7 ms·

Ross Ulbricht Calls for New Trial, Alleging Feds Hacked Tor

84 points by cgcardona 12y ago

tedunangst 12y ago
Is Ulbricht now going to claim that the server did belong to him?
300bps 12y ago
Most attorneys find it is more effective to present evidence during a trial than after their client has been convicted.
- peteretep 12y ago
  > Records of the investigation that were made available to > Ulbricht only just before his trial in January ... show > that
  - 300bps 12y ago
    If the opposing side dumps new information on you right before trial (as frequently happens), it is your responsibility to make a motion that you be allowed additional time to review it. If you made such a motion and the judge denied it, then that becomes the basis of an appeal in that the judge erred by not allowing the extra time. On the other hand, if you never made such an argument and then try to introduce new evidence in a post-trial motion or appeal, you will not be very successful.
- drzaiusapelord 12y ago
  Someone's time in the sun has expired and now he's trying to milk his fame some more. I imagine his long term plan is to rebrand himself Mitnick-style into a "hacker for the people." What's Mitnick doing nowadays? Oh right, selling exploits to the highest bidder.
  - downandout 12y ago
    Mitnick's sentence was ~5 years. Under the sentencing guidelines, Ulbricht will almost undoubtedly spend most if not all of the rest of his life in federal prison. He isn't trying to "milk his fame some more" - he is simply fighting for his life. He has nothing to lose by grasping at straws and exhausting all of his post-conviction options, so I don't fault him for trying.
  - simplicio 12y ago
    Ulbricht seems likely to do a lot more time than Mitnick ever did. By the time he gets out, I doubt most people will remember who he was.
    - chisleu 12y ago
      It depends. I see him as a freedom fighter on the front lines. I will always remember his sacrifices. I guess it depends on your world view.
      - Touche 12y ago
        He wasn't fighting for the freedom of those people he put hits out on.
        strathmeyer 12y ago
        Well, that's not very good trolling.
        chisleu 12y ago
        No, but they were threatening his life...
        nemo 12y ago
        They were threatening his business, not his life.
- rayiner 12y ago
  Post-trial motions are a standard part of trial practice. For example, a lawyer might argue that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support the jury's verdict. In fact, some of these arguments are waived on appeal if not made in a post-trial motion.
  - 300bps 12y ago
    I'm not at all surprised about post-trial motions. What surprises me is attempting to introduce "fresh evidence" (as it is called in the article) in a post-trial motion immediately after their client is convicted. In fact, some of these arguments are waived on appeal if not made in a post-trial motion. What you're saying is accurate but it's not the point. They are basing their new argument on "fresh evidence". To be successful, an appeal must be based on a legal argument and not on new evidence. Source: http://www.americanbar.org/groups/public_education/resources/law_related_education_network/how_courts_work/appeals.html http://www.americanbar.org/groups/public_education/resources... The appeals courts do not usually consider new witnesses or new evidence. Appeals in either civil or criminal cases are usually based on arguments that there were errors in the trial’s procedure or errors in the judge's interpretation of the law.
    - deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]
    - downandout 12y ago
      >" They are basing their new argument on "fresh evidence". To be successful, an appeal must be based on a legal argument and not on new evidence. You are confusing an appeal with a motion for a new trial. New evidence cannot be heard by any federal appellate court. However, a motion for a new trial (which is what they filed here) is filed with the district court that heard the case, and can include new evidence as a basis for the motion. Were this not possible, all of those people you hear about that are freed based on new DNA evidence, witnesses that admit to lying after trial, etc. would simply rot in prison. In fact, new evidence is one of the most common reasons for requesting a new trial.
- hluska 12y ago
  I am not a lawyer, but I read the filing and none of this seems related to his guilt or innocence. Rather, it seems to argue that law enforcement violated his rights and that prosecution evidence should not have been admitted.
  - spacehome 12y ago
    That's related to guilt in the American system. Evidence obtained illegally can't be used to convict. This is also why parallel construction wrong - it illegally routes around this concept. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fruit_of_the_poisonous_tree http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fruit_of_the_poisonous_tree
marincounty 12y ago
"prosecutors first responded that a misconfiguration of the site’s CAPTCHA had leaked its IP address when FBI investigators typed some “miscellaneous” characters into entry fields on the site’s homepage" Yea right? Tor was hacked, or was finally given the backdoor key by the NSA? I imagine the NSA held off for years, but finally knew the FBI would never stop the site--so they reluctantly helped out the FBI? I do wonder why the CIA didn't just assassinate Ross? (Personally, I think it was a mistake to let Terrorists question the security of TOR?)
gwern 12y ago
Original, on Reddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/DarkNetMarkets/comments/2y9q55/fbi_control_of_exit_nodes_beginning_2012_interest/ https://www.reddit.com/r/DarkNetMarkets/comments/2y9q55/fbi_... No one's quite sure why the FBI would be logging exit node traffic in an investigation aimed at the SR1 hidden service.
- TazeTSchnitzel 12y ago
  re: exit node, this comment might explain it: https://www.reddit.com/r/DarkNetMarkets/comments/2y9q55/fbi_control_of_exit_nodes_beginning_2012_interest/cp7stnw https://www.reddit.com/r/DarkNetMarkets/comments/2y9q55/fbi_... Seems plausible to me.
- maxerickson 12y ago
  It doesn't seem so likely that the Fourth Amendment would protect information sent into Tor. I mean, I have only a very basic understanding of it and still understand that exit nodes will have a lot of visibility into traffic, so I had better consider that before sending data over Tor. They've even made PSAs about this (I looked it up just now): https://blog.torproject.org/blog/plaintext-over-tor-still-plaintext https://blog.torproject.org/blog/plaintext-over-tor-still-pl...
  - kpcyrd 12y ago
    hidden service connections are end-to-end encrypted. Also, there is no exit node in a hidden service circuit. I think it makes more sense that they're in fact referring to a guard node, like another comment has pointed out.
    - maxerickson 12y ago
      I think a similar argument would apply, that a reasonably informed user would understand that some metadata will be shared with (components of) the Tor network (I think this is a reasonable description of what controlling a guard node gains the FBI). I understand why the FBI would need a warrant to capture traffic on some node owned by someone else. I don't see what would stop them from logging data from nodes that they placed on the network. Running a DOS is sketchier, but they do actually have some authority to not obey the law. (please everybody try to separate the reality that they do have this authority from arguments about whether they should.) edit: I fixed "Tor" in this comment and the one above, thanks to RemoteWorker.
at-fates-hands 12y ago
Unfortunately, this doesn't change anything. But for the record, let's just review a few facts: 1 - Ulbricht has never asserted the server belonged to him, as such, he has no assumption of privacy for whatever is on the servers. He could have claimed the servers belonged to him in order to challenge the search, which his legal team opted not to do. 2 - By running a site which engages in criminal activity (legally speaking of course) he violated the 3rd paty hosting companies terms of service, which invalidates his right to privacy for anything located on said server. 3 - Since the site was trafficking drugs (which is defined as criminal activity) the hacking of the site would still be legal since the FBI doesn't need warrants for such a search: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=494&invol=259 http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vo... The Fourth Amendment does not apply to the search and seizure by United States agents of property owned by a nonresident alien and located in a foreign country. Pp. 264-275. Pretty sure this request will be denied since his legal team didn't assert the information on the server belonged to him in the first place, regardless if the FBI hacked it or not.

