Slashdot Mirror


FBI Caught On Camera Returning Seized Server

sunbird writes "As previously covered on Slashdot, on April 18th the FBI seized a server located in a New York colocation facility shared by May First / People Link and Riseup.net. The server, which was operated by the European Counter Network ('ECN'), the oldest independent internet service provider in Europe, was seized in relation to bomb threats sent to the University of Pittsburgh using a Mixmaster anonymous remailer hosted on the server (search warrant). The FBI's action has been criticized by the EFF. Predictably, the threats continued even after the server seizure. On April 24th, the FBI quietly returned the server, without notifying either Mayfirst / People Link or riseup, and were caught on video doing it."

267 comments

  1. Anonymous mails to send bomb threats. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Come on people, if it weren't so inconsequential, I'd think it was a false flag operation to justify these kinds of seizures.

    But really, if that's what they'd want to do, it'd be more meaningful. So it's genuine dickhattery.

    1. Re:Anonymous mails to send bomb threats. by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      So it's genuine dickhattery.

      You can bet they've installed all sorts of spyware on it...

      --
      No sig today...
    2. Re:Anonymous mails to send bomb threats. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      in other news, the local keystone cops returned a section of highway in the middle of the night, hoping to avoid being noticed...

      that particular section of highway was used by a group of bandits to threaten passer-byes.

      after that section was removed at great inconvenience to everyone involved, the bandits simply moved down the highway a couple of miles...

    3. Re:Anonymous mails to send bomb threats. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      used by a group of bandits to threaten passers-by. FTFY

    4. Re:Anonymous mails to send bomb threats. by ArsenneLupin · · Score: 1

      Isn't "FTFY" supposed to be used for humorous pseudo-fixes, rather than actual non-funny spelling corrections?

  2. /.ed already? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is mayfirst.org already suffering /. syndrome?

    1. Re:/.ed already? by Jstlook · · Score: 1

      Is mayfirst.org already suffering /. syndrome?

      No, the FBI seized the mayfirst.org servers.

      --
      ---jstlook ---For that is the way of Elves, for they say both yes AND no, and mean every word of it. --- J.R.R.T.
  3. Do as I say, not as I do by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's not just an observation -- it's the very essence of government (second only to coercion).

    1. Re:Do as I say, not as I do by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Power is the end: Everything else is just a means to it. ...establishing, entrenching, and preserving power. This includes the hypocrisy and coercion you notice, which are really more symptoms of the relative disparity despite also being means.

  4. Wow thats a first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This really has to be a first. Usually you always hear about police and or FBI etc seizing servers and never returning them to said owner(s).

  5. So, they returned a server by G3ckoG33k · · Score: 3, Insightful

    So, they returned a server. Isn't that good?

    Maybe I don't understand the issue here.

    1. Re:So, they returned a server by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I was wondering the same thing. I know people here like to cast "The Man" in the worst possible light, but are they really just bitching that the FBI didn't jump up and down and wave their arms so that people would know that the server was back?

    2. Re:So, they returned a server by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 4, Informative

      Due process and transparency?

      This is borderline "coverup" activity.

      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
    3. Re:So, they returned a server by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Probably because they didn't make a public statement about it.

      Anytime a government agency does something, ideally they should state publicly wtf they're doing.

    4. Re:So, they returned a server by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      Returned what server? That server was always there.

    5. Re:So, they returned a server by PRMan · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Normally, in a free society, any interactions with Law Enforcement would be above board and you would be notified. That would be known as due process. This would be called an unreasonable search and seizure by the Founding Fathers of the US.

      --
      Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
    6. Re:So, they returned a server by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, they returned a server. Isn't that good?

      Maybe I don't understand the issue here.

      Yeah! Let's all point and laugh at them following through with the requirement to return the servers! We can shame them into never doing it again!

      Wait...

    7. Re:So, they returned a server by faedle · · Score: 1

      I'm sure it was returned.. um.. "better than they found it."

    8. Re:So, they returned a server by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Its nice they returned it, but it is trash now. Who knows what little devices the FBI might have installed on the thing.

      Even if the FBI didn't do anything to it (other than copy the contents of the HDs; which is probably a given), it is not possible to trust the integrity of this hardware anymore.

      BTW, probably time to start doing full disk encryption on co-lo machines, if not doing so already. Dropbear in initrd (debian makes this trivial to setup), allows remote unlock over SSH before root filesystem is mounted.

    9. Re:So, they returned a server by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The article says that the server's owners were never officially informed that the server had been taken, or that it was returned, so the issue seems to be the apparent secrecy around the operation. Additionally, the article says that the server didn't have any useful information or contribute to any arrests, so it seems that FBI is covering it up to save having to explain that they seized the server needlessly.

    10. Re:So, they returned a server by PRMan · · Score: 2

      Actually, the organization is called May 1st. They seized it in late April and returned it after May 1st. Coincidence?

      --
      Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
    11. Re:So, they returned a server by cpu6502 · · Score: 1

      Yeah I see no reason for concern. Obtaining warrants from a judge prior to entrance of a private building is so 1999. Ditto the Bill of Rights and Constitution. Having the FBI enter your private property is doubleplusgood.

      Now please watch the screen and remember:
      Under CISPA we know *everything* about your online habits.
      So behave.

      --
      My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    12. Re:So, they returned a server by yakatz · · Score: 4, Informative

      I think the concern stopping them from using the server now is the fear that the FBI modified "something" to log or report on traffic going through the server.
      Absent the implementation questions of whether there will be anything useful in the logs, when someone takes you equipment and returns it later without comment, it is not unreasonable to assume that something happened to it.

      (Note: I have participated in DoJ forensic training. The FBI procedures should be similar.)
      As to the validity of the concern: Investigators are not usually allowed to mount storage media in read/write mode. If they do so, any evidence obtained from that media will no longer be admissible in court. While many labs do have non-forensic connectors for storage media, they are usually not used for fear of accidentally tampering with the evidence.
      Investigators will make copies of media and manipulate the copies, but the originals will never be changed.
      This does not say that there is no way from them to put some kind of logging software/firmware/hardware on the server, but it is pretty unlikely.

    13. Re:So, they returned a server by hoboroadie · · Score: 2

      TFA stated that the server would not be re-used.
      From my personal experience, I can't imagine those evil, lying bastards having the slightest inclination to return anyone's property without a court order from very high jurisdiction, or some tricky and expensive new hardware that their tech accomplices want to try out.

      --
      They feared that it could be used to suppress protest or support unpopular rule.
    14. Re:So, they returned a server by Intrepid+imaginaut · · Score: 4, Insightful

      They're long dead my friend, even if their dreams and ideals live on. Its up to the people of today to persevere and embody those ideals, and if that's not happening maybe its time to ask why not.

    15. Re:So, they returned a server by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      "Its nice they returned it, but it is trash now. Who knows what little devices the FBI might have installed on the thing."

      Sell it to China.

    16. Re:So, they returned a server by cpu6502 · · Score: 1

      I just realized:
      Under CISPA the ISP could turn-on your webcam in your bedroom (or wherever your PC is located), share the data with the U.S. DHS, and be immune from prosecution by yourself.

      --
      My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    17. Re:So, they returned a server by Dahamma · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I assume you are joking? They are investigating criminal activities (rather ineffectively, apparently, but still investigating), so of course they are not going to state every action they take publicly.

    18. Re:So, they returned a server by CosaNostra+Pizza+Inc · · Score: 1

      I was wondering the same thing. I know people here like to cast "The Man" in the worst possible light, but are they really just bitching that the FBI didn't jump up and down and wave their arms so that people would know that the server was back?

