4 ms·

Well, fuck. Regardless of the rest, if the government's story changed in a factual way before vs. after the government acquired the Silk Road server ... well, f

Well, fuck. Regardless of the rest, if the government's story changed in a factual way before vs. after the government acquired the Silk Road server ... well, further confirmation that parallel construction is in use and the "foreign tools" are being used in domestic cases. "the account by former Special Agent Tarbell in his Declaration differs in important respects from the government’s June 12, 2013, letter to Icelandic authorities. For example, that letter (which is Exhibit A to the government’s opposition papers) suggests the possibility of an alternative method for the government’s identifying and locating the Silk Road Server; " + "The Government’s response to Mr. Ulbricht’s omnibus motion filed September 5, 2014, contains a Declaration from former FBI Special Agent Christopher Tarbell, attached hereto as Exhibit 2 (Dkt #57). The Declaration contains a vague explanation of how the IP address of the Silk Road server was initially discovered. For instance, former SA Tarbell asserts that, “[w]hen I typed the Subject IP Address into an ordinary (non-Tor) web browser, a part of the Silk Road login screen (the CAPTCHA prompt) appeared.” Tarbell Decl. at ¶ 8. As explained below, based upon the Nginx server configuration files provided in discovery, that was not possible. "

cryoshon 12y ago
Agreed regarding the usage of parallel construction-- I am sure that somewhere in the government's internal guidelines on when to use parallel construction there is a catchall clause providing exemption for "exigent circumstances" which allows it to be abused domestically for any purpose. This case now reeks of heavy NSA involvement merely passed to the FBI for the actual enforcement side of things. I'm not sure if there's actually an angle here, but it would be extremely interesting if the defendants were able to impeach the FBI's evidence to such a degree so as to force an admittance of parallel construction. It's a no brainer that something fishy happened here.
- btouellette 12y ago
  They'd drop the case before they admitted parallel construction. The old Silk Road is gone and if Ross Ulbricht isn't innocent he won't ever be trying anything like this again knowing that the NSA and the FBI are going to be surveilling him to the best of their ability so they only thing they lose is locking him up in prison.
- 15020 12y ago
  Why would they incur a massive scandal for one guy they can surveil forever? If enough doubt is cast, they'll drop this.
- opendais 12y ago
  > I'm not sure if there's actually an angle here, but it would be extremely interesting if the defendants were able to impeach the FBI's evidence to such a degree so as to force an admittance of parallel construction. It's a no brainer that something fishy happened here. Tbh, I think that is basically their defense if you read between the lines. This defense reads as basically: "The FBI's explanation isn't technically possible for how they found the IP address therefore this case should be thrown out as they are lying." The FBI will never admit to parallel construction. They get enough leeway in their testimony, etc. that they can just say "We agree to disagree on what happened" and no one would question them seriously, from a justice system perspective.
tzs 12y ago
> "[...]For instance, former SA Tarbell asserts that, “[w]hen I typed the Subject IP Address into an ordinary (non-Tor) web browser, a part of the Silk Road login screen (the CAPTCHA prompt) appeared.” Tarbell Decl. at ¶ 8. As explained below, based upon the Nginx server configuration files provided in discovery, that was not possible. " I've not been following this closely, so the following question is based just on the above. How do we know that the configuration files that we have now (the ones that would make it impossible to show the login screen to an ordinary browser) were the ones in place at the time Tarbell claims to have seen the login screen via an ordinary browser?
- btouellette 12y ago
  The mtime attribute on the configuration files from the server image as explained in the brief. "The mtime for the live-ssl configuration file provided in Item 1 of discovery is June 7, 2013, and the phpmyadmin configuration is July 6, 2013"
  - tzs 12y ago
    That wouldn't always work on my server. When testing a new config, I often mv the old config out of the way, then put in the new one. If the new one doesn't work, I mv the old one back. I'm not consistent on this. Sometimes I just make a backup with cp, cp the new one in, and cp the backup back if the new one doesn't work. I honestly have no idea why I mv sometimes and cp sometimes.

cryoshon 12y ago

Agreed regarding the usage of parallel construction-- I am sure that somewhere in the government's internal guidelines on when to use parallel construction there is a catchall clause providing exemption for "exigent circumstances" which allows it to be abused domestically for any purpose. This case now reeks of heavy NSA involvement merely passed to the FBI for the actual enforcement side of things. I'm not sure if there's actually an angle here, but it would be extremely interesting if the defendants were able to impeach the FBI's evidence to such a degree so as to force an admittance of parallel construction. It's a no brainer that something fishy happened here.

btouellette 12y ago
They'd drop the case before they admitted parallel construction. The old Silk Road is gone and if Ross Ulbricht isn't innocent he won't ever be trying anything like this again knowing that the NSA and the FBI are going to be surveilling him to the best of their ability so they only thing they lose is locking him up in prison.
15020 12y ago
Why would they incur a massive scandal for one guy they can surveil forever? If enough doubt is cast, they'll drop this.
opendais 12y ago
> I'm not sure if there's actually an angle here, but it would be extremely interesting if the defendants were able to impeach the FBI's evidence to such a degree so as to force an admittance of parallel construction. It's a no brainer that something fishy happened here. Tbh, I think that is basically their defense if you read between the lines. This defense reads as basically: "The FBI's explanation isn't technically possible for how they found the IP address therefore this case should be thrown out as they are lying." The FBI will never admit to parallel construction. They get enough leeway in their testimony, etc. that they can just say "We agree to disagree on what happened" and no one would question them seriously, from a justice system perspective.

tzs 12y ago

> "[...]For instance, former SA Tarbell asserts that, “[w]hen I typed the Subject IP Address into an ordinary (non-Tor) web browser, a part of the Silk Road login screen (the CAPTCHA prompt) appeared.” Tarbell Decl. at ¶ 8. As explained below, based upon the Nginx server configuration files provided in discovery, that was not possible. " I've not been following this closely, so the following question is based just on the above. How do we know that the configuration files that we have now (the ones that would make it impossible to show the login screen to an ordinary browser) were the ones in place at the time Tarbell claims to have seen the login screen via an ordinary browser?

btouellette 12y ago
The mtime attribute on the configuration files from the server image as explained in the brief. "The mtime for the live-ssl configuration file provided in Item 1 of discovery is June 7, 2013, and the phpmyadmin configuration is July 6, 2013"
- tzs 12y ago
  That wouldn't always work on my server. When testing a new config, I often mv the old config out of the way, then put in the new one. If the new one doesn't work, I mv the old one back. I'm not consistent on this. Sometimes I just make a backup with cp, cp the new one in, and cp the backup back if the new one doesn't work. I honestly have no idea why I mv sometimes and cp sometimes.