4 ms·

Actually, an IRS agent found Google search results that tied him to Silk Road: "That search led him to a thread on bitcointalk.org called 'A Heroin Store.' One

by t0dd 12y ago

Actually, an IRS agent found Google search results that tied him to Silk Road: "That search led him to a thread on bitcointalk.org called 'A Heroin Store.' One of the posts there was from a user named 'altoid' who gave instructions on how to access Silk Road. 'You guys have a ton of great ideas. Has anyone seen Silk Road yet?' altoid wrote. 'It’s kind of like an anonymous Amazon.com. I don’t think they have heroin on there, but they are selling other stuff. They basically use bitcoin and tor to broker anonymous transactions.' Once Alford had the username, the rest was as simple as clicking around. In a separate thread, altoid posted that he was looking for an IT pro. 'If interested, please send your answers to the following questions to rossulbricht at gmail dot com.' That’s all Alford needed to get a warrant to gain access to that email. By comparing the data found in the email to the data found on Ulbricht’s laptop, the government has created an even more convincing argument that Ross Ulbricht is, in fact, Silk Road’s Dread Pirate Roberts." http://insidebitcoins.com/news/silk-road-trial-irs-special-agent-found-ulbricht-by-googling/29344 http://insidebitcoins.com/news/silk-road-trial-irs-special-a...

WillNotDownvote 12y ago
So just discussing Silk Road was enough to get a warrant to look at his email? There's nothing at all suspicious about the tech recruiting post. It's the same thing everyone here has seen 10,000 times. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=47811.msg568744#msg568744 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=47811.msg568744#msg5...
- t0dd 12y ago
  He was possibly the first person to ever post about Silk Road. A few months later, that same user is recruiting for a "lead developer in a venture backed bitcoin startup company" conveniently avoiding specifics. If you recall, they also seized a package sent to Ulbricht containing nine fake IDs with different names in July 2013 (he was arrested three months later). Cumulatively, that's probably enough to merit suspicion/the issuance of a warrant to search his e-mail.
  - WillNotDownvote 12y ago
    There is literally nothing unusual about "conveniently avoiding specifics" in a tech recruiting post. It's not even a tiny bit suspicious. He may or may not have been the first to post about Silk Road on Bitcointalk, or anywhere for that matter, but that seems awfully thin ground for getting a warrant. I'm surprised HN seems to be in favor of such action.
    - rayiner 12y ago
      You can't just look at the individual bits of evidence in isolation to determine whether there was probable cause, you have to look at it all together.
    - t0dd 12y ago
      To you, there might be "literally nothing" suspicious about it, but when that user's previous post on the forum discussed Silk Road, likely for the first time ever, a law enforcement officer, having few leads to go on, might feel inclined to investigate that individual further. Again, there's also the tiny detail about a package with nine fake IDs being sent to Ulbricht in July 2013. DHS agents confronted him about it around that time: "The photos also matched his Texas driving license, which the DHS investigators asked to see. All of this happened around the same time that Dread Pirate Roberts was discussing obtaining fake IDs on Silk Road, the FBI affidavit said. The FBI put the final piece of the puzzle in place by pulling Ulbricht's Texas driving license and comparing it with the license that Ulbricht showed the DHS. The numbers matched. At this point, it must have considered that it had enough evidence." http://www.coindesk.com/ross-ulbrichts-silk-road-head-smacking-rookie-errors/ http://www.coindesk.com/ross-ulbrichts-silk-road-head-smacki...