84 points by cgcardona 12y ago

tedunangst 12y ago

Is Ulbricht now going to claim that the server did belong to him?

300bps 12y ago

Most attorneys find it is more effective to present evidence during a trial than after their client has been convicted.

peteretep 12y ago
> Records of the investigation that were made available to > Ulbricht only just before his trial in January ... show > that
- 300bps 12y ago
  If the opposing side dumps new information on you right before trial (as frequently happens), it is your responsibility to make a motion that you be allowed additional time to review it. If you made such a motion and the judge denied it, then that becomes the basis of an appeal in that the judge erred by not allowing the extra time. On the other hand, if you never made such an argument and then try to introduce new evidence in a post-trial motion or appeal, you will not be very successful.
drzaiusapelord 12y ago
Someone's time in the sun has expired and now he's trying to milk his fame some more. I imagine his long term plan is to rebrand himself Mitnick-style into a "hacker for the people." What's Mitnick doing nowadays? Oh right, selling exploits to the highest bidder.
- downandout 12y ago
  Mitnick's sentence was ~5 years. Under the sentencing guidelines, Ulbricht will almost undoubtedly spend most if not all of the rest of his life in federal prison. He isn't trying to "milk his fame some more" - he is simply fighting for his life. He has nothing to lose by grasping at straws and exhausting all of his post-conviction options, so I don't fault him for trying.
- simplicio 12y ago
  Ulbricht seems likely to do a lot more time than Mitnick ever did. By the time he gets out, I doubt most people will remember who he was.
  - chisleu 12y ago
    It depends. I see him as a freedom fighter on the front lines. I will always remember his sacrifices. I guess it depends on your world view.
    - Touche 12y ago
      He wasn't fighting for the freedom of those people he put hits out on.
      - strathmeyer 12y ago
        Well, that's not very good trolling.
      - chisleu 12y ago
        No, but they were threatening his life...
        nemo 12y ago
        They were threatening his business, not his life.
rayiner 12y ago
Post-trial motions are a standard part of trial practice. For example, a lawyer might argue that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support the jury's verdict. In fact, some of these arguments are waived on appeal if not made in a post-trial motion.
- 300bps 12y ago
  I'm not at all surprised about post-trial motions. What surprises me is attempting to introduce "fresh evidence" (as it is called in the article) in a post-trial motion immediately after their client is convicted. In fact, some of these arguments are waived on appeal if not made in a post-trial motion. What you're saying is accurate but it's not the point. They are basing their new argument on "fresh evidence". To be successful, an appeal must be based on a legal argument and not on new evidence. Source: http://www.americanbar.org/groups/public_education/resources/law_related_education_network/how_courts_work/appeals.html http://www.americanbar.org/groups/public_education/resources... The appeals courts do not usually consider new witnesses or new evidence. Appeals in either civil or criminal cases are usually based on arguments that there were errors in the trial’s procedure or errors in the judge's interpretation of the law.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
  - downandout 12y ago
    >" They are basing their new argument on "fresh evidence". To be successful, an appeal must be based on a legal argument and not on new evidence. You are confusing an appeal with a motion for a new trial. New evidence cannot be heard by any federal appellate court. However, a motion for a new trial (which is what they filed here) is filed with the district court that heard the case, and can include new evidence as a basis for the motion. Were this not possible, all of those people you hear about that are freed based on new DNA evidence, witnesses that admit to lying after trial, etc. would simply rot in prison. In fact, new evidence is one of the most common reasons for requesting a new trial.
hluska 12y ago
I am not a lawyer, but I read the filing and none of this seems related to his guilt or innocence. Rather, it seems to argue that law enforcement violated his rights and that prosecution evidence should not have been admitted.
- spacehome 12y ago
  That's related to guilt in the American system. Evidence obtained illegally can't be used to convict. This is also why parallel construction wrong - it illegally routes around this concept. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fruit_of_the_poisonous_tree http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fruit_of_the_poisonous_tree

