Slashdot Mirror
FBI Seizes All Servers In Dallas Data Center
1sockchuck writes "FBI agents have raided a Dallas data center, seizing servers at a company called Core IP Networks. The company's CEO has posted a message saying the FBI confiscated all its customer servers, including gear belonging to companies that are almost certainly not under suspicion. The FBI isn't saying what it's after, but there are reports that it's related to video piracy, sparking unconfirmed speculation that the probe is tied to the leaking of Wolverine."
On the train on the way home there was a guy walking through the car selling the latest X-men on DVD. I think this is the proverbial "horse already left the barn" situation. However, what happened serves as a good example of what the future holds once the Federal government gets enhanced "cyber security" powers. Imagine what happens when say, for example, a Chinese botnet operator decides to launch an attack against (insert agency here) using zombies exclusively on Verizon's network. Oops... millions of Verizon customers are suddenly SOL. If you've ever had to deal with law enforcement when it comes to recovering what they took from you, you know what a nightmare this could turn into.
This is nuts, every server in a data center? do they realize the cost that might incur to all these non infringing companies? The wolverine leak nothing, no one was deprived of anything so there is no monetary loss but this? This is plain incredible. Good job FBI, you just caused many people a lot of trouble for a stupid movie.
Do the Americans now live in a police state that is controlled by the RIAA. This may sound alarmist but when innocent companies are hurt by the use of FBI force - how far away is it?
Stay tuned for new sig...
... and the memory fades with age. But I seem to remember a time when this was a free country, with due process of law and such.
It's all over p2p networks, it's in IRC channels, it's on usenet. Good luck getting rid of all traces of it.
I'm assuming Wolverine is a movie not a music album, so that would be our overlords at the MPAA, not the RIAA.
The determined Real Programmer can write Fortran programs in any language.
I'm wondering the same thing, how the hell can they get servers own by different entities. Does the warrant not require a specific person to be raided? These FBI went to far on this one and the job who approved this is a idiot.
This is not the question to ask.
The question to ask is what good are the public getting in return for giving up such freedoms, AND paying for the giving up of such freedoms (dont forget who pay for the FBI, Police, etc), and paying for the protection of the revinue to copyright owning entities.
Now, this is supposed to be the entering in to the public domain (as in becoming free..) of creative content at the end of the copyright period - a fair and equitable arrangement one could say - we protect their profits for a period, and at the end of that, we gain the advantage of their creativity openly.
However, that was in the days of limited copyright periods, these days thanks both to DRM (an unbroken DRM means an item cannot become free after its legal protection stops) and changes to copyright periods (a lot of things we have already paid to protect should be public now, and are not..) we, the people, have lost our end of the 'bargain'.
Perhaps it is time for the copyright owners to be carrying the full costs of enforcing their copyrights, since they don't feel the public should be allowed future advantage of their content?
I wonder what the yearly government costs of copyright enforcement is, it seems more and more public resource is bring piled in to protecting it..
Or perhaps the people (that is, government) should simply cease on their end of the bargain in return, and in light of technological DRM, revoke copyright laws, as they were enacted to protect otherwise unprotectable items (such as books) - does DRM mean we shouldn't have to suffer copyright laws?
Once upon a time there was balance, an equitable deal between the state and copyright holders - the copyright holders have long since stopped holding up their end of the bargain....
Wrong. When I take planes, they just fly straight through the clouds. Think how hard it would be to suck up and confiscate all of them.
I share the sentiment of your first paragraph. I've never been one to be too upset about government surveillance, because I realize it helps keep me safe, and such.
I wouldn't jump so far as to say "This is a dictator-esque move", though. This is a move that shows what happens when you take a phone call from someone hysterically complaining about something and don't wait for them to calm down before you do whatever they told you to.
the act of taking every single server is to:
-- be punitive
-- scare other colos
-- dissuade this current target from going back into operation without screening clients
It's probably the greatest fear of every rental property manager/at-home landlord, that renters/tenants would conduct illegal activities on the premises, then subject every occupant to subpoena and total confiscation of every electronic and paper file, loss of hardware, and invasion of privacy, and stultefying disruption of business, schooling and other activities.