      The threats continued after the server seizure. So one might expect the FBI to return the server with a courteous "Sorry, my bad" apology, maybe.

    19. Re:So, they returned a server by bluemonq · · Score: 4, Funny

      Apparently now they need to get a return warrant.

    20. Re:So, they returned a server by CanHasDIY · · Score: 2

      I know people here like to cast "The Man" in the worst possible light,

      The feds don't need our help in that, they do a fine job all on their own

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    21. Re:So, they returned a server by Dahamma · · Score: 2

      Well, they had a warrant to seize the server and enough reasonable cause (the actual bomb threat email came from that server). So it was due process, and done according to the Constitutional requirement for a warrant.

      Now, if they knew anything about anonymous remailers (which shouldn't be that hard, doesn't the FBI have any technical staff??) they should have known it was a useless action that just cost everyone time and money with no results...

    22. Re:So, they returned a server by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Still making stuff up?

    23. Re:So, they returned a server by a90Tj2P7 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The threats continued after the server seizure. So one might expect the FBI to return the server with a courteous "Sorry, my bad" apology, maybe.

      Why? They had a valid warrant, and the server isn't owned by Riseup or May First/Peoplelink. Why should they have to apologize to them, or notify them? In fact, according to Riseup's press release, this server didn't even contain any of their info.

    24. Re:So, they returned a server by daveschroeder · · Score: 4, Informative

      How is this a "coverup"? There was a properly adjudicated warrant to seize the server in the first place (whether or not it was over-broad, and whether or not someone agrees with the reasoning). Law enforcement is not obligated to make public announcements — and this story was covered widely.

      For the people saying this is a Fourth Amendment violation, do people really think the FBI just routinely rolls onto private property without a legal justification for doing so? Again, saying "we weren't notified of the server's seizure or return" has nothing to do with the legality of either action.

      In the first discussion, many were lamenting the possibility that the server may not be returned for months, if ever; now it's been returned (probably after having its drive(s) imaged) in a timely fashion and that's a bad thing, too? The issue of notification or announcement is irrelevant to the law.

      What I would be concerned about is if the FBI entered private property without permission and without a legal basis — for example, via continuing coverage by one or more warrants to enter the property. Notice that is not what is being alleged here, just what some people are assuming...

    25. Re:So, they returned a server by a90Tj2P7 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Normally, in a free society, any interactions with Law Enforcement would be above board and you would be notified.

      Riseup and May First/Peoplelink weren't notified. They also didn't own the server or the space. Nothing says that the FBI didn't notify ECN.

    26. Re:So, they returned a server by jklovanc · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It looks like you really need to understand some definitions before you use spout off.

      Due Process is basically that law enforcement must follow the law. Show me where there is a law that requires law enforcement to inform everyone involved as to what they are doing. Considering that to put the server back the colocation company had to know about it as they had to let them in. Does it really matter if the FBI or the colocation compant told the server owner it was back?

      Unreasonable search and seizure; It might have been iff they did not have a search warrant signed by a judge in accordance with Fourth Amendment.

    27. Re:So, they returned a server by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This does not say that there is no way from them to put some kind of logging software/firmware/hardware on the server, but it is pretty unlikely.

      who wants the truth anyway? it is more fun to come up with crazy conspiracy theories about this...

    28. Re:So, they returned a server by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, yes, I believe that's the point.

      Just because they're returning something doesn't make their presence there legal. They have eyes, and you can bet they're using them. What if they'd seen something they didn't like? Would they just take it? Or would they go get another search warrant? (Although I believe at that point any new evidence would be considered from the poisoned tree).

      If the original warrant was so broad to allow them to surreptiously return weeks later, that itself would be a problem.

    29. Re:So, they returned a server by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think submitter is suggesting that it woul be better if they didn't return the server, after all they use it fto send out bomb threats.

    30. Re:So, they returned a server by matrim99 · · Score: 1

      Sell it to China.

      Otherwise known as Recycling.

      --
      Right. No, your other right. No, the other other right.
    31. Re:So, they returned a server by TheCarp · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Fuck legality. They took these people's server, they were informed and even should have known it was pointless to do so. Fuck, it would have taken all of how many minutes of google searching to determine what fucking mixmaster was.

      This was incompetence. Besides that.... simple fucking common courtesy says you inform people and appologize. Fuck the law, this is about decency and about serving the public, rather than just acting like a bunch of no account thugs.

      Honestly, someone should be fired for such gross negligence on their part, and there should be appologies and compensation.

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    32. Re:So, they returned a server by morcego · · Score: 1

      Exactly. Not only they returned the server, they had a warrant. If anything, the one that is on the wrong here is the judge to issued the warrant.

      So yeah, I agree with EFF that the warrant is too broad and overreaching. But isn't that the judge's fault ?

      --
      morcego
    33. Re:So, they returned a server by AmiMoJo · · Score: 3, Informative

      The guys who installed the camera (May First / People Link) are claiming that they were not notified when the server was seized or when it was replaced.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    34. Re:So, they returned a server by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ohhh! Free "expensive new hardware". Finders, Keepers!

    35. Re:So, they returned a server by million_monkeys · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Probably because they didn't make a public statement about it.

      Anytime a government agency does something, ideally they should state publicly wtf they're doing.

      Absolutely! They're spending our tax money, they ought to be telling us how their using it. If someone returns a server, I want to know about. Send out a press release, that way camera crews can be there to ensure it's done properly. And the FBI agent files sends a memo about the return, send out a press release. Then we'll all be able to sleep well knowing that there's no out standing paperwork.

      This should really apply to all government agencies. How else are we to know that our money is being well spent? Do you know how much money gets blown on "black" programs by the CIA? I think it'd be better for everyone if they told us what they were doing in all those projects. That agency is sorely in need of some more transparency and openness. With all the money they are spending, they ought to be sending out press releases all day long telling us what they're up to.

      The benefits go beyond keeping track of taxpayer money. Think of the bin Laden raid. If they had sent out a press release about it the week before, news agencies could have sent reporters over to interview bin Laden to find out how he felt about his impending demise. And then they'd have film crews there to record the action as it happened. With a week's notice, Osama's crew probably could put together some Bollywood number to perform during the raid while the SEALs were taking a timeout to update their facebook status letting us know they were blowing up that crashed helicopter.

    36. Re:So, they returned a server by RMingin · · Score: 1

      "Its nice they returned it, but it is trash now. Who knows what little devices the FBI might have installed on the thing."

      I'll take it. I'd love to do some dissection and inspection, maybe get some shiny new toys, until the FBI realizes what happened and shows up to demand their magnetic GPS trackers back, writ larger.

      The FBI is large, and has massive budgets, but they move like a federal agency; slowly, and in deep ruts. I'm pretty sure any hardware changes would be detectable, and any firmware/software changes can be knocked out by doing a ground-up rebuild, starting with fresh BIOS/UEFI flashes onto new chips, via TSOP writer.

      Any individual piece of software or firmware can be tampered, but I can't imagine the FBI having the manpower or interest to backdoor every single anonymous firmware download out there. They could never keep up.

      --
      The preceding comment is my own, and in no way construes an opinon of the Emperor of Mankind.
    37. Re:So, they returned a server by marcello_dl · · Score: 1

      Please then send me your PC for a few weeks. No issue for you, right?

