4 ms·

The "failure" you mention here is his confession. If all they had to go on was what's in the article -- that "the person who used Guerilla Mail used Tor to acc

by toki5 13y ago

The "failure" you mention here is his confession. If all they had to go on was what's in the article -- that "the person who used Guerilla Mail used Tor to access it" and "[Kim] used Tor around the same time the e-mails were sent" -- that's not enough to charge him with a crime. It's enough to go and talk to him about it, but if he had wanted to, he could have protected his identity (but possibly prolonged the investigation, depending on what other resources the agent had) by simply denying that he had anything to do with it.

throwaway_yy2Di 13y ago
Obviously the point at which a hostile government thinks you're a top suspect and interrogates you is the weakest link in the security chain. This guy had it comparatively easy: his interrogators weren't torturing him to death.
- Crito 13y ago
  To answer your initial question, people talk highly of Tor because if used properly it can move the weakest link from the technological into the interrogation room. Had he not used tor and had just signed into his email normally, they really wouldn't have needed a confession. Nobody but a fool thinks that Tor (or any other piece of technology) is a silver bullet. It is just a tool, and like any tool, has intended uses and numerous shortcomings when you use it without knowing what it is for. Trying to use Tor to protect you against interrogators who are convinced of your guilt and willing to torture you to death is like trying to toast your bread with a hammer. Completely nonsensical, though that does not mean a hammer is a bizarrely useless contraption invented and touted by fools. Asking what the point of Tor is if it cannot protect you from that is like asking what the point of body armor is if stepping on a landmine still blows your leg off.
  - throwaway_yy2Di 13y ago
    "Had he not used tor and had just signed into his email normally, they really wouldn't have needed a confession." Had he not used Tor, he would never have sent an email: he wouldn't have felt secure. "Trying to use Tor to protect you against interrogators who are convinced of your guilt and willing to torture you to death is like trying to toast your bread with a hammer." It's Tor [traffic analysis] that led integrators to him in the first place. Also, Tor is frequently advertised for use against repressive governments.
    - Crito 13y ago
      > "Had he not used Tor, he would never have sent an email: he wouldn't have felt secure." That is unknowable, certainly not certain. Plenty of people called in bomb threats before Tor was invented. Hell, he may have just pulled the fire alarm instead. > "It's Tor [traffic analysis] that led integrators to him in the first place." Tor is not safe from traffic analysis; it is pretty trivial to figure out if someone is using Tor. This is a well known limitation of Tor that must be understood by anybody using it, particularly if they are living under a repressive government. If you are using Tor with the expectation that nobody will be able to tell that you are using Tor, then you are trying to hammer bread into toast. That is simply not what the tool is for. It is certainly possible that the Tor project needs to work harder at making sure people understand this.
- anigbrowl 13y ago
  That's ridiculous. If police find a print of XYZ-brand shoes near a crime scene and start keeping their eyes open for people who have XYZ shoes, they're not trying to oppress people with a certain taste in footwear. there seems to be a misconception about that police need probable cause before they even ask questions, which is nonsensical. Edit for clarity: I don't think that following up obvious leads is evidence of government hostility. After all, if Harvard called up law enforcement to advise of a bomb threat and were told not to bother unless an explosion had taken place, most people would consider that pretty remiss (especially given Harvard's proximity to Boston).
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  - mindslight 13y ago
    It's "hostile government" when analyzing the failure of Tor, because the tool should have kept this kid off of the suspect list. I'm guessing you don't even believe this to be a laudable goal, and that's precisely why we need anonymity tools.
    - jbooth 13y ago
      Oh, for god's sake. First off, don't put words in the anigbrowl's mouth. Second off, it's not government hostility to investigate a bomb hoax that costs a lot of people money and inconveniences a ton of people. This guy wasn't engaging in civil disobedience. Third off, the dude could have just walked to any of the dozen coffee shops in harvard square with free wifi and done this all in the clear, and been fine. Tor cannot and will never prevent traffic analysis if you're dumb enough to plug into the organization you're hoaxing's network. Tor created reasonable doubt, that's all it could do in this case, as a matter of physical limitations.
      - mindslight 13y ago
        What specific words did I put in his figurative mouth? anigbrowl took a technical point about anonymity opsec and responded to it as if it were a political plea about the police, and you're doing the same. So I'm guessing that both you and him don't consider this a failure of Tor because you consider the "right thing" to have happened in the larger situation. As I had said, it's a "hostile government" in the context of security analysis. Sorry, there just isn't a technical distinction between this kid and a dissident. To take a principled stand of saying dissidents should have the means to communicate freely, you also have to assert that you'd like for this kid to not get caught. Understandably this is a hard thing to do, given the chaos it would cause (is causing) in the short term.

by toki5 13y ago

throwaway_yy2Di 13y ago

Obviously the point at which a hostile government thinks you're a top suspect and interrogates you is the weakest link in the security chain. This guy had it comparatively easy: his interrogators weren't torturing him to death.

