forensics done on the suspect's hdd. If you've properly distanced yourself from your activities, then there shouldn't be anything on your hard drive to implicate you. Ultimately, it comes down to human fuckups. Bradley Manning is not in jail because he didn't take security precautions, he's in jail because he talked to someone he shouldn't have. The same will be true of any reasonably sophisticated hacking organization. They can take all the precautions in the world, but a vengeful ex can bring the whole thing crashing down.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
- trotsky 15y ago
  If they were serious about the investigation they'd probably get a sneak and peak warrant to install a keylogger/etc. (either electronically or physically) instead of just a smash and grab. That way they'd have some good trial evidence, because as you say relying on forensics for computer crime is quite dicey - something the bureau is all too familiar with. If they can beat the system electronically this also gives them a chance to see whether there is anything that'd make a quick seizure worth it. The law enforcement exposure they just did undoubtedly made it much easier to get warrants or FISA approval if they did have some targets.