      --
      ---- MISSING MISCELLANEOUS DATA SEGMENT --- [sigdash] trolololol
    38. Re:So, they returned a server by EasyTarget · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "Why should they have to apologize to them"

      One of the ways society identifies shit people, and their fanbois, is by the way they never apologise or show any signs of remorse.

      --
      "Oops, I always forget the purpose of competition is to divide people into winners and losers." - Hobbes
    39. Re:So, they returned a server by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You have no idea what you're talking about.
       
      The "owners" of the server listed in the above article are not, in fact, the owners. The server is owned by the colo. The colo received the warrant and complied in turning over the server. The FBI then returned the computer to the colo without informing the colo's clients who rent space on that server. SHOCK! HORROR!!
       
      It is /highly/ unlikely that anything discovered in the process of executing a warrant or while present on a premises with the land owners permission would be barred by the "fruit of the poisoned tree" doctrine, which is generally limited only to the direct product of an illegal search. No illegal search =/= no fruit of the poisoned tree. (Hint: Warrant signed by a judge == legal search).
       
      Bleh.

    40. Re:So, they returned a server by WrongSizeGlass · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I was wondering the same thing. I know people here like to cast "The Man" in the worst possible light, but are they really just bitching that the FBI didn't jump up and down and wave their arms so that people would know that the server was back?

      The FBI re-installed the server without telling May First / People Link. They just put it back in the rack and reconnected it (and presumably turned it on). Who knows what they added to the server? I certainly wouldn't trust the FBI in this situation. If they had nothing to hide they would have returned the server to the facility operators so it could be re-install but the facility's personnel. This looks like the FBI were trying to sneak it back in.

    41. Re:So, they returned a server by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      No matter what you think of the FBI, making them go through the RMA process is too cruel.

    42. Re:So, they returned a server by StillNeedMoreCoffee · · Score: 1

      If I was the servers owner. I would take the server out and take a sledge hammer to it. I am sure that it has traps and taps and I would not put it past them to have trojans and viruses that would infect and echo back from people who access that server.

      Sledge hammer is the only way.

    43. Re:So, they returned a server by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, they returned a server. Isn't that good?

      Maybe I don't understand the issue here.

      In theory, yes. In practice, MF/PL are still down a server because they plan to not ever use that particular server again. The server was out of their control/administration for a period of time, and they are concerned about possible tampering.

    44. Re:So, they returned a server by Ohrion · · Score: 2

      Did they also have a warrant to enter the premises and install a now untrusted server back onto a private network without even alerting owners of said network? It sucks to have your stuff seized. It also sucks to have your stuff tampered with.

    45. Re:So, they returned a server by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you mean the e-mails were *purportedly* routed through that server - ie - not originated.... obviously not since while it was *gone* the e-mails continued... oops - fuck - we screwed up and cost some business a bunch of time and money dealing with issues raised by our incompetance (speaking as someone from the FBI should be doing right now)...

    46. Re:So, they returned a server by WrongSizeGlass · · Score: 1

      I'm sure it was returned.. um.. "better than they found it."

      The FBI prefers to call it "enhanced". I bet they simply 'friended' it on FBIBook.com ;-)

    47. Re:So, they returned a server by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Can you say "payload"....

      First thing I'd do is clone the drives, re-image and do me some reverse-engineering :)

    48. Re:So, they returned a server by a90Tj2P7 · · Score: 1, Troll

      "Why should they have to apologize to them"

      One of the ways society identifies shit people, and their fanbois, is by the way they never apologise or show any signs of remorse.

      A much better way of identifying "shit people" is watching them do things like make ad hominem attacks instead of refuting a legitimate point. It's not their server (it belongs to ECN), and they legally siezed the server with a legitimate warrant.

    49. Re:So, they returned a server by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      No, I think he/she had a point.

    50. Re:So, they returned a server by whoever57 · · Score: 1

      As to the validity of the concern: Investigators are not usually allowed to mount storage media in read/write mode. If they do so, any evidence obtained from that media will no longer be admissible in court. While many labs do have non-forensic connectors for storage media, they are usually not used for fear of accidentally tampering with the evidence.

      Do the owners of the equipment have a record of the serial numbers of the hard drives? It is posible that the original hard drive has been cloned to an identical model drive and that has been modified to include the logging and then installed in the returned machine. Even if they have a record of the drives' serial numbers, I expect that the FBI could persuade the drive manufacturer to provide a drive or drives with a duplicate serial numbers?

      The real question is why would the FBI bother? Surely they have to realize that the machine won't be put back into service without being thoroughly scrubbed.

      If it were my machine, though, I would be wondering if it is really possible for me to scrub the BIOS and whether my best approach would not be to eBay this machine and buy a new one.

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    51. Re:So, they returned a server by MyFirstNameIsPaul · · Score: 1

      Obviously they don't want to set a precedent.

      --

      I once took an excursion to Reddit, and later HN. Unlimited up/down voting sucks when dealing with a hive-mind.

    52. Re:So, they returned a server by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Case in point.

    53. Re:So, they returned a server by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If the FBI seizes property from an actual criminal, do you think the criminal doesn’t know it?

      So how does it harm the investigation for the FBI (or any police force) to acknowledge publicly what they have done?

      On the other side of Lady Justice’s scale, transparency of police actions is the best tool a democracy has to curb the natural tendencies of police corruption and brutality.

      If there must be an imbalance between investigation and transparency, I suggest that it is in the overall best interest of freedom for the error to be on the side of transparency.

    54. Re:So, they returned a server by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      But the guys who installed the camera also are NOT

      a) The company that manages the data center (XO Communications, from the search warrant)
      b) The company that controlled the server cage (Highwinds, also from the search warrant)

      and possibly:
      c) The company that owned the owners of the server? They claim the server is operated by ECN and that they use the server. No mention of who the actual owner is.

      Furthermore, the search warrant also includes:

      "4. Records that might identify the persons leasing or operating the TARGET SERVER, including names, address" etc, etc.

      The FBI had an ip address, they traced it to the data center, and traced that to the company that controlled the server cage. Even if they knew mayfirst/peoplelink used the server before they executed the search warrant, there's several layers of various companies between the physical server and mayfirst. The fact that they weren't notified is more likely a shortcoming of communication from either XO, or Highwinds, or ECN, doesn't really seem to be the FBI's concern or even responsibility.

    55. Re:So, they returned a server by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does it really matter if the FBI or the colocation company told the server owner it was back?

      I don't know. How would you like your Due Process to work in America? If it was my server, I'd want to know if the FBI was returning it to the location that they seized it from. At least here it from the Colo, out of customer respect. I'm asking too much, aren't I?!?

      This business surrounding this whole thing lacks something.... I believe it's called, TACT! But, but, criminal investigation ..... right?

      Not very professional of the FBI, if you ask me. Then again, depending on where your standing, the FBI has too much power to begin with.

    56. Re:So, they returned a server by Dahamma · · Score: 1

      Yeah, as I already said I don't think it was a useful thing to do in the end.

      But if someone mailed you an anonymous bomb threat on a company's letterhead, you'd at least be obligated to investigate the company. You'd think it could be done in a less disruptive and generally assholish manner, though.

    57. Re:So, they returned a server by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Show me where there is a law that requires law enforcement to inform everyone involved as to what they are doing.

      That’s what a warrant does. In the case of a search warrant it specifies exactly what place is to be searched and exactly what is being search for, so that the person(s) whose location is being search, and the person(s) whose property is being searched for — i.e. everyone involved — know what the police are doing.