marincounty 12y ago

"prosecutors first responded that a misconfiguration of the site’s CAPTCHA had leaked its IP address when FBI investigators typed some “miscellaneous” characters into entry fields on the site’s homepage" Yea right? Tor was hacked, or was finally given the backdoor key by the NSA? I imagine the NSA held off for years, but finally knew the FBI would never stop the site--so they reluctantly helped out the FBI? I do wonder why the CIA didn't just assassinate Ross? (Personally, I think it was a mistake to let Terrorists question the security of TOR?)

gwern 12y ago

Original, on Reddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/DarkNetMarkets/comments/2y9q55/fbi_control_of_exit_nodes_beginning_2012_interest/ https://www.reddit.com/r/DarkNetMarkets/comments/2y9q55/fbi_... No one's quite sure why the FBI would be logging exit node traffic in an investigation aimed at the SR1 hidden service.

TazeTSchnitzel 12y ago
re: exit node, this comment might explain it: https://www.reddit.com/r/DarkNetMarkets/comments/2y9q55/fbi_control_of_exit_nodes_beginning_2012_interest/cp7stnw https://www.reddit.com/r/DarkNetMarkets/comments/2y9q55/fbi_... Seems plausible to me.
maxerickson 12y ago
It doesn't seem so likely that the Fourth Amendment would protect information sent into Tor. I mean, I have only a very basic understanding of it and still understand that exit nodes will have a lot of visibility into traffic, so I had better consider that before sending data over Tor. They've even made PSAs about this (I looked it up just now): https://blog.torproject.org/blog/plaintext-over-tor-still-plaintext https://blog.torproject.org/blog/plaintext-over-tor-still-pl...
- kpcyrd 12y ago
  hidden service connections are end-to-end encrypted. Also, there is no exit node in a hidden service circuit. I think it makes more sense that they're in fact referring to a guard node, like another comment has pointed out.
  - maxerickson 12y ago
    I think a similar argument would apply, that a reasonably informed user would understand that some metadata will be shared with (components of) the Tor network (I think this is a reasonable description of what controlling a guard node gains the FBI). I understand why the FBI would need a warrant to capture traffic on some node owned by someone else. I don't see what would stop them from logging data from nodes that they placed on the network. Running a DOS is sketchier, but they do actually have some authority to not obey the law. (please everybody try to separate the reality that they do have this authority from arguments about whether they should.) edit: I fixed "Tor" in this comment and the one above, thanks to RemoteWorker.

at-fates-hands 12y ago

Unfortunately, this doesn't change anything. But for the record, let's just review a few facts: 1 - Ulbricht has never asserted the server belonged to him, as such, he has no assumption of privacy for whatever is on the servers. He could have claimed the servers belonged to him in order to challenge the search, which his legal team opted not to do. 2 - By running a site which engages in criminal activity (legally speaking of course) he violated the 3rd paty hosting companies terms of service, which invalidates his right to privacy for anything located on said server. 3 - Since the site was trafficking drugs (which is defined as criminal activity) the hacking of the site would still be legal since the FBI doesn't need warrants for such a search: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=494&invol=259 http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vo... The Fourth Amendment does not apply to the search and seizure by United States agents of property owned by a nonresident alien and located in a foreign country. Pp. 264-275. Pretty sure this request will be denied since his legal team didn't assert the information on the server belonged to him in the first place, regardless if the FBI hacked it or not.