5 ms·

FBI Gains Access to Sci-Hub Founder’s Google Account Data

perihelions 5y ago
See also: 556 combined comments between these two threads (s/Google/Apple/, but essentially the same topic): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27086290 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27086290 ("FBI subpoenaed Apple for data of Sci-Hub founder (twitter.com/ringo_ring)") https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27152968 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27152968 ("FBI Has Gained Access to Sci-Hub Founder's Apple Account, Email Claims (torrentfreak.com)")
Bellamy 5y ago
So there is ongoing investigation but are there any charges?
E2EEd 5y ago
- croes 5y ago
  Security ny obscurity doesn't work. Without Sci-Hub only wealthy and government actors had access to knowledge. Very bad idea
  - E2EEd 5y ago
    Obscure knowledge protected by rational actors makes for a safer future.
    - croes 5y ago
      Never worked in human history. "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results"
    - rg111 5y ago
      protected -> they aren't. The content is open. Just behind a payeall. The head of ISIS can get access to them if he pays. rational actors -> what's rational for China or Russia isn't necessarily "good" for American people.
    - olliej 5y ago
      Protected? anyone can buy a journal paper, or email the authors. The whole point of publishing a paper is that it is available to anyone who is interested.
- humanistbot 5y ago
  > Sci-Hub's existence is an international security risk. Even if you believe that China and USA are rational actors who won't use cutting edge sci/tech for malicious ends (a reasonable supposition), the unadulterated democratization of leading edge research presents increasingly asymmetric applicational risk by rogue non-govt actors. What are you talking about? Sci-Hub provides free access to research that is already published in journals. If some government wants to get access to a paper and sci-hub didn't exist, they can just pay for it or go to a well-funded university library that subscribes in bulk. Sci-Hub isn't like the WikiLeaks of science. They aren't publishing confidential or private research.
  - E2EEd 5y ago
    Sure, it's not classified research. But, putting it out into the open increases risks as stated. The problem, more generally, is the willing openness of researchers in high risk areas.
    - omg_ponies 5y ago
      It's already "out in the open" because tens of millions of college students around the world have access. You've shown zero domain knowledge here; just withdraw and apologise.
    - ALittleLight 5y ago
      Is your belief that the scientists and researchers of China or other adversaries wouldn't be able to afford their own journal subscriptions?
    - rg111 5y ago
      As Sci-Hub only publishes already open content, you are saying all rich entities should have access to all the research even if they have malicious intent? And people with no mal-intent shouldn't have access to research material if they don't have enough money? Do you even know what you are talking about?
    - olliej 5y ago
      These are papers that are published in journals, by definition they are publicly available, you just have to pay the $20-40 fee, email one of the authors, or work at a university or company that has a subscription to said journals. Where do you get this bizarre idea that the content of these journal is somehow not in the open?
- yucky 5y ago
  Sci-hub doesn't leak unpublished data though. It simple makes published data freely available, since the people have already paid for it through tax dollars anyway. So what do you mean?
  - E2EEd 5y ago
    those paywalls have security implications
    - elliekelly 5y ago
      Such as...?
    - simion314 5y ago
      You are so very wrong, first of all any western university will train foreign students, so let me assure you that countries like China have the money to buy access to publications (and after that share the journals) but also have the mmoney to send students to get trained. If you are the type that wants to keep science secret then SciHub is a microscopic problem, you need to complain about science being made public and education being available without dracong background checks to prevent "unhealthy origins of the students". Just admit your wrong, FBI is as always full of idiots and EU isright again to try to prevent our data be saved in US servers for all asholes to open it without any good reason.
- wodenokoto 5y ago
  I can't tell if you are being sarcastic, but I upvoted this because that is a point of view I have never heard before.
- johncearls 5y ago
  - E2EEd 5y ago
    I'd expect more from an adam sandler fan
- sschueller 5y ago
  So we need to make patents secret too? Kind of an arrogant view to think all the latest hightech is discovered in America. Wasn't it two Turkish scientists in Germany that made the Pfizer vaccine?
diebeforei485 5y ago
I don't see how these email notifications are helpful. Why doesn't Apple/Google send her a copy of the data that was sent to the FBI?
- olliej 5y ago
  presumably because the absurd laws the allow seizure of data without the victim being able to fight it in court also limit what they can say, in addition to when they can say it. As far as Apple goes, disable iCloud backups if you're concerned about these extra judicial invasions of privacy

See also: 556 combined comments between these two threads (s/Google/Apple/, but essentially the same topic): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27086290 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27086290 ("FBI subpoenaed Apple for data of Sci-Hub founder (twitter.com/ringo_ring)") https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27152968 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27152968 ("FBI Has Gained Access to Sci-Hub Founder's Apple Account, Email Claims (torrentfreak.com)")

Bellamy 5y ago

So there is ongoing investigation but are there any charges?