      And since search warrants are public court documents, any member of the public also has the right to know (although admittedly they would have to care enough to look).

    58. Re:So, they returned a server by del_diablo · · Score: 0

      Image if this was not a server park, but rather something a bit more close to life: How about a normal convenience store? The FBI barges in, confiscates something, but never identify themselves nor do they show the appropiate papers and confirm them.
      And then image what would have happened in 2-3 "lawful citizens" who knows what a citizens arrest is, and have been trained for it. I image they would have attempted a arrest, for it looks like attempts at burglary and property damage.

    59. Re:So, they returned a server by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe they could knock on the front door and give it back. Hell, they don't even need to say sorry, but at least be up-front about it. Breaking in a second time to put something back just makes it look like you're doing it for shits and giggles.

    60. Re:So, they returned a server by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      Yes, in the pecking order of shit people, complainers on the Internet are way, way behind government people abusing their power.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    61. Re:So, they returned a server by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      If the IT department has any competency they will have a standard "corporate load" for their server and should be easily able to delta the os, drivers, apps, and configuration.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    62. Re:So, they returned a server by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Putting on my 'conspiracy theory' hat, that's probably too late. Why would they sneak it back in and hook it back up? If I was a betting man, I'd put money on that server having just copied whatever monitoring software the FBI put on it onto every single one of their servers.

      Only safe way out of this wuold be to destroy all hardware and start over, really.

    63. Re:So, they returned a server by ScentCone · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      One of the ways society identifies shit people, and their fanbois, is by the way they never apologise or show any signs of remorse.

      And one of the ways we spot the cloying, invertibrate culture rot that empowers the entitlement-desiring, politically correct twits that think Tweeting Their Outrage is something they should be paid to do is ... hearing how they expect apologies when there is nothing to apologize for.

      A server is used to facilitate a bomb threat. A judge agrees that a warrant in the interests of checking the machine out for clues as to who considers threatening people's deaths in the name of their lefty movement is appropriate takes a few minutes and ... issues the warrant. The investigators execute the warrant, do their homework, and return the server. And you think they should apologize. Man, I've got to get one of those "Stop Global Whining" bumper stickers.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    64. Re:So, they returned a server by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 1

      How about the fact that they took the server in the first place, an action which did nothing to further their investigation?

      --
      Palm trees and 8
    65. Re:So, they returned a server by CanHasDIY · · Score: 3, Informative

      How is this a "coverup"? There was a properly adjudicated warrant to seize the server in the first place (whether or not it was over-broad, and whether or not someone agrees with the reasoning). Law enforcement is not obligated to make public announcements — and this story was covered widely.

      First, according to TFA:

      Neither May First/People Link or Riseup was not notified that the server was being replaced. It was never notified that the server was taken in the first place.

      In order for a warrant to be "properly adjudicated," it is required that the law enforcement agency serve the warrant to the property owner. By not notifying the property owner of the warrant, they violated the 4th Amendment.

      The link to the warrant is down, but if the scope is beyond the specific "place to be searched, and property to be seized" then it, again, was not a legal warrant as per the Fourth Amendment.

      For the people saying this is a Fourth Amendment violation, do people really think the FBI just routinely rolls onto private property without a legal justification for doing so?

      The FBI has a long history of blatant violation of civil rights, as well as literally making criminals for the sake of "busting" them, thus justifying their existence (which, in government doublespeak, translates to "budget"). That said, it would be more surprising to me to find out that the legal rights of the property owner were honored.

      Again, saying "we weren't notified of the server's seizure or return" has nothing to do with the legality of either action.

      Again, for a warrant to be legal, it has to be served to the property owner (i.e., they must be made aware that their property is to be searched, and what property is to be seized). So actually, it has everything to do with the legality of the action.

      In the first discussion, many were lamenting the possibility that the server may not be returned for months, if ever; now it's been returned (probably after having its drive(s) imaged) in a timely fashion and that's a bad thing, too? The issue of notification or announcement is irrelevant to the law.

      Considering the history of the FBI, as well as recently passed legislation that greatly (and unconstitutionally) expands the power of federal agencies, I think a little paranoia is appropriate. If the feds had honorable intentions, why wouldn't they notify the property owners? What possible justification would they have for putting the server back in place without telling anyone, if not for nefarious purposes?

      What I would be concerned about is if the FBI entered private property without permission and without a legal basis — for example, via continuing coverage by one or more warrants to enter the property. Notice that is not what is being alleged here, just what some people are assuming...

      Trespassing is illegal; any evidence gained illegally cannot be admitted in court; therefore, if the FBI did indeed trespass, then any case they may have had is now dead by their own hand.


      Of course, all my words are based on the assumption that the Constitution still matters, and is actually followed by law enforcement, which we all know damn good and well isn't the case.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    66. Re:So, they returned a server by OhHellWithIt · · Score: 1

      The threats continued after the server seizure. So one might expect the FBI to return the server with a courteous "Sorry, my bad" apology, maybe.

      One might think so, but it seems like U.S. law enforcement agencies have trouble with this courtesy, even when they cause significant emotional trauma and property damage or ruin a professional reputation. Such a simple step would probably save large sums of money in litigation; a lawyer once told me that in his experience, most litigation is the result of bad manners.

      --
      "Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past." -- George Orwell
    67. Re:So, they returned a server by daveschroeder · · Score: 1

      They're not the facility owner. XO Communiations is, and they're the only ones who need to be notified. How do you think the FBI got into a secure colo facility?

    68. Re:So, they returned a server by nedlohs · · Score: 1

      " does something" != "seizing property".

      Publically announcing every phone they tap they make while good for transparency would sigficantly reduce the usefullness of the legitimate cases.

    69. Re:So, they returned a server by daveschroeder · · Score: 1

      The property owner, XO Communications, was served, and the warrant was very specific. It was for a single server associated with a single IP, and for messages or traffic related to the bomb threats on that server. The fact that Riseup or anyone else said, "You won't find anything," is meaningless. This was not an illegal search nor seizure, and the FBI did not unlawfully enter the premises. The property owner is XO Communications. This is just a (likely intentional) attempt to make the FBI look bad (see the submitter) -- that's fine and certainly their right, but there was no abuse or illegal activity on the part of the FBI here. Again, we can have the larger discussions about whether the seizure was over-broad, but it was not illegal nor unconstitutional.

    70. Re:So, they returned a server by DeadboltX · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It would be more like this:

      You go into 7-11, pay for a frozen burrito, then proceed to the customer-use microwave to warm up your afternoon treat. While you wait for your snack to warm up: 2 FBI agents walk into the store, identify themselves to the manager, walk over to the microwave (with your burrito in it), unplug it, walk out the door with it, and drive away.

      Now you're thinking, hey those 2 guys just stole a microwave and my burrito. In reality they had a warrant to seize the microwave and its contents, and properly identified themselves to the establishment housing the microwave.

    71. Re:So, they returned a server by daveschroeder · · Score: 1

      Taking your analogy, the FBI doesn't have to identify themselves or serve the warrant to anyone but the property/facility owner -- which they did. How do you think the FBI got into a secure facility? By breaking in? I understand the argument you're making, and it may be courteous to engage the service provider more than was done here, but this search and the process was legal.

    72. Re:So, they returned a server by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're a walking obscenity.

    73. Re:So, they returned a server by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The warrant is available here: https://www.eff.org/sites/default/files/May%20First%20Server%20Search%20Warrant.pdf

      IANAL but the warrant seems pretty specific to me since it specificies a MAC address. (and yes, I am aware MACs can be spoofed).