      - WillNotDownvote 12y ago
        Lack of leads is no excuse to start digging in people's privacy. The fake ID thing seems to have occurred after the warrant was issued, so I'm not sure I see its relevance.
    - Rylinks 12y ago
- anigbrowl 12y ago
  There's nothing suspicious about the recruitment ost, but it does contain his contact details. There is somethin gsuspicious about the 'have you heard about this great new site' post - a classic come-on - but it lacks identifying information about the author. One post provides the probable cause, the other supplies information about where to pursue further information.
  - WillNotDownvote 12y ago
    Right, so the whole 'probable cause' is built on one post about Silk Road. As I say, that seems an awfully thin reason to go digging in someone's email. I couldn't care less one way or the other about Ulbricht or Silk Road. Not my circus, not my monkeys, as they say. But I do think it's disturbing one moderately suspicious post is enough to have your privacy violated.
    - anigbrowl 12y ago
      I don't disagree, but given the highly illegal nature of the business (whether or not it ought to be legal is a separate, political question; I'd say yes, but as the law stands something like silk Road is clearly not legit), and Ulbricht's post being the social origin of public awareness, how is it not suspicious? If you can't find any earlier sign of its existence, it's reasonable* to suspect the social origin coincides with the operational origin. Remember he also posted (under the same username, altoid) to the Shroomery (a website dedicated to the consumption of psychedelic mushrooms) and set up a wordpress page with the basics of access and an invitation to come and sell drugs through there: http://web.archive.org/web/20110204025853/http://silkroad420.wordpress.com/ http://web.archive.org/web/20110204025853/http://silkroad420... I would imagine the FBI asked Wordpress for their logged data about that, which could have provided them with additional circumstantial evidence. * in the legal sense of being arguable via logic, as opposed to an inexplicable decision based on intuition or unthinking application of dogma.
PlzSnow 12y ago
"That’s all Alford needed to get a warrant to gain access to that email." I'm confused. Everyone on HackerNews keeps telling me that the NRA and FBI have stored every email that is sent. Why would they need a warrant and access?
- Synthpixel 12y ago
  It's not legal to spy on citizens. Assuming the NSA (and likely not the FBI) held illegally seized data, it still wouldn't be admissible as evidence in a trial.
  - seanp2k2 12y ago
    See also: http://thefreethoughtproject.com/parallel-construction-law-enforcement-illegally-collected-evidence-criminal-prosecutions/ http://thefreethoughtproject.com/parallel-construction-law-e...
  - etchalon 12y ago
    This was countered, above, in the states own motion. Basically, 1.) that's not how they did that, 2.) even if it was, it wasn't illegal, as they did not know at the time of the search that the server belonged to a citizen and 3.) Ulbricbht hasn't even admitted the server was his so how could we have violated his rights if the server didn't belong to him in the first place? People keep wanting to insist the government did something illegal here, but as far as I can tell, there's no evidence that speaks to that.
    - nitrogen 12y ago
      #3 seems very shifty; it's like forcing a defendant to choose between the 4th and the 5th.
      - etchalon 12y ago
        It actually requires neither. As many lawyers have pointed out in various threads, the defense team could have claimed the server was Ulbricht's property before trial, and had the motion failed, denied so during trial - so long as he never testified. I suppose it is slightly weird, but it kinda makes sense from a "lawyered!" perspective.

