5 ms·

> they typed “miscellaneous” strings of characters into the login page’s entry fields So this is legal when the FBI does it, but when someone else does essenti

by abutt 12y ago

> they typed “miscellaneous” strings of characters into the login page’s entry fields So this is legal when the FBI does it, but when someone else does essentially the same thing on an AT&T server it's identity fraud and conspiracy to access a computer without authorization

rasz_pl 12y ago
Yes, just like hitting people with your car while texting, or shooting them in the back while they are on the ground handcuffed.
kazinator 12y ago
Well, there is a general principle that police can do things that ordinary citizens cannot. But, subject to rules, not indiscriminately. For instance, they can enter a property if they have a warrant, whereas if someone else does this, it is break and enter. If the FBI established "probable cause" that the server is used for crime, they could have gotten a warrant. I can't imagine it would have been difficult, so why wouldn't they have taken the legal precaution.
- hugogee 12y ago
  >so why wouldn't they have taken the legal precaution. That seems to be the golden question here.
meowface 12y ago
Assuming the FBI had a warrant, they had a right to do whatever they wanted to SR's server, no? I think weev's sentence was utter bullshit, but you can't equate the two things. SR was a drug marketplace, AT&T is not. This is like arguing police shouldn't be able to pick the lock of your drug safehouse door because you aren't allowed to pick other people's locks.
- nickodell 12y ago
  That's the thing - the FBI didn't have a warrant. They're trying to argue that they should be allowed to use the information anyway, because it wasn't 'hacking,' it was 'entering miscellaneous strings.' On a related note, why the hell didn't they get a warrant? I doubt it would have taken long.
  - meowface 12y ago
    That does change things, I agree. However, to play devil's advocate a bit: the FBI essentially saw the output of the PHP call `print_r($_SERVER)`. The only thing that's actually sensitive in there is the server's IP address and hostname. This is not usually considered sensitive information. If it is to be believed that is as far as they went before getting a warrant (and I don't know if that's the case or not), then obtaining the IP address would allow them to actually serve a court order to the hosting provider. In that sense it could be seen as non-invasive and purely conducive to their investigation. But I agree there should not be a double standard. I think what weev did was not illegal, and what the FBI did here was not illegal, personally.
    - glomph 12y ago
      I remember reading rumors that this happened to some random user when the site went a bit wrong and they posted the information to the SR forums. I think it then got deleted fast. Could that have been the source of the ip leak?
  - mrbabbage 12y ago
    A search warrant isn't a license for law enforcement to break the law; it's a license to lawfully conduct a search and seizure based on probable cause of the commission of a crime. Warrants exist because of the Fourth Amendment, which /specifically/ deals with searches and seizures; warrants have nothing to do with a nonexistent general rule preventing law enforcement from breaking any law. Law enforcement can and does break the law all the time to conduct sting operations regarding drugs, prostitution, child porn, hitmen, etc. For instance, the DEA can buy drugs in order to trace and later apprehend drug suppliers. They don't need a warrant to do this (though information gained from such a sting operation may later lead to a judge issuing a search warrant).
- mig39 12y ago
  Didn't they do the "miscellaneous strings" before they got a warrant?
- shkkmo 12y ago
  Are you saying that they are/should be allowed to pick to lock of that drughouse without a warrent? That's the relevant issue.