      Is the server owned by Rise Up / May First or are they leasing it from the hosting company (Highwinds)?

    74. Re:So, they returned a server by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Awesome comeback.

    75. Re:So, they returned a server by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It would be easier for the FBI to get a sealed warrant allowing them sniff all of the traffic going to and from the server. Add a gag order on Highwinds and they won't need rootkits on the drives or the BIOS. They may have difficulty with encrypted connections but may be able to set up "man in the middle" attacks to veiw that traffic.

    76. Re:So, they returned a server by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 2

      Do they even need a warrant for that? After all, that's neither search nor seizure.

      How do you know they didn't call up ECN and say "hey we are done with that server want it back, we'll drop it off at the colo for ya"?

    77. Re:So, they returned a server by meerling · · Score: 1

      Not really. To begin with, they secretly took it. They may have had a subpoena to gather information, but it's unlikely they had a warrant to allow them to take the server, especially since they did it in secret.

      Now, after a questionable and very suspicious extraction, they attempt to secretly put it back. (One wonders how stupid they think the techies are.) If they'd done nothing wrong, why keep it secret? It's likely it now has software, and possibly even hardware on it to spy on everything that goes through it, or at least give the FBI a backdoor. Again, something they obviously aren't authorized to do, otherwise they'd have the paperwork to back up their actions.

    78. Re:So, they returned a server by Myopic · · Score: 1

      Right right. Well, in society we (those of us who are not shit people or their fanbois) don't only apologize for illegal behavior, we apologize for the vastly larger set of rude or unkind behaviors. Do you not understand that, or do you disagree that this behavior is rude, or (this is the one I figure is true, and to which I somewhat sympathize) do you think that law officers are not obliged to follow rules of common courtesy when they fuck up royally?

      Here's another one: did you read about that kid who got locked up for five days and forgotten, and almost died? The law officers who fucked that up royally apologized to the kid. Do you think that was an appropriate apology, or should they have withheld the apology because what they did was not, technically, illegal? [Against procedure, yes; illegal, no, or else we would expect criminal charges against the officers, which nobody expects.]

    79. Re:So, they returned a server by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      So, XO Communications owned the building, and the server, and the data on the server?

      I ask, because if they only own the building the server was in then technically they are not the property owner - note that, according to your post, the FBI warrant wasn't to search the building, it was to search a specific piece of equipment in the building.

      What you propose is akin to the cops asking your landlord if they can search your apartment - it doesn't matter that the landlord owns the building, so long as you pay your rent it's still your apartment, and thus you are the person who must be notified of the search. There are exceptions to that rule, but most-if-not-all are emergency based and would not apply in this situation.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    80. Re:So, they returned a server by Myopic · · Score: 2

      Maybe it's because, having thought really hard about it, the people of today decided that they can come up with ideals which are even more ideal than the ideals of the founding fathers. You know, progress and all that.

      Or, hey, maybe it's because the founding fathers lived during the pinacle of human thinking, and everyone born since then is a fucking stupid idiot who should just do exactly what what was wanted by fifty white land-owning males in the 1700s in New England.

      Or, hey, maybe that's all a big false dichotomy.

      [This comment is not an attack on you, Intrepid, because what you said in that comment is fair and reasonable.]

    81. Re:So, they returned a server by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      From the website linked in the article,

      "The footage, taken by a small surveillance camera MF/PL technologists installed after the FBI seizure of the server, is a rare glimpse of what appears to be an FBI operation.

      Neither May First/People Link or Riseup was not notified that the server was being replaced. It was never notified that the server was taken in the first place."

      Are these two statements not in conflict with each other? Or perhaps my reading comprehension is lacking this evening?

    82. Re:So, they returned a server by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "As to the validity of the concern: Investigators are not usually allowed to mount storage media in read/write mode. If they do so, any evidence obtained from that media will no longer be admissible in court."

      Alteration of digital evidence does not automatically invalidate it as evidence, a judge decides on the admissibility after hearing arguments from the prosecution and defense. Evidence that has been altered may still be admissible if the examiner can fully enumerate all of the changes that were made and why the changes occurred.

      For example, law enforcement seizes a computer looking for evidence of stolen plans for the Death Star. An examiner attaches the evidence hard drive to a forensic bridge that has the write blocking feature disabled. The examiner powers on the forensic bridge then notices that their forensic workstation's Antivirus software starts scanning the evidence drive. The examiner immediately powers the evidence drive off. The examiner logs the mistake, enables write-blocking on the bridge, then correctly obtains an image (mirror) of the evidence drive. The examiner then begins analysis of the image. If the examiner can prove, via file system time stamps, that the plans for the Death Star were not changed by the AV software then both the drive and the plans might still be accepted by the court.

      That being said, the defense will have a field day attacking the examiner's credentials, methods, and competency.

    83. Re:So, they returned a server by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Due process... transparency... coverup... COUGHbullshit

      Whatever, bro. If the FBI kept the server, there'd be an article with all the typical snarkfesters pontificating about the coverup and the lack of transparency.

      I suppose you expect the FBI to hold a press conference and a ticker tape parade to announce that they thought better of the seizure or realized that it wouldn't be fruitful to hand onto this immaterial evidence. I applaud the call for transparency in the first place, but if everyone is going to play gotcha and "that's not good enough" all the time with the Gub'mint, don't be surprised if the results are less than you are happy with. I don't think this is a big deal, and I think maybe some of the folks here could grow just a hint of a skin and some rationality before ejaculating all over everything even mildly distasteful to their sheltered and unreasonable ideals. In the "REAL" world, things aren't often ideal, and it is not realistic to expect everyone to act in the way you feel they should because you live in a cave. I think the bigger picture here is that it's probably "good enough" that they gave back property when they realized they might have made an error. Get over it.

    84. Re:So, they returned a server by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The issue here is they inserted an untrustworthy device into the network.

    85. Re:So, they returned a server by daveschroeder · · Score: 1

      Except that is not how the law works for equipment or items. If you rent or lease a property and physically reside in it, yes, a warrant generally has to be served to you as the resident. This is not the same situation, and again, it's not an illegal or inappropriate seizure (or return). The law is well-understood in this area. That doesn't mean there isn't room for debate about the implications of seizing a server which serves a lot more users and functions than are related to the target of the warrant, but it doesn't change the other facts I've laid out.

    86. Re:So, they returned a server by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, imagine they barged in with permission of the store owner and took a bag of chips that they had a signed warrant to seize.

    87. Re:So, they returned a server by steelfood · · Score: 1

      That's RMA to all the lay people.

      --
      "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
    88. Re:So, they returned a server by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Remorse for what? Doing things according to the rule of law and not the opinion of people on the internet?

    89. Re:So, they returned a server by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Damm right... but when they racked the device back I'm sure they had the datacenter people plug in the network as well ... so the real issue here is whether the FBI accessed their network when they "returned" the server. If I was the owner I would shutdown whatever else I have in that datacenter as well and rebuild .. which is a herculean task most likely but absolutely necessary due to the security breach.

    90. Re:So, they returned a server by JonySuede · · Score: 1

      FIRE, burn it with FIRE !

      For the added fun:

      Go to a sand pit, make a big pile of mixed hay, dried leaves and woods, put a nice layer of polystyrene chunks over it, pour gasoline on the foam, wait until the foam has started to melt, step back and throw a match. Nice isn't it ?

      Plug the server into an extension cord connected to a good capacity fully charged UPS and an LAN cable connected to a laptop and ssh into it tail -f /var/log/thelogfileofyourchoice.