But, really, FBI, why not just run a deep scan using your own cracking tools? You could be on and off the property. We pay MORE than enough tax dollars that you guys & girls could arrive and spend 3 or 4 hours collecting what you need via data and paper scanners. Once you get stuff into a property room and all tagged, what is the likelihood of expedient recovery by the original owner? What if you guys REALLY find NOTHING, and there is some internal intertia to not look stupid, which might induce a decision to delay for as long as possible the return of confiscated stuff.
Hell, if i'm under suspicion, i'd GLADLY let you scan in exchange for not hauling my shit off. And, since you guys have the technical means to record virtually every electronic transaction or all traffic long before you descend upon your targets, they may never even be aware of being a person of interest. Even if they are guilt of SOMEthing, do you need to shut down every single aspect of their lives to prosecute a subpoena-limited scope of crime? You may as well seize their account balances AND take their debit cards and garnish their wages to prevent repurchase of new hardware onto which recovery tapes NOT at the target address will go. Then what, cat and mouse? Get the target to self-incriminate by demanding to know every last data archive location?
We need a more civilized form of crime prosecution that does not add insult to injury before the "suspect" even goes to jail. Oh, and for those who wish to slam me, yes, i am aware that by the time the new footage shows boxes being carried to the evidence van while the cuffed suspect is led to the warm mobile chariot seat is *likely* long under surveillance *AND* is guilty as hell even without a trial date come and gone, there STILL are times when law enforcement just goes in and scoops up EVERYthing as if to shut down someone. Many times, judges allow the suspect who is not a flight risk to post bail or be out on OR if tagged/collared. In the meantime, it is a MEAN time to be at an upsidedown-turned home, lacking all gear, and feeling watched. Yep, the pirates of nation-crumbling data and apps, kiddie-porn peddlers, stock options inside traders, illegal gambling and secrets thieves SHOULD be watched, but some crimes that are prosecuted (pursued before prosecution as well as punished by jury/judge) are done so at the behest of some foul-play-crying corporation having a hosed up business model.
Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
from the owners statements.. "unwarranted early morning raid" Fist they must have a warrant and it must specifies each piece of equipment that they are taking and why, This is why you have an attorney on call, and it also sounds like the agent threated this person, which is a crime.. Under the Fourth Amendment, searches must be reasonable and specific. This means that a search warrant must be specific as to the specified object to be searched for and the place to be searched. Other items, rooms, outbuildings, persons, vehicles, etc. may require additional search warrants. (from Wikipedia) Just like when the police came by (and had the wrong house) and wanted to see my car, I asked to see the warrant.. When they got done talking lots of crap about how much trouble I was in for not letting them search my car, they then figured out that they were at the wrong house.. just because they ask does not mean you have to let them in.. also if you are an effected business, I would contact your lawyer and have them contact the FBI about loss of productivity, and if your servers were not on the warrant, then start a suite on unlawful seizure..
reason.
There is also speculation on illegal drug communication.
Also not confirmed.
Things to remember.
A) They had a warrant
B) We are only here one side
C) There is a lot of speculation as to why.
Lets watch closely, but avoid jumping to any conclusion.
No I'm not new hear, just overly optimistic.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
I normally don't care about privacy issues. The government can tap my phone if they feel like it, they can look into my purchasing records, they can stake out my house. They can look into my past work history. I really don't care.
They don't care about you. It isn't about you. They care about rising politicians and others who challenge the status quo.
I care deeply about personal privacy for the same reason I care deeply about gun rights - chances are that I will never carry a weapon in my life, but our society as a whole is made safer and more resilient by the fact that law-abiding citizens can own and use them in self defense. Similarly our society is made stronger and more egalitarian when everybody has privacy, the people who can make a difference and the common peons like the rest of us.
Three points...
1. We hope that at some point the FBI will have to pay the full restitution for restoring service and loss of business etc.