  - fleitz 12y ago
    They weren't lock picking they were just putting miscellaneous bits of metal in his door lock.
    - jasonwocky 12y ago
      That's very much the point. The FBI can make an argument that they weren't trying to gain access (since a real attempt to gain access would have looked different from "entering miscellaneous strings"). They were trying to see what the system did when authorization attempts failed. As far as I know, there's no law against that. It's similar to going through a suspect's trash.
      - fnordfnordfnord 12y ago
        If they weren't trying to gain access, what were they trying to do? Buy drugs? I don't buy the trash analogy.
      - fleitz 12y ago
        Umm... since when is guessing passwords not an attempt to gain access?
- joesmo 12y ago
  I'm quite sure more drug deals have been and are arranged through AT&T's network than the Silk Road.
  - meowface 12y ago
    Completely irrelevant. Many more drug deals have probably been arranged through email than through Silk Road too. SR's express purpose was to provide a marketplace for drug vendors to sell to drug buyers.
    - joesmo 12y ago
      My point is that both entities are drug marketplaces, thus they should not be treated differently when it comes to warrants and other legalities.
- tedks 12y ago
  A warrant entitles you to search a specific place for a specific thing. It isn't a letter of marque. Courts can't order the FBI to go Dirty Harry up the Internet if it brings down that damn drug website. That's illegal. Of course, who watches the watchers? The US government already imprisons people for life without trial or charge, interrogates using the same torture techniques the Soviets used on captured Japanese scientists, and surveils the diplomats of its own allies. It might be, and you know, probably is committing industrial espionage. At some point you have to raise your head up, see the forest amongst the trees, and just admit that the rule of law is dead in the world. The power asymmetries are too vast, and the people who rule your life know it. Sure you can equate the two cases. Someone with power decided weev and Ross would be removed from the board and so they were. Let that be a lesson to anyone who could piss off the truly powerful.
  - IvyMike 12y ago
    > A warrant entitles you to search a specific place for a specific thing. Not all warrants are the same, but I've seen them do a lot of damage (broken-down doors, torn up mattresses, general mayhem) in the course of executing a warrant. This seems in spirit with that.
- virtue3 12y ago
  oh, so a warrant is a free pass to do whatever you want? apparently "no-knock" warrants that get issued like mints at a dance allow SWAT teams to flashbang a baby and no one faces criminal negligence charges. I guess regular warrants will let law enforcement really make us grab our ankles and do whatever they want to us. SR being a drug marketplace and AT&T "not being a drug marketplace" are irrelevent. Law enforcement is tasked with the EXACT SAME LAWS AS EVERYONE ELSE. Apparently you like to confuse law and justice with "who's got which legislatures on their payroll and can put people down for accessing their stuff without permission"
jdong 12y ago
You're assuming that weev actually ended up in prison for CFAA violations instead of acting like a dick in court.
- CPLX 12y ago
  Please elaborate or link to more on this. I haven't heard this perspective before.
  - jdong 12y ago
    Couldn't find too good articles, but basically he did everything he could to annoy the judge. http://www.vice.com/read/lulz-and-leg-irons-in-the-courtroom-with-weev http://www.vice.com/read/lulz-and-leg-irons-in-the-courtroom... http://www.nbcnews.com/id/51232207/ns/technology_and_science-tech_and_gadgets/t/hacker-weev-imprisoned-after-violent-public-hearing/ http://www.nbcnews.com/id/51232207/ns/technology_and_science...