Crito 13y ago
To answer your initial question, people talk highly of Tor because if used properly it can move the weakest link from the technological into the interrogation room. Had he not used tor and had just signed into his email normally, they really wouldn't have needed a confession. Nobody but a fool thinks that Tor (or any other piece of technology) is a silver bullet. It is just a tool, and like any tool, has intended uses and numerous shortcomings when you use it without knowing what it is for. Trying to use Tor to protect you against interrogators who are convinced of your guilt and willing to torture you to death is like trying to toast your bread with a hammer. Completely nonsensical, though that does not mean a hammer is a bizarrely useless contraption invented and touted by fools. Asking what the point of Tor is if it cannot protect you from that is like asking what the point of body armor is if stepping on a landmine still blows your leg off.
- throwaway_yy2Di 13y ago
  "Had he not used tor and had just signed into his email normally, they really wouldn't have needed a confession." Had he not used Tor, he would never have sent an email: he wouldn't have felt secure. "Trying to use Tor to protect you against interrogators who are convinced of your guilt and willing to torture you to death is like trying to toast your bread with a hammer." It's Tor [traffic analysis] that led integrators to him in the first place. Also, Tor is frequently advertised for use against repressive governments.
  - Crito 13y ago
    > "Had he not used Tor, he would never have sent an email: he wouldn't have felt secure." That is unknowable, certainly not certain. Plenty of people called in bomb threats before Tor was invented. Hell, he may have just pulled the fire alarm instead. > "It's Tor [traffic analysis] that led integrators to him in the first place." Tor is not safe from traffic analysis; it is pretty trivial to figure out if someone is using Tor. This is a well known limitation of Tor that must be understood by anybody using it, particularly if they are living under a repressive government. If you are using Tor with the expectation that nobody will be able to tell that you are using Tor, then you are trying to hammer bread into toast. That is simply not what the tool is for. It is certainly possible that the Tor project needs to work harder at making sure people understand this.
anigbrowl 13y ago
That's ridiculous. If police find a print of XYZ-brand shoes near a crime scene and start keeping their eyes open for people who have XYZ shoes, they're not trying to oppress people with a certain taste in footwear. there seems to be a misconception about that police need probable cause before they even ask questions, which is nonsensical. Edit for clarity: I don't think that following up obvious leads is evidence of government hostility. After all, if Harvard called up law enforcement to advise of a bomb threat and were told not to bother unless an explosion had taken place, most people would consider that pretty remiss (especially given Harvard's proximity to Boston).
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- mindslight 13y ago
  It's "hostile government" when analyzing the failure of Tor, because the tool should have kept this kid off of the suspect list. I'm guessing you don't even believe this to be a laudable goal, and that's precisely why we need anonymity tools.
  - jbooth 13y ago
    Oh, for god's sake. First off, don't put words in the anigbrowl's mouth. Second off, it's not government hostility to investigate a bomb hoax that costs a lot of people money and inconveniences a ton of people. This guy wasn't engaging in civil disobedience. Third off, the dude could have just walked to any of the dozen coffee shops in harvard square with free wifi and done this all in the clear, and been fine. Tor cannot and will never prevent traffic analysis if you're dumb enough to plug into the organization you're hoaxing's network. Tor created reasonable doubt, that's all it could do in this case, as a matter of physical limitations.
    - mindslight 13y ago
      What specific words did I put in his figurative mouth? anigbrowl took a technical point about anonymity opsec and responded to it as if it were a political plea about the police, and you're doing the same. So I'm guessing that both you and him don't consider this a failure of Tor because you consider the "right thing" to have happened in the larger situation. As I had said, it's a "hostile government" in the context of security analysis. Sorry, there just isn't a technical distinction between this kid and a dissident. To take a principled stand of saying dissidents should have the means to communicate freely, you also have to assert that you'd like for this kid to not get caught. Understandably this is a hard thing to do, given the chaos it would cause (is causing) in the short term.