by t0dd 12y ago

WillNotDownvote 12y ago

So just discussing Silk Road was enough to get a warrant to look at his email? There's nothing at all suspicious about the tech recruiting post. It's the same thing everyone here has seen 10,000 times. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=47811.msg568744#msg568744 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=47811.msg568744#msg5...

t0dd 12y ago
He was possibly the first person to ever post about Silk Road. A few months later, that same user is recruiting for a "lead developer in a venture backed bitcoin startup company" conveniently avoiding specifics. If you recall, they also seized a package sent to Ulbricht containing nine fake IDs with different names in July 2013 (he was arrested three months later). Cumulatively, that's probably enough to merit suspicion/the issuance of a warrant to search his e-mail.
- WillNotDownvote 12y ago
  There is literally nothing unusual about "conveniently avoiding specifics" in a tech recruiting post. It's not even a tiny bit suspicious. He may or may not have been the first to post about Silk Road on Bitcointalk, or anywhere for that matter, but that seems awfully thin ground for getting a warrant. I'm surprised HN seems to be in favor of such action.
  - rayiner 12y ago
    You can't just look at the individual bits of evidence in isolation to determine whether there was probable cause, you have to look at it all together.
  - t0dd 12y ago
    To you, there might be "literally nothing" suspicious about it, but when that user's previous post on the forum discussed Silk Road, likely for the first time ever, a law enforcement officer, having few leads to go on, might feel inclined to investigate that individual further. Again, there's also the tiny detail about a package with nine fake IDs being sent to Ulbricht in July 2013. DHS agents confronted him about it around that time: "The photos also matched his Texas driving license, which the DHS investigators asked to see. All of this happened around the same time that Dread Pirate Roberts was discussing obtaining fake IDs on Silk Road, the FBI affidavit said. The FBI put the final piece of the puzzle in place by pulling Ulbricht's Texas driving license and comparing it with the license that Ulbricht showed the DHS. The numbers matched. At this point, it must have considered that it had enough evidence." http://www.coindesk.com/ross-ulbrichts-silk-road-head-smacking-rookie-errors/ http://www.coindesk.com/ross-ulbrichts-silk-road-head-smacki...
    - WillNotDownvote 12y ago
      Lack of leads is no excuse to start digging in people's privacy. The fake ID thing seems to have occurred after the warrant was issued, so I'm not sure I see its relevance.
  - Rylinks 12y ago
anigbrowl 12y ago
There's nothing suspicious about the recruitment ost, but it does contain his contact details. There is somethin gsuspicious about the 'have you heard about this great new site' post - a classic come-on - but it lacks identifying information about the author. One post provides the probable cause, the other supplies information about where to pursue further information.
- WillNotDownvote 12y ago
  Right, so the whole 'probable cause' is built on one post about Silk Road. As I say, that seems an awfully thin reason to go digging in someone's email. I couldn't care less one way or the other about Ulbricht or Silk Road. Not my circus, not my monkeys, as they say. But I do think it's disturbing one moderately suspicious post is enough to have your privacy violated.
  - anigbrowl 12y ago
    I don't disagree, but given the highly illegal nature of the business (whether or not it ought to be legal is a separate, political question; I'd say yes, but as the law stands something like silk Road is clearly not legit), and Ulbricht's post being the social origin of public awareness, how is it not suspicious? If you can't find any earlier sign of its existence, it's reasonable* to suspect the social origin coincides with the operational origin. Remember he also posted (under the same username, altoid) to the Shroomery (a website dedicated to the consumption of psychedelic mushrooms) and set up a wordpress page with the basics of access and an invitation to come and sell drugs through there: http://web.archive.org/web/20110204025853/http://silkroad420.wordpress.com/ http://web.archive.org/web/20110204025853/http://silkroad420... I would imagine the FBI asked Wordpress for their logged data about that, which could have provided them with additional circumstantial evidence. * in the legal sense of being arguable via logic, as opposed to an inexplicable decision based on intuition or unthinking application of dogma.

PlzSnow 12y ago

"That’s all Alford needed to get a warrant to gain access to that email." I'm confused. Everyone on HackerNews keeps telling me that the NRA and FBI have stored every email that is sent. Why would they need a warrant and access?

Synthpixel 12y ago
It's not legal to spy on citizens. Assuming the NSA (and likely not the FBI) held illegally seized data, it still wouldn't be admissible as evidence in a trial.
- seanp2k2 12y ago
  See also: http://thefreethoughtproject.com/parallel-construction-law-enforcement-illegally-collected-evidence-criminal-prosecutions/ http://thefreethoughtproject.com/parallel-construction-law-e...
- etchalon 12y ago
  This was countered, above, in the states own motion. Basically, 1.) that's not how they did that, 2.) even if it was, it wasn't illegal, as they did not know at the time of the search that the server belonged to a citizen and 3.) Ulbricbht hasn't even admitted the server was his so how could we have violated his rights if the server didn't belong to him in the first place? People keep wanting to insist the government did something illegal here, but as far as I can tell, there's no evidence that speaks to that.
  - nitrogen 12y ago
    #3 seems very shifty; it's like forcing a defendant to choose between the 4th and the 5th.
    - etchalon 12y ago
      It actually requires neither. As many lawyers have pointed out in various threads, the defense team could have claimed the server was Ulbricht's property before trial, and had the motion failed, denied so during trial - so long as he never testified. I suppose it is slightly weird, but it kinda makes sense from a "lawyered!" perspective.