Slashdot Mirror


FBI Seizes Server Providing Anonymous Remailer Service

sunbird writes "At 16:00 ET on April 18, federal agents seized a server located in a New York colocation facility shared by May First / People Link and Riseup.net. The server was operated by the European Counter Network ("ECN"), the oldest independent internet service provider in Europe. The server was seized as a part of the investigation into bomb threats sent via the Mixmaster anonymous remailer received by the University of Pittsburgh that were previously discussed on Slashdot. As a result of the seizure, hundreds of unrelated people and organizations have been disrupted."

24 of 355 comments (clear)

  1. What does this help? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Unless the server was keeping logs, and I presume that it wasn't, how could seizing it possibly help the investigation?

    1. Re:What does this help? by Reasonable+Facsimile · · Score: 4, Funny

      Unless the server was keeping logs, and I presume that it wasn't, how could seizing it possibly help the investigation?

      The files are in the computer.

    2. Re:What does this help? by Wowsers · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's a clear signal to people that if you run a business and your server is in the US, the US can kill your business stone dead in a raid which may have nothing to do with you other than being co-hosted at a server farm. And people wonder why less business is going to the US.

      --
      Take Nobody's Word For It.
    3. Re:What does this help? by cyachallenge · · Score: 5, Funny

      If you remember in some of the pirate bay litigation they actually seized the computer RAM. :) The RAM contained case relevant material (at least when it had voltage going through it. Law and technical computer topics rarely mix well.

    4. Re:What does this help? by KiloByte · · Score: 4, Insightful

      or they are technically illiterate.

      From a technical point of view, their action is completely pointless. But from the social point of view, it works. They're sending a loud and clear message: if you try to stand up to your rights, you WILL be trampled.

      --
      The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
  2. Did they at least manage to figure out what server by Qzukk · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Or did they just kick over all the racks and rip everything out like they seem to do on a regular basis?

    --
    If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
  3. Correction by busyqth · · Score: 5, Funny

    FBI seizes terrorist server run by commies.
    Grateful American people throw candy and flowers at heroic agents.

  4. nonsense by Tom · · Score: 5, Interesting

    More importantly: Unless the server operator was a total dofus, this brings them exactly zero steps towards resolving their problem, because this is exactly the kind of attack that Mixmasters was designed to withstand.

    Idiots. Is nobody teaching these fools basics about the stuff they encounter?

    --
    Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    1. Re:nonsense by tibit · · Score: 5, Insightful

      So, they really need a whole big stinkin' server? If you're a professional, you'd switch the server to single user mode, dump the drive contents to a portable drive, reboot the server, and be on your merry way. If they have proper forensic data analysis tools, they should be able to deal with all popular raid arrays out there, so given those you shut the server down, use a portable disk imager to copy the drives, you then replace the drives, power the server back up, and are on your merry way. I just don't get what they need the server itself for. They are after the data, not the hardware.

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
    2. Re:nonsense by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Have you ever done data forensics? The first thing you learn is that it's not the same data if it's not on the original storage medium.

      Of course, what they SHOULD be able to do is shut the server down, clone the drive, pull the drive that has the warrant, and drop in the cloned drive. Of course, this requires cooperation with the victim, which obviously wasn't available in this case.

      To put it another way: they weren't after the hardware OR the data, they were after the incriminating evidence. Data by itself is hearsay (no way to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that it was preserved in the same state and context).

    3. Re:nonsense by BronsCon · · Score: 4, Funny

      the FBI have equipment that can clone disks without needing to even apply power to the drive.

      Then they're in the wrong business. They need to start producing and selling these ultra-efficient disks that don't require power for read operations. Imagine the battery life on your laptop running one of THOSE!

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    4. Re:nonsense by bmo · · Score: 4, Informative

      makes it possible to look for deleted or over-written information that might not exist on a duplicated disk.

      Deleted stuff is never erased, just marked as "free space" by the OS.

      Overwritten data, these days, is unrecoverable, even if only overwritten once. There has not been a single criminal case that I can remember where data was overwritten and then recovered on modern drives. The standard of multiple overwrites for true erasure is from the days when disks were physically huge, and the recorded area was huge, and head alignment wasn't always the greatest thing in the world.

      Go read the epilogue to Peter Gutmann's paper

      http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/secure_del.html

      A simple dd of the original drives would have given investigators all the information that was available, including deleted files.

      --
      BMO

  5. So someone sends some bomb threats .. by n5vb · · Score: 4, Interesting

    ..and the FBI seizes the server they used?

    Anyone else think this is more believable as a denial of service attack, or as a pretext for taking down a troublesome server they couldn't legally seize by any other means, than as an actual threat?

    Unless the person sending them was stupid enough to think that a remailer would protect them from ever being caught, and didn't care that it was going to mean taking down the whole service for everyone else using it..

  6. Can You Say False Flag Opp? by msaroff · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Someone bosts a gazillion bomb threats, and computers associated with OWS and other protests get seized.

