6 ms·

From Bruce of all people, this is a wildly provocative, unsubstantiated claim about routine takedown behavior from the feds. I mean, nobody hates the gov side

From Bruce of all people, this is a wildly provocative, unsubstantiated claim about routine takedown behavior from the feds. I mean, nobody hates the gov side of the cryptography wars more than me, but this type of article is well below table-stakes for discussion. Especially by legendary professionals of repute like Bruce. It's very disappointing to me. The price of clicks truly deconstructs the modern man's integrity...

monero-xmr 4y ago
Bruce has also been hardcore anti-cryptocurrency. From a pure cryptography perspective the innovations around zero knowledge proofs are very intriguing and it’s highly unlikely they would have happened as quickly without the monetary benefit of cryptocurrency pushing such research forwards. However Bruce is an extreme statist, and if he had his way I’m sure all cryptography would be backdoored.
- czx4f4bd 4y ago
  Really? Bruce is pro-backdoor? Where's that pro-backdoor advocacy in this essay from 2013 on evading NSA surveillance and warning about the risk of backdoored cryptography? https://www.schneier.com/essays/archives/2013/09/nsa_surveillance_a_g.html https://www.schneier.com/essays/archives/2013/09/nsa_surveil... Or this essay from 2016 arguing that backdoors sabotage security? https://www.schneier.com/essays/archives/2016/04/the_value_of_encrypt.html https://www.schneier.com/essays/archives/2016/04/the_value_o... Or this essay from 2019 decrying yet another effort to backdoor encryption? https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2019/12/scaring_people_.html https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2019/12/scaring_peopl...
  - monero-xmr 4y ago
    This is, without a doubt, the craziest thing I have ever seen pushed out by a someone who purports to know something about cryptography, law, and political advocacy: https://www.lawfareblog.com/tornado-cash-not-free-speech-its-golem https://www.lawfareblog.com/tornado-cash-not-free-speech-its... Schneier has gone off the deep end
    - yifanl 4y ago
      Do you have a substantial argument against Schneier beyond "Schneier is a crazy statist"?
WarOnPrivacy 4y ago
My take on it: He's sending out a reminder that Gov retains ability to extract people it wants from encrypted comms. He may have noticed a downturn in similar news stories. That we don't know the methods used here, this seems to emphasize the old reasons to live in caution.
- adenozine 4y ago
  Yeah, that thought crossed my mind, and I'm sure now that you mention it, it must have crossed his too. Still, couldn't he just have written that?
- Seattle3503 4y ago
  Section 702 is up for renewal soon. I don't think it is a coincidence Bruce is bringing this particular case now. It seems like he is trying to add fuel to the "repeal" fire.
advisedwang 4y ago
> unsubstantiated claim There's a court document from a defender specifically referring to the evidence the FBI is presenting. Lawyers can be severely sanctioned if they lie in a briefing, so the lawyer drafting that has certainly seen a court document by the FBI stating that they got the IP of this user despite Tor. Bruce never claims more than that.
- remram 4y ago
  "Got the IP despite Tor" might just be user error, visited the site once with Tor disabled, or logged into the same account elsewhere with both their clear IP and their Tor browser. The exact same thing that happened to Silk Road.
  - advisedwang 4y ago
    That's possible, but the blog never claims otherwise. In fact it says "There are lots of ways to de-anonymize Tor users" so I think it's unfair to say Bruce is making unsubstantiated claims.
    - remram 4y ago
      When you say "de-anonymize a Tor user", the implicit but unambiguous meaning is that you attacked Tor, not found the information from somewhere else. Just like when you say "a BMW driver crashed into a mall", you mean that they did it with their BMW, not with the Subaru that they also own.
      - advisedwang 4y ago
        The language in the blog post, "There are lots of ways to ..." is explicitly highlighting the ambiguity.
        remram 4y ago
        Yeah, maybe so. The linked slide does list "user error" as one of the angles.

monero-xmr 4y ago

Bruce has also been hardcore anti-cryptocurrency. From a pure cryptography perspective the innovations around zero knowledge proofs are very intriguing and it’s highly unlikely they would have happened as quickly without the monetary benefit of cryptocurrency pushing such research forwards. However Bruce is an extreme statist, and if he had his way I’m sure all cryptography would be backdoored.

czx4f4bd 4y ago
Really? Bruce is pro-backdoor? Where's that pro-backdoor advocacy in this essay from 2013 on evading NSA surveillance and warning about the risk of backdoored cryptography? https://www.schneier.com/essays/archives/2013/09/nsa_surveillance_a_g.html https://www.schneier.com/essays/archives/2013/09/nsa_surveil... Or this essay from 2016 arguing that backdoors sabotage security? https://www.schneier.com/essays/archives/2016/04/the_value_of_encrypt.html https://www.schneier.com/essays/archives/2016/04/the_value_o... Or this essay from 2019 decrying yet another effort to backdoor encryption? https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2019/12/scaring_people_.html https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2019/12/scaring_peopl...
- monero-xmr 4y ago
  This is, without a doubt, the craziest thing I have ever seen pushed out by a someone who purports to know something about cryptography, law, and political advocacy: https://www.lawfareblog.com/tornado-cash-not-free-speech-its-golem https://www.lawfareblog.com/tornado-cash-not-free-speech-its... Schneier has gone off the deep end
  - yifanl 4y ago
    Do you have a substantial argument against Schneier beyond "Schneier is a crazy statist"?

WarOnPrivacy 4y ago

My take on it: He's sending out a reminder that Gov retains ability to extract people it wants from encrypted comms. He may have noticed a downturn in similar news stories. That we don't know the methods used here, this seems to emphasize the old reasons to live in caution.

adenozine 4y ago
Yeah, that thought crossed my mind, and I'm sure now that you mention it, it must have crossed his too. Still, couldn't he just have written that?
Seattle3503 4y ago
Section 702 is up for renewal soon. I don't think it is a coincidence Bruce is bringing this particular case now. It seems like he is trying to add fuel to the "repeal" fire.

advisedwang 4y ago

> unsubstantiated claim There's a court document from a defender specifically referring to the evidence the FBI is presenting. Lawyers can be severely sanctioned if they lie in a briefing, so the lawyer drafting that has certainly seen a court document by the FBI stating that they got the IP of this user despite Tor. Bruce never claims more than that.

remram 4y ago
"Got the IP despite Tor" might just be user error, visited the site once with Tor disabled, or logged into the same account elsewhere with both their clear IP and their Tor browser. The exact same thing that happened to Silk Road.
- advisedwang 4y ago
  That's possible, but the blog never claims otherwise. In fact it says "There are lots of ways to de-anonymize Tor users" so I think it's unfair to say Bruce is making unsubstantiated claims.
  - remram 4y ago
    When you say "de-anonymize a Tor user", the implicit but unambiguous meaning is that you attacked Tor, not found the information from somewhere else. Just like when you say "a BMW driver crashed into a mall", you mean that they did it with their BMW, not with the Subaru that they also own.
    - advisedwang 4y ago
      The language in the blog post, "There are lots of ways to ..." is explicitly highlighting the ambiguity.
      - remram 4y ago
        Yeah, maybe so. The linked slide does list "user error" as one of the angles.