      Throw the evil server into the fire and have fun looking at the console logs after you have enjoyed the fire !

      --
      Jehovah be praised, Oracle was not selected
    91. Re:So, they returned a server by Darth · · Score: 2

      First, according to TFA:

      Neither May First/People Link or Riseup was not notified that the server was being replaced. It was never notified that the server was taken in the first place.

      In order for a warrant to be "properly adjudicated," it is required that the law enforcement agency serve the warrant to the property owner. By not notifying the property owner of the warrant, they violated the 4th Amendment.

      Well, if they were renting space on a server owned by the hosting provider, informing the hosting provider is probably sufficient as they are the property owner for the server that was taken. I don't know if that's the case, but it is possible that this particular item is not a 4th amendment violation.

      The FBI has a long history of blatant violation of civil rights, as well as literally making criminals for the sake of "busting" them, thus justifying their existence (which, in government doublespeak, translates to "budget"). That said, it would be more surprising to me to find out that the legal rights of the property owner were honored.

      I would say, even without a pretty well documented history of the FBI abusing its power, it is generally a good thing for people and organizations to watch and question the actions of any law enforcement organization; especially if something looks amiss. It keeps them from getting lazy and it keeps us from getting caught napping by those whom we give power.

      Trespassing is illegal; any evidence gained illegally cannot be admitted in court; therefore, if the FBI did indeed trespass, then any case they may have had is now dead by their own hand.

      Actually, I don't think this is entirely true. In 2009, in Herring v. United States, the U.S. Supreme Court held that illegally obtained evidence could be used in court as long as it wasn't deliberate, reckless, or grossly negligent conduct that led to the evidence being illegal. (that case was about a man who was arrested on a warrant that was left active by a clerical error. When arrested he was found to have drugs on him. The court ruled the drug evidence could still be used against him even though they had no proper cause to search him and find it in the first place.)

      I expect you will argue that in this case it meets the deliberate, reckless, or grossly negligent conduct requirement; and that may be true. I am not saying their actions wouldn't invalidate any evidence they collected. I'm just saying that there is an avenue for them to argue to keep the evidence, even if it was determined they had violated the 4th amendment in collecting it.
       

      --
      Darth --
      Nil Mortifi, Sine Lucre
    92. Re:So, they returned a server by tomwish · · Score: 1

      Incorrect on so many levels. I had equipment that was seized by the FBI. My equipment was in a shared cage in a large colo. All they have to do is show the search warrant to the building owner or their agent. The warrant will be specific as to what location and what property they are allowed to seize. I hired a law firm and fought this for 2 years. Neither myself or my company was named in the warrant but because we shared space with the named company they where allowed to seize my equipment. The court ruled that since the accused had access to the physical devices the seizure was good. we even appealed to the 5th circuit and they upheld the lower court. The FBI did very quickly let me have images of the hard drives so I could restore other servers. If a warrant is presented to the property owner and they are asked to not share that info than they can get charged for doing so.

    93. Re:So, they returned a server by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The FBI re-installed the server

      The FBI returned the server to the colocation facility. After that it would be the co-lo's decision what to do with it and who to inform.

      Nobody is going to believe that FBI agents sneaked into the facility undetected and installed a server on a rack. This article is just publicity whoring by the once and still irrelevant Occupy movement.

    94. Re:So, they returned a server by bmo · · Score: 2

      Such a simple step would probably save large sums of money in litigation; a lawyer once told me that in his experience, most litigation is the result of bad manners.

      I forget where, but I saw a study or a news report of a study that if doctors who make mistakes apologized for their mistakes, malpractice suits would plummet.

      Google to the rescue.

      http://www.usatoday.com/yourlife/health/healthcare/doctorsnurses/2010-08-20-medical-errors-malpractice_N.htm

      --
      BMO

    95. Re:So, they returned a server by HiThere · · Score: 1

      I've got a problem here. Were the owners of the data served with a warrant? If not, then to me it seems illegal search and seizure of the data, if not of the hardware.

      Once you allow the existence of "Intellectual Property" (which does seem to be implicit in "secure in their persons and effects") then you need a search warrant to search or seize the "Intellectual Property" legally. And the warrant needs to be served on the owners of the property, or you are behaving illegally.

      Of course, if you deny the existence of "Intellectual Property", then this problem goes away, but so does much current legal history.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    96. Re:So, they returned a server by NemoinSpace · · Score: 4, Funny

      It was a burrito dammit!.
      Way to misrepresent the facts to make your case.
      You know damn well nobody would make a fuss over a bag of chips.

    97. Re:So, they returned a server by maxwells_deamon · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Not sure the details in this case but I would not want to have a server returned without notice and plugged in.

      so imagine you are an admin, Server "yoyo" is gone so you set up a replacement server using a backup. We call the new server "yoyo" as well. you tweek it as needed and life is good.

      A few days later both servers are now online. Both called "yoyo" One is out of date perhaps but they both have the same name. try to serve the same requests perhaps. Do backups to the same network location

      The possiblities for excitement and fun are limitless.

    98. Re:So, they returned a server by Fnord666 · · Score: 1

      Now, if they knew anything about anonymous remailers (which shouldn't be that hard, doesn't the FBI have any technical staff??) they should have known it was a useless action that just cost everyone time and money with no results...

      The thing is, we have no idea what is actually on that server. It is an anonymous remailer, and in an ideal world, it has no record of what passed through it. In reality, who knows? Maybe a sysadmin was diagnosing a network problem with wireshark at the time and forgot to delete the log. Maybe they actually do log connection details. Maybe the remailer distribution has a backdoor that lets the FBI turn on logging via port knocking. The point is that despite what we all "know" about anonymous remailers, there might be something useful.

      --
      'The tyrant will always find pretext for his tyranny.' - Aesop's Fables
    99. Re:So, they returned a server by jklovanc · · Score: 1

      Intellectual property law is about reproduction and sale and has nothing to do with seizure during the execution of a search warrant.

    100. Re:So, they returned a server by jklovanc · · Score: 1

      Actually a search warrant can be executed any time during the day within 15 days of it being signed. The police do not need to tell anyone exactly when the warrant will be executed. There is also nothing in the warrant that states that need to tell people when material will be returned. A search warrant only becomes public record after it has been executed.

    101. Re:So, they returned a server by thoughtlover · · Score: 1

      ...we apologize for the vastly larger set of rude or unkind behaviors.

      Why should you have to apologize for something you didn't do? It's the same as saying you're embarrassed by someone who committed an embarrassing act. Case in point, I don't apologize for the acts of the American government to anyone where I may travel outside of the USA.

      --
      No sig for you! Come back one year!
    102. Re:So, they returned a server by rtb61 · · Score: 2

      I think this whole thing is tied to the Lulzsec fiasco, where after months of committing crimes under FBI control and direction they ended up with no more people than they started with and due to messy entrapment issues now might end up losing the majority of them.

      The FBI are desperately trying to capture thousands of 'Anonymous' agents that the FBI convinced the government and media existed, this huge infamous organisation that managed to make fools out of the FBI by convincing them and others that 'Anonymous' was a huge infamous organisation (basically preyed upon the idiosyncrasies of the professionally paranoid). This and other recent similar server seizures as well as raids on journalists is all a fishing expedition for 'Anonymous' as the FBI teams involved try to rebuild credibility by capturing lots of 'Anonymous', ohh umm, terrorists.