    Awfully convenient.

    Any guess as to whether the bomb threats can be traced back th Langley or Ft. Meade?

  7. Re:What did you expect? by v1 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If we dont let them send bomb threats, we're undermining free speech and the Internet"

    To which I reply "They need to find a different way to discourage or stop them from sending bomb threats. Inflicting me with collateral damage in the quest for better law enforcement is unacceptable, and so is removing my ability to speak with anonymity."

    Given the choice, I think I'd rather deal with the occasional bomb threat than not be able to speak anonymously.

    --
    I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
  8. They had a warrant. by cpu6502 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    They followed proper constitutional procedure (for a change). So blame the judge not the fbi.

    --
    My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
  9. Re:What did you expect? by houghi · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Given the choice, I think I'd rather deal with the occasional bomb threat than not be able to speak anonymously.

    Give me liberty or give me death.
    There: Translated that for you.
    Also: I rather die on my feet then live on my knees.

    --
    Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
  10. Re:What did you expect? by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If we dont let them send bomb threats, we're undermining free speech and the Internet"

    To which I reply "They need to find a different way to discourage or stop them from sending bomb threats. Inflicting me with collateral damage in the quest for better law enforcement is unacceptable, and so is removing my ability to speak with anonymity."

    Given the choice, I think I'd rather deal with the occasional bomb threat than not be able to speak anonymously.

    Or, to totally mangle a famous quote:

    "First they came for the anonymous, but I was not anonymous, so I did nothing." That's probably true to life for most people actually....

  11. Re:Damn you George Bush! by PRMan · · Score: 4, Funny

    I simply don't get this comment....If Obama was the god of freedom that Leftists claim, he would have overturned the over-extending post-911 policies of the Bush Administration such as the Patriot Act instead of reveling in them and expanding them like many non-liberals warned that he would.

    And you said you didn't get the joke...

    --
    Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
  12. Re:Did they at least manage to figure out what ser by evil_aaronm · · Score: 4, Funny

    Man, you would not believe the rush you get from going all commando on racks of servers. "Blink those lights funny at me, beeyotch, and I'll bust a cap right between your USB ports!"

  13. Re:What did you expect? by DdJ · · Score: 5, Interesting

    FYI, we're not dealing with "the occasional bomb threat" here.

    The University of Pittsburgh (which is down the street from where I work) has gotten multiple bomb threats per day every day for weeks now.

    Many students have been driven out of their dorms, to live off campus, because the evacuations were too disruptive. The campus police are no doubt way over budget. Classes are disrupted to the point where folks on academic probation were told this semester "doesn't count".

    At this moment, as I type this, two buildings have evacuation notices. Earlier today, eleven buildings had to be evacuated.

    And today was not exceptional.

    If you want to follow this yourselves, evacuation notices go out over the @PittTweet twitter account.

    Now, I'm not trying to say "knocking every anonymous remailer off the internet is justified". Please don't assume I think that. I'm just pointing out that this very much isn't a case of "the occasional bomb threat". It's basically a full-on ongoing multi-day denial-of-service attack on the Pitt police, Pittsburgh police, and a bunch of the university, happening in meatspace.

  14. Who will FBI the FBI ? by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "Look, We're the FBI. That means your fucked, no matter what you do."

    The question that is begging to be asked is ---

    Who will FBI the FBI ?

    --
    Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
  15. Re:What did you expect? by Obfuscant · · Score: 4, Insightful

    However at the same time, can't the University of Pittsburgh and the Pittsburg police stop doing that and ignore the bomb threats, knowing that their leg is being pulled?

    No. The next time it might not be a joke.

    Universities are being sued for not doing enough to stop violence on campus when it happens, as rare as it is, and as much as they do. It's never enough for the lawyers and "grieving heirs".

    It's a large "corporation" to start with, and state schools have the combined pockets of the taxpayer to pick. You can't sue a school for being too careful, only if something happens and you can convince a judge that they might not have done enough. Why make it a slam-dunk victory for millions by ignoring the last, valid threat?

    This is the same reason that cops have to go check out 911 hangup calls. Most likely, it was someone who dialed by accident and then said "oh shit" and hung up. If they try to dodge the problem by turning their cell phone off, or not answering, the cops will show up to see if everything is ok. If the cops just ignored the call, they'd be sued by everyone involved when it turns out that the caller was forced to hang up, or the wire was ripped out of the wall, by her violent husband or vice versa, and someone wound up dead.

  16. Re:What did you expect? by Culture20 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    can't the University of Pittsburgh and the Pittsburg police stop doing that and ignore the bomb threats, knowing that their leg is being pulled? [...] "The boy who cried wolf" should also come into play

    There are two morals to the story of "The boy who cried wolf":
    Don't consistently lie or you'll get eaten (the moral for children)
    Sometimes, children's lies end up being the truth, so pay attention every time or they'll get eaten (the moral for adults)
    If you want to discourage lying, punish the liars when they're caught, but don't ignore what seems like a lie because it might be the truth.