2. Good excuse to have redundant servers in multiple jurisdictions (i.e. at least one outside of the US..)
3. Good excuse for people running colo's to get onto their congress critters to setup specific laws preventing this type of action (i.e. limit search and seizure to exactly the servers specified and no specifying ALL servers for a location that has multiple commercial services) ..
The exact and precise analogy would be to have them show up at a reasonably sized office building with multiple lease holders and demand to search and seize every computer in the entire building. It is a ridiculous idea and they would be laughed out of court. Colocation sites need to be recognized as having the same legal setup and protections.
You write much, but get little. Sorry.
Who profited from this the most? Even if it has nothing to do with a leaked movie.
There, all base for your reasoning is gone.
This is all just a giant theater. Psychology. Simple, but effective.
I think it is another step to a 1984 type "society".
Do not think they are stupid. They know exactly what they doing.
Maybe not the grunt who was raiding. But the guy behind the big desk for sure.
Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
Romania or Belarus, where nobody gives a shit!
I killed da wabbit -Elmer Fudd
The second paragraph is one reason why your feelings stated in the first paragraph are harmful to you and everyone else.
Privacy is its own reason.
What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
Your comment is misguided, I also hold Clinton responsible for the DMCA and our Senators for passing laws etc. I certainly agree with holding congress critters accountable, unfortunately you did not carefully read my post, and have posted a reply that does not address my point. The point is that heavy handed action by the justice department has now publicly begun under the Obama administration.
The justice department has long taken direction for it's priorities from the president at the time. Since senior justice department lawyers are ex **AA they have directed the justice department to take a heavy handed approach on this type of matter. It was no different under Bush or Reagan with their priorities (war on drugs etc).
You are a naive fool if you think Obama does not have influence on such matters. He has already used his influence with those he appointed. Much as many people held Bush accountable for the actions of Justice under him (Patriot act actions and so) they must also hold Obama equally culpable.
They told if George W. Bush got elected...
we would be seeing over-the-top raids like this and an attack on our civil liberties.
I can hardly wait until we elect a Democrat and all of this will stop.
Well, I had no interest at all in this movie to begin with. But you got me thinking, if it's so important to "them" to suppress it, it's in everyone's interest to make "them" fail. So I joined the revolution, I'm downloading it now, from the 100000+ seeds.
As someone once said, if you're not part of the solution then you are part of the problem. Right now the problem is getting rid of those copyright nazis. If downloading Wolverine eats into their profits, let's all download Wolverine!
Unbelievable.
I've worked in three different datacenters in my professional life, and I think I can safely say that this company is done for. Five+ days of all servers being offline... not just offline, but seized and inspected thoroughly... clients are going to cancel in droves once things come back online, if they haven't already called the company and made their intentions clear.
Whether or not this had anything to do with the whole Wolverine leak is unknown to me, but if it is, how is it OK to seize the assets of an entire datacenter? I sincerely doubt that the majority of those customers were engaging in the distribution of pirated material. What justification could you possibly have for affecting not only the longevity of the service provider, but the customers *at* the service provider, just so you can find some sleezy pirate with your movie on his servers. Is it worth hundreds of thousands (perhaps even millions) of dollars in *others' money*? Yeah, I don't think so.
The only time this would be even remotely OK is if the datacenter housed some gigantic criminal operation where the vast majority of its customers were committing crimes, and the DC was in on it.
I really wonder what this says for other datacenters that unknowingly house customers who engage in criminal behavior. Because, statistically, every datacenter that serves the public at large is bound to have at least one. As a provider, how am I to know what's going on in every corner of my DC? Am I to surveil all the traffic, all the servers, everything? And if that's my duty now, isn't that a bit disturbing?
That assumes that Eldred vs. Ashcroft wasn't itself an incorrect judgment. Even USSC judges aren't fallible, after all, and they're hardly impartial when it comes to the scope of the government's legislative, executive, and judicial powers.
Personally, I've always thought the legitimacy of a court which derives its powers from the Constitution defining the meaning of that Constitution to be highly suspect. The Constitution is supposed to be an agreement between the government and the people, after all; in what other circumstance would it be deemed acceptable for one party to an agreement to have exclusive control over that agreement's interpretation? Particularly when that party is the agent, not the principal?