by abutt 12y ago

rasz_pl 12y ago

Yes, just like hitting people with your car while texting, or shooting them in the back while they are on the ground handcuffed.

kazinator 12y ago

Well, there is a general principle that police can do things that ordinary citizens cannot. But, subject to rules, not indiscriminately. For instance, they can enter a property if they have a warrant, whereas if someone else does this, it is break and enter. If the FBI established "probable cause" that the server is used for crime, they could have gotten a warrant. I can't imagine it would have been difficult, so why wouldn't they have taken the legal precaution.

hugogee 12y ago
>so why wouldn't they have taken the legal precaution. That seems to be the golden question here.

meowface 12y ago

Assuming the FBI had a warrant, they had a right to do whatever they wanted to SR's server, no? I think weev's sentence was utter bullshit, but you can't equate the two things. SR was a drug marketplace, AT&T is not. This is like arguing police shouldn't be able to pick the lock of your drug safehouse door because you aren't allowed to pick other people's locks.

nickodell 12y ago
That's the thing - the FBI didn't have a warrant. They're trying to argue that they should be allowed to use the information anyway, because it wasn't 'hacking,' it was 'entering miscellaneous strings.' On a related note, why the hell didn't they get a warrant? I doubt it would have taken long.
- meowface 12y ago
  That does change things, I agree. However, to play devil's advocate a bit: the FBI essentially saw the output of the PHP call `print_r($_SERVER)`. The only thing that's actually sensitive in there is the server's IP address and hostname. This is not usually considered sensitive information. If it is to be believed that is as far as they went before getting a warrant (and I don't know if that's the case or not), then obtaining the IP address would allow them to actually serve a court order to the hosting provider. In that sense it could be seen as non-invasive and purely conducive to their investigation. But I agree there should not be a double standard. I think what weev did was not illegal, and what the FBI did here was not illegal, personally.
  - glomph 12y ago
    I remember reading rumors that this happened to some random user when the site went a bit wrong and they posted the information to the SR forums. I think it then got deleted fast. Could that have been the source of the ip leak?
- mrbabbage 12y ago
  A search warrant isn't a license for law enforcement to break the law; it's a license to lawfully conduct a search and seizure based on probable cause of the commission of a crime. Warrants exist because of the Fourth Amendment, which /specifically/ deals with searches and seizures; warrants have nothing to do with a nonexistent general rule preventing law enforcement from breaking any law. Law enforcement can and does break the law all the time to conduct sting operations regarding drugs, prostitution, child porn, hitmen, etc. For instance, the DEA can buy drugs in order to trace and later apprehend drug suppliers. They don't need a warrant to do this (though information gained from such a sting operation may later lead to a judge issuing a search warrant).
mig39 12y ago
Didn't they do the "miscellaneous strings" before they got a warrant?
shkkmo 12y ago
Are you saying that they are/should be allowed to pick to lock of that drughouse without a warrent? That's the relevant issue.
- fleitz 12y ago
  They weren't lock picking they were just putting miscellaneous bits of metal in his door lock.
  - jasonwocky 12y ago
    That's very much the point. The FBI can make an argument that they weren't trying to gain access (since a real attempt to gain access would have looked different from "entering miscellaneous strings"). They were trying to see what the system did when authorization attempts failed. As far as I know, there's no law against that. It's similar to going through a suspect's trash.
    - fnordfnordfnord 12y ago
      If they weren't trying to gain access, what were they trying to do? Buy drugs? I don't buy the trash analogy.
    - fleitz 12y ago
      Umm... since when is guessing passwords not an attempt to gain access?
joesmo 12y ago
I'm quite sure more drug deals have been and are arranged through AT&T's network than the Silk Road.
- meowface 12y ago
  Completely irrelevant. Many more drug deals have probably been arranged through email than through Silk Road too. SR's express purpose was to provide a marketplace for drug vendors to sell to drug buyers.
  - joesmo 12y ago
    My point is that both entities are drug marketplaces, thus they should not be treated differently when it comes to warrants and other legalities.
tedks 12y ago
A warrant entitles you to search a specific place for a specific thing. It isn't a letter of marque. Courts can't order the FBI to go Dirty Harry up the Internet if it brings down that damn drug website. That's illegal. Of course, who watches the watchers? The US government already imprisons people for life without trial or charge, interrogates using the same torture techniques the Soviets used on captured Japanese scientists, and surveils the diplomats of its own allies. It might be, and you know, probably is committing industrial espionage. At some point you have to raise your head up, see the forest amongst the trees, and just admit that the rule of law is dead in the world. The power asymmetries are too vast, and the people who rule your life know it. Sure you can equate the two cases. Someone with power decided weev and Ross would be removed from the board and so they were. Let that be a lesson to anyone who could piss off the truly powerful.
- IvyMike 12y ago
  > A warrant entitles you to search a specific place for a specific thing. Not all warrants are the same, but I've seen them do a lot of damage (broken-down doors, torn up mattresses, general mayhem) in the course of executing a warrant. This seems in spirit with that.
virtue3 12y ago
oh, so a warrant is a free pass to do whatever you want? apparently "no-knock" warrants that get issued like mints at a dance allow SWAT teams to flashbang a baby and no one faces criminal negligence charges. I guess regular warrants will let law enforcement really make us grab our ankles and do whatever they want to us. SR being a drug marketplace and AT&T "not being a drug marketplace" are irrelevent. Law enforcement is tasked with the EXACT SAME LAWS AS EVERYONE ELSE. Apparently you like to confuse law and justice with "who's got which legislatures on their payroll and can put people down for accessing their stuff without permission"

jdong 12y ago

You're assuming that weev actually ended up in prison for CFAA violations instead of acting like a dick in court.

CPLX 12y ago
Please elaborate or link to more on this. I haven't heard this perspective before.
- jdong 12y ago
  Couldn't find too good articles, but basically he did everything he could to annoy the judge. http://www.vice.com/read/lulz-and-leg-irons-in-the-courtroom-with-weev http://www.vice.com/read/lulz-and-leg-irons-in-the-courtroom... http://www.nbcnews.com/id/51232207/ns/technology_and_science-tech_and_gadgets/t/hacker-weev-imprisoned-after-violent-public-hearing/ http://www.nbcnews.com/id/51232207/ns/technology_and_science...