      They are digging themselves deeper and deeper while hoping it will all just go away. Everyone kept saying 'Anonymous' was just an activism meme but the FBI kept insisting they were some huge computer terrorist organisation and that in turn all driven by private for profit security organisation trying to create the new security bogey man 'Anonymous'. Kind of silly when for quite a few months the majority of computer crimes committed by 'Anonymous' were actually being committed by the FBI and all those government trolls posting on slashdot about naughty members of 'Anonymous' should have been really criticising the actual criminals behind it all the FBI.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    103. Re:So, they returned a server by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People claiming there is no evidence? Alrighty, nothing to see here, no reason to try, they say it isn't there after all...

    104. Re:So, they returned a server by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      who the hell modded this drivel up. gp was quite correct.

    105. Re:So, they returned a server by arose · · Score: 1

      They're spending our tax money, they ought to be telling us how their using it.

      Yes, let's make them follow every time money is spent by a public broadcast and a nationwide pamphlet drop, including after ever public broadcast and nationwide pamphlet drop!

      --
      Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
    106. Re:So, they returned a server by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The real questions are: Is the burrito still in the microwave and can I have it?

    107. Re:So, they returned a server by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Absolutely! They're spending our tax money, they ought to be telling us how their using it. If someone returns a server, I want to know about. Send out a press release, that way camera crews can be there to ensure it's done properly

      I totally agree with this one. There must be transparency. Otherwise we can not trust law enforcement. That is why press releases is extremely important. I want to know if they are going to arrest a suspect. Send out a press release. Preferably at least a week in advance. If there is a terrorist plot and they are getting close to the terrorists - send out a press release with information on where they are, how they are going to progress and when they expect to move in. Transparency is crucial.

    108. Re:So, they returned a server by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They're long dead my friend [...]

      ...for now.

      The only way this country is going to get back on track is zombie founding fathers.

    109. Re:So, they returned a server by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      The FBI isn't a person though. It's an organisation that doesn't have any emotion. Nor should it. An idealised criminal investigation Bureau should be completely dispassionate.

    110. Re:So, they returned a server by JosKarith · · Score: 1

      So you've missed the trend over the last few years of people digging up decades(and in some case centuries)-old incidents and demanding apologies (and of course reparations) for them? None of the people involved are still working (or even alive in many cases) but somehow we're expected to go down on one knee and apologise for their actions... The poster child of this of course is the "Reparations for slavery" industry that has grown over the last decade. Nobody alive was involved in those horrific crimes - hell nobody's parents were involved - yet still activists (and their well-fed lawyers) keep banging on that drum, keeping old wounds from healing.

      --
      'Don't worry' said the trees when they saw the axe coming, 'The handle is one of us.'
    111. Re:So, they returned a server by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      First, according to TFA:

      Neither May First/People Link or Riseup was not notified that the server was being replaced.

      That says both were notified.

    112. Re:So, they returned a server by a90Tj2P7 · · Score: 1

      Right right. Well, in society we (those of us who are not shit people or their fanbois) don't only apologize for illegal behavior, we apologize for the vastly larger set of rude or unkind behaviors. Do you not understand that, or do you disagree that this behavior is rude, or (this is the one I figure is true, and to which I somewhat sympathize) do you think that law officers are not obliged to follow rules of common courtesy when they fuck up royally?

      I'm pretty sure I asked for a legitimate argument, not more ad hominem attack and a completely offtopic strawman. Here's a suggestion for how you can get started: "I think they 'royally fucked up' by..." The server was siezed with a legitimate warrant. It was returned relatively promptly. Riseup and May First/People Link are whining because something they don't own (and the former admits it didn't even use as a customer) was returned to the owner without it being announced to them. They're not the owners, they're the users - it's not their server or their space. In what possible way this that "fucked up royally", let alone remotely comparable to leaving a person locked up and unattended for the better part of a week? Don't compare a couple customers losing access to someone else's anonymous remailer for a few weeks to law enforcement almost killing a human being in their custody.

      By the way, please keep in mind that all of the sources are Riseup/May First press releases, and both summaries were submitted by a Riseup employee, so you need to watch out for the bias there.

    113. Re:So, they returned a server by chad_r · · Score: 1

      Then, six days later they returned to the store, put the burrito back into the microwave, reheated it, and left.

    114. Re:So, they returned a server by kilfarsnar · · Score: 2

      Why should you have to apologize for something you didn't do?

      Because you're married? Zing!

      --
      "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
    115. Re:So, they returned a server by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1
      Hence my use of

      Of course, all my words are based on the assumption that the Constitution still matters, and is actually followed by law enforcement, which we all know damn good and well isn't the case.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    116. Re:So, they returned a server by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1
      You missed my qualifying statement:

      Of course, all my words are based on the assumption that the Constitution still matters, and is actually followed by law enforcement, which we all know damn good and well isn't the case.

      That's what I get for listening to my 9th grade Civics teacher...

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    117. Re:So, they returned a server by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So let me make sure I have this right —

      The FBI got a proper warrant from a court of competent jurisdiction and seized a server related to weeks of bomb threats at the University of Pittsburgh, but this is all really part of a plan to paint Anonymous and/or Lulzsec as "terrorists" — and they needed to seize a server running a remailer service to do it?

      ...can I have some of whatever it is that you're smoking?

      The FBI understands what "Anonymous", "Lulzsec", etc., is/are, even if the press doesn't. The fact of the matter is however they self-identify is irrelevant. But if they self-identify as being Anons, and then take part in an attack, and are then caught, why is it somehow inappropriate to say they're "Anonymous"? (Hint: it isn't.)

      Please direct me to where the FBI says Anonymous is some kind of a huge terrorist organization. The fact of the matter is that something can be an activism/hacktivism "meme" AND also be quasi-organized illegal activity. Anon/Lulzsec/etc. did/do have various levels of central coordination, even if only in the form of a core group of actual hackers and selected Twitter, YouTube, or other social media accounts. That's the only way they can be effective, because without the ability to publicize their exploits (pun intended!) and do things like coordinate with WikiLeaks to further some ideological aim, the attacks would be worthless.

    118. Re:So, they returned a server by Krazy+Kanuck · · Score: 1

      ignore - posting to remove bad moderation

    119. Re:So, they returned a server by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My thoughts exactly, I wouldn't let them hook it up. I'd tell them we bought a replacement that that one is to be disposed of, the dumpster is around back! Not to mention if they went through enough trouble to set up cameras, the port on the switch that corresponds to that server should be shut down. Under no circumstances should someone be able to just walk in an plug a device into a network at a data center.

    120. Re:So, they returned a server by TheCarp · · Score: 1

      Except the fact that it ran mixmaster, which has been around since the 90s, could be easily verified.

      Who is collecting their evidence? Who is doing the analsys? Are they hiring unpaid interns now?

      Nobody qualified to be doing these sort of digital forensics has a leg to stand on claiming that he doesn't or shouldn't either already be aware of mixmaster, or trivially able to find out about it and realise that it was a pointless endeavour.

      Seriously.... its been around since the 90s, and not exactly hidden. Are there seriously people doing foresnics investigations who don't know about tools like that or how to use google?

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    121. Re:So, they returned a server by sjames · · Score: 1

      No, the OWNER of the property seized needs to be notified, no matter where it was seized from.

    122. Re:So, they returned a server by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're being sarcastic, but in actual fact you're absolutely right. It should be a lot more transparent.

      National security is a joke.