"The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
Paying attention != spying
Governments have throughout history been a terrible danger to the people subjected to the governments. That is why a set British Colonists decided to rebel against their government and form the US some time ago. That is why they created a constitution designed to limit government power.
So yes, you conflating "paying attention" with violating privacy and violating constitutional principals to which our government is supposed to be subservient, is dangerous, self-destructive, and the height of unpatriotic behavior.
What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
Well, the GP did actually say that as a result of Obama picking Biden (who has strong *AA ties) for VP, that there are a number of ex-*AA lawyers appointed to the Justice Department. So he did try to establish a line of responsibility
In fact, the transition committee, which was composed of a number of Democratic party old guard, probably said "who can we get for these Justice positions?" and Biden could have thrown the names of some people he knew in the hat. Obama is said to have personally approved at least the cabinet level candidates once vetted by the search committee. In practice, the vetting process sucked and the *AA background of those people may not have been on the fact sheet that would have shown up in front of Obama. The ones that weren't picked by that committee would have been picked by Holder. At some point though, the President has to delegate or nothing gets done, and that means that things get out of his direct control. He can't stay on top of what's happening in the US government like he did with his campaign
Now if some more SNAFUs like this happen and Obama doesn't call people on the carpet for it, then I think there will be some reason to blame him, but I think it's a little early to do that. Let's face it, with the crap he's got on his plate right now, this is small potatoes that he just doesn't have time for. Now if something like this happens again in a year, I'd be more interested in seeing if he puts a few Justice heads on the chopping block.
Laissez lire, et laissez danser; ces deux amusements ne feront jamais de mal au monde. - Voltaire
I'm thinking stuff like this could be the proverbial thorn in the side of cloud computing.
IANAL, and I'm not familiar with what it takes to get a warrant such as this. This being /., that shouldn't slow me down a wit here. :) Didn't a Judge have to sign this?
If yes, then it is the Judge who really needs to have a hard long look cast in their direction. Law enforcement agencies are *always* going to apply a warrant as broadly as possible. They want to turn the case from red to black - it's the same thing as account managers making their number, whereby a lot of them will sell *any* service, regardless of whether you can actually support what they're proposing, as long as they can argue they hit their number.
The Judge should be the check/balance in the process, and force for a narrowing of the warrant's scope to a reasonable point, which allows the FBI to gather the evidence required (I mean, most of us want the bad guys to get caught, right?), while ensuring that other companies are not unreasonably hosed by the warrant. Being hosed means losing all your gear and service delivery facilities when the evidence used to get the warrant in the first place in *no* way implicates your company.
It doesn't take much grey matter or thought for a Judge to figure out that a finer granularity of shutdown than the main power supply switch for the building or data centre floors does indeed exist.
The Judge is a jerk-off, based on current facts and my wildly speculative opinions and lack of experience.
[17] Leary, T., White, C., Wood, P. R., Bhabha, W. D., and Wirth, N. Lambda calculus considered harmful. In Proceedings
Well, my memory goes back to this: SJ Games vs. the Secret Service, which happened in 1990. So your memory must be longer than mine to recall a time when such things didn't happen.
Btw, what was the outcome of that? Oh yeah:
The judge gave the Secret Service a tongue-lashing and ruled for SJ Games on two out of the three counts, and awarded over $50,000 in damages, plus over $250,000 in attorney's fees.
and
the creation of the Electronic Frontier Foundation.
And that all occurred after a raid on a pretty small company. Imagine what will happen this time. Provided that the colo provider can survive the loss of it's tenants.
--
$tar -xvf
Mr. Lynd would not tell me why he raided our datacenter or what he was looking for.
Let's see... Where was that? Oh yes;
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Agent Lynd needs a remedial reading lesson. It's not merely illegal, it's unconstitutional to search without a warrant, and the warrant has to say what they're looking for.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
blanket confiscating servers is an incompetency fbi has to account for. if they do not know that a datacenter houses countless corporations' gear, they have to pay for it.
Read radical news here