E2EEd 5y ago

croes 5y ago
Security ny obscurity doesn't work. Without Sci-Hub only wealthy and government actors had access to knowledge. Very bad idea
- E2EEd 5y ago
  Obscure knowledge protected by rational actors makes for a safer future.
  - croes 5y ago
    Never worked in human history. "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results"
  - rg111 5y ago
    protected -> they aren't. The content is open. Just behind a payeall. The head of ISIS can get access to them if he pays. rational actors -> what's rational for China or Russia isn't necessarily "good" for American people.
  - olliej 5y ago
    Protected? anyone can buy a journal paper, or email the authors. The whole point of publishing a paper is that it is available to anyone who is interested.
humanistbot 5y ago
> Sci-Hub's existence is an international security risk. Even if you believe that China and USA are rational actors who won't use cutting edge sci/tech for malicious ends (a reasonable supposition), the unadulterated democratization of leading edge research presents increasingly asymmetric applicational risk by rogue non-govt actors. What are you talking about? Sci-Hub provides free access to research that is already published in journals. If some government wants to get access to a paper and sci-hub didn't exist, they can just pay for it or go to a well-funded university library that subscribes in bulk. Sci-Hub isn't like the WikiLeaks of science. They aren't publishing confidential or private research.
- E2EEd 5y ago
  Sure, it's not classified research. But, putting it out into the open increases risks as stated. The problem, more generally, is the willing openness of researchers in high risk areas.
  - omg_ponies 5y ago
    It's already "out in the open" because tens of millions of college students around the world have access. You've shown zero domain knowledge here; just withdraw and apologise.
  - ALittleLight 5y ago
    Is your belief that the scientists and researchers of China or other adversaries wouldn't be able to afford their own journal subscriptions?
  - rg111 5y ago
    As Sci-Hub only publishes already open content, you are saying all rich entities should have access to all the research even if they have malicious intent? And people with no mal-intent shouldn't have access to research material if they don't have enough money? Do you even know what you are talking about?
  - olliej 5y ago
    These are papers that are published in journals, by definition they are publicly available, you just have to pay the $20-40 fee, email one of the authors, or work at a university or company that has a subscription to said journals. Where do you get this bizarre idea that the content of these journal is somehow not in the open?
yucky 5y ago
Sci-hub doesn't leak unpublished data though. It simple makes published data freely available, since the people have already paid for it through tax dollars anyway. So what do you mean?
- E2EEd 5y ago
  those paywalls have security implications
  - elliekelly 5y ago
    Such as...?
  - simion314 5y ago
    You are so very wrong, first of all any western university will train foreign students, so let me assure you that countries like China have the money to buy access to publications (and after that share the journals) but also have the mmoney to send students to get trained. If you are the type that wants to keep science secret then SciHub is a microscopic problem, you need to complain about science being made public and education being available without dracong background checks to prevent "unhealthy origins of the students". Just admit your wrong, FBI is as always full of idiots and EU isright again to try to prevent our data be saved in US servers for all asholes to open it without any good reason.
wodenokoto 5y ago
I can't tell if you are being sarcastic, but I upvoted this because that is a point of view I have never heard before.
johncearls 5y ago
- E2EEd 5y ago
  I'd expect more from an adam sandler fan
sschueller 5y ago
So we need to make patents secret too? Kind of an arrogant view to think all the latest hightech is discovered in America. Wasn't it two Turkish scientists in Germany that made the Pfizer vaccine?

diebeforei485 5y ago

I don't see how these email notifications are helpful. Why doesn't Apple/Google send her a copy of the data that was sent to the FBI?

olliej 5y ago
presumably because the absurd laws the allow seizure of data without the victim being able to fight it in court also limit what they can say, in addition to when they can say it. As far as Apple goes, disable iCloud backups if you're concerned about these extra judicial invasions of privacy