5 ms·

"...they were just interacting with a web service in the way it is supposed to be interacted with - by sending it http requests" That line of reasoning sounds

"...they were just interacting with a web service in the way it is supposed to be interacted with - by sending it http requests" That line of reasoning sounds a lot like the Andre 'Weev' Auernheimer case [0], where he gathered AT&T customers' email addresses by interacting with a server simply by 'sending it HTTP requests.' The FBI made its position clear on that case, prosecuting Weev for "conspiracy to gain unauthorized access to computers" and ultimately getting the guy sentenced to three years in prison. The overarching circumstances are clearly different but undeniably parallel. It seems curious to me that the FBI could use these some sort of apparently 'criminal' tactics (by their own precedent) as legal grounds in their case against DPR. [0] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/18/andrew-weev-auernheimer_n_2900387.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/18/andrew-weev-auernhe...

thrownaway2424 12y ago
Are you also surprised that the FBI can shoot people dead, while most people would get prosecuted for that?
- zackbrown 12y ago
  "Are you also surprised that the FBI can shoot people dead, while most people would get prosecuted for that?" Hopefully the FBI won't be shooting people dead as a means of preparing a legal case—-that would be a pretty frightening 'ends justify the means' mindset. The crux of the matter is due process [0]. Granted, I'm not a lawyer nor am I well versed in legal processes: from a purely lay perspective, I just am seeing the FBI call tactic A a crime right before employing the same tactic A to indict someone else, and it smells like hypocrisy to me (honestly, more likely mistreatment of Weev than of DPR.) [0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Due_process http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Due_process [edit] add quote from parent comment
  - lifeisstillgood 12y ago
    > Hopefully the FBI won't be shooting people dead as a means of preparing a legal case It's certainly a novel approach to jury selection. Probably would be popular amongst a few State Bars.
    - knodi123 12y ago
      That would certainly be a very dire voire.
      - lifeisstillgood 12y ago
        Congratulations! You have been nominated for worst pun on HN 2014. An awards dinner in Anchorage is scheduled for December and Jon Stewart will be compering! :-)
res0nat0r 12y ago
The slight difference is the FBI is investigating the source of the Silk Road (not illegal), vs. trying to obtain private information of folks from ATT (illegal).
- jonknee 12y ago
  There is no difference if they did not have a warrant. The FBI has the ability to break into your house, but if they do that without having a warrant they can't use anything they found against you.
  - res0nat0r 12y ago
    I wouldn't call this breaking in, more like surveillance.
    - tatterdemalion 12y ago
      And with some very obvious exceptions, warrants are required to commit surveillance that violate certain privacy and property rights.
      - res0nat0r 12y ago
        The thing is I don't believe the court will find this to be violating any laws.
        tatterdemalion 12y ago
        I think you're probably right, but the argument up-thread was that the justice system is hypocritical regarding the permissibility of actions taken by the government compared to individual people.
    - Terr_ 12y ago
      IMO a better analogy for "just sending packets" would be entering a store and looking around, or sending a package through the mail. Why? Because it could EITHER be totally-legal or blatantly-illegal, depending on the time, place, manner, and other details. Maybe they entered during business-hours, or maybe they broke in at 3AM. Maybe the package was a gift, maybe it was an explosive.

thrownaway2424 12y ago

Are you also surprised that the FBI can shoot people dead, while most people would get prosecuted for that?

zackbrown 12y ago
"Are you also surprised that the FBI can shoot people dead, while most people would get prosecuted for that?" Hopefully the FBI won't be shooting people dead as a means of preparing a legal case—-that would be a pretty frightening 'ends justify the means' mindset. The crux of the matter is due process [0]. Granted, I'm not a lawyer nor am I well versed in legal processes: from a purely lay perspective, I just am seeing the FBI call tactic A a crime right before employing the same tactic A to indict someone else, and it smells like hypocrisy to me (honestly, more likely mistreatment of Weev than of DPR.) [0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Due_process http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Due_process [edit] add quote from parent comment
- lifeisstillgood 12y ago
  > Hopefully the FBI won't be shooting people dead as a means of preparing a legal case It's certainly a novel approach to jury selection. Probably would be popular amongst a few State Bars.
  - knodi123 12y ago
    That would certainly be a very dire voire.
    - lifeisstillgood 12y ago
      Congratulations! You have been nominated for worst pun on HN 2014. An awards dinner in Anchorage is scheduled for December and Jon Stewart will be compering! :-)

res0nat0r 12y ago

The slight difference is the FBI is investigating the source of the Silk Road (not illegal), vs. trying to obtain private information of folks from ATT (illegal).

jonknee 12y ago
There is no difference if they did not have a warrant. The FBI has the ability to break into your house, but if they do that without having a warrant they can't use anything they found against you.
- res0nat0r 12y ago
  I wouldn't call this breaking in, more like surveillance.
  - tatterdemalion 12y ago
    And with some very obvious exceptions, warrants are required to commit surveillance that violate certain privacy and property rights.
    - res0nat0r 12y ago
      The thing is I don't believe the court will find this to be violating any laws.
      - tatterdemalion 12y ago
        I think you're probably right, but the argument up-thread was that the justice system is hypocritical regarding the permissibility of actions taken by the government compared to individual people.
  - Terr_ 12y ago
    IMO a better analogy for "just sending packets" would be entering a store and looking around, or sending a package through the mail. Why? Because it could EITHER be totally-legal or blatantly-illegal, depending on the time, place, manner, and other details. Maybe they entered during business-hours, or maybe they broke in at 3AM. Maybe the package was a gift, maybe it was an explosive.