    123. Re:So, they returned a server by peawormsworth · · Score: 1

      Here's another one: did you read about that kid who got locked up for five days and forgotten, and almost died? The law officers who fucked that up royally apologized to the kid. Do you think that was an appropriate apology, or should they have withheld the apology because what they did was not, technically, illegal? [Against procedure, yes; illegal, no, or else we would expect criminal charges against the officers, which nobody expects.]

      Maybe u dont expect charges to be laid, but there will likely be a lawsuit. He nearly died and his experience was against human rights laws for torture (Im guessing). Im assuming 5 days without food or water in the custody of the police is entirely illegal. I expect the police force to be sued and I also expect that someone could be fired. If there is a lawsuit, I expect there will be an investigation of responsibility and maybe there would be criminal charges placed. It is illegal to not be responsible for citizens in ur custody

    124. Re:So, they returned a server by lsatenstein · · Score: 1

      How is this a "coverup"? There was a properly adjudicated warrant to seize the server in the first place (whether or not it was over-broad, and whether or not someone agrees with the reasoning). Law enforcement is not obligated to make public announcements — and this story was covered widely.

      For the people saying this is a Fourth Amendment violation, do people really think the FBI just routinely rolls onto private property without a legal justification for doing so? Again, saying "we weren't notified of the server's seizure or return" has nothing to do with the legality of either action.

      In the first discussion, many were lamenting the possibility that the server may not be returned for months, if ever; now it's been returned (probably after having its drive(s) imaged) in a timely fashion and that's a bad thing, too? The issue of notification or announcement is irrelevant to the law.

      What I would be concerned about is if the FBI entered private property without permission and without a legal basis — for example, via continuing coverage by one or more warrants to enter the property. Notice that is not what is being alleged here, just what some people are assuming...

      From what I read, the FBI does what you say it does not. If you let your fingernails and toe nails go unclipped, you are carrying bodily weapons that can injure people. You can be arrested for having weapons without a license.

      --
      Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada
    125. Re:So, they returned a server by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, they returned a server. Isn't that good?

      Maybe I don't understand the issue here.

      The issue is that they appear to have entered the premises and installed technology without the consent of the owner. A search warrant does not give you permission to do that. It gives you permission to take stuff not install stuff. In order to install technology based equipment that is capable of monitoring communications they would need a court order for a wiretap. They might have that, probably they do but if they don't then the FBI committed a crime when they installed the technology regardless of how it was acquired in the first place. The network operators now have to remove the infected equipment and re secure their network costing thousands of dollars.

    126. Re:So, they returned a server by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm less concerned about the technical details of the warrant, and more concerned that the monkey trying to re-install the blade is doing a complete shit job of things. He's damn lucky he didn't fry the entire chassis and everything in it. Go watch the video, the guy isn't grounded or wearing a strap, and he actually wiggles the goddamn blade around because he isn't holding it properly and can't get it to align. There very easily could be damage to the chassis which won't be noticed until after this blade is removed in the future. I've seen some clown do this exact same thing and end up causing a massive outage and a repair bill of about $75,000.

    127. Re:So, they returned a server by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would be wondering what they placed on the computer...not what they took off of it.

  6. Noobs much? by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

    Where did the FBI manage to dig up field agents who don't know that commercial facilities with high value equipment almost always have surveillance cameras? Christ, seedy dollar stores have surveillance cameras these days. Were they expecting nobody to notice when they just walked into a colo?

    1. Re:Noobs much? by PRMan · · Score: 3, Informative

      There were no cameras when they took it. May 1st secretly installed cameras after the original theft (a seizure requires notification).

      --
      Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
    2. Re:Noobs much? by ShaunC · · Score: 2

      The camera that caught the action was actually installed inside the rack, by MayFirst. You can see the FBI agent looking at it several times, so it apparently wasn't as surreptitious as MayFirst had hoped.

      --
      Thanks to the War on Drugs, it's easier to buy meth than it is to buy cold medicine!
    3. Re:Noobs much? by a90Tj2P7 · · Score: 1

      There were no cameras when they took it. May 1st secretly installed cameras after the original theft (a seizure requires notification).

      May First also didn't own the server or the space, an organization called ECN does.

    4. Re:Noobs much? by Tyr07 · · Score: 1

      What's funny is you think they didn't know.

      They were just returning it. What, should they have smashed windows in, dropped in smoke grenades, flash banged the cameras, and when all was said and done, the server was back?

    5. Re:Noobs much? by MarkGriz · · Score: 1

      As if they would care that they were "caught" returning a server the had a legal right to seize in the first place.

      They dun goofed big time. Hope they don't get backtraced.

      --
      Beauty is in the eye of the beerholder.
    6. Re:Noobs much? by drpimp · · Score: 1

      Agreed but I don't think all field agents are a fail. At my previous job, which was actually raided by the FBI, they seized servers took what I assume they were looking for, deleted the video captured during the actual seizure which was found by IT when they returned them weeks later. After this was when I began my search for a job at a company that wasn't under scrutiny of a federal agency.

      --
      -- Brought to you by Carl's JR
    7. Re:Noobs much? by soundguy · · Score: 1

      Like THIS ?

      --
      Nothing worthwhile ever happens before noon
    8. Re:Noobs much? by R3d+M3rcury · · Score: 1

      This is sort of an interesting "cloud" question.

      The computer itself was of no interest to the FBI. The data contained on the hard drives was what was of interest to the FBI. That data is owned by May First, not ECN.

      This is where things get interesting in regards to who should receive notification. The real-world object being taken is the computer, so ECN should have been notified. However, the warrant was for the data contained on the computer, which is May First.

      If I have a box in your car, does the search warrant for said box go to you or to me?

    9. Re:Noobs much? by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

      Why should they be notified? So they could wipe it before the FBI got there?

      Hey Mr. X we of the FBI are coming around to execute a search warrant later today. Be sure to not erase anything or destroy hide or move any physical evidence before we get there. Also be sure your entire staff is on premises should we need to cart off anyone to the hoosegow.

      Of course as soon as they confiscate it I'm sure notification isn't needed - your NOC will call you up.

      Crikey.
       

    10. Re:Noobs much? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The warrant always goes to the person with custody, not necessarily the legal owner.

      I'm usually the one arguing against law enforcement, but in this case I'm stumped by why this is an issue. The FBI had no duty to notify the customer of the customer of (the repeat was intentional) the facility. They only had a duty to notify the facility (for access) and the customer (the physical target of the seizure). And yes, I know the warrant could have been sealed making it unnecessary to notify the target, for those of you out there who can't let a nit go by without picking it. Nowhere in any of the press releases does it say ECN was not notified; the only people mentioned are Riseup and Mayfirst.

      If the FBI has a warrant to search your storage unit and seize something particular inside it, they serve the warrant on the owner of the facility. It's up to the facility to notify you, assuming the warrant doesn't bar them from doing so.

      I'm completely baffled at the level of stupid being displayed in posts here.

    11. Re:Noobs much? by R3d+M3rcury · · Score: 1

      Why should they be notified? So they could wipe it before the FBI got there?

      No, but they could be notified afterwards.

      Consider a real world example. The police have a search warrant for your house. You're not home. Are they going to call you at work and say, "Hey, we've got a search warrant for your house. Can you come home and unlock the front door?" Nope. You're going to come home and find the door knocked down, maybe some tape across it, and a note saying, "We searched your house. -- The PoPo. P.S. Please clean the cat's litterbox." and a copy of the warrant. I would think that, at the very least, they have to notify you if you ask (eg, "Hello? Police? My house was broken into and everything was ripped apart!" "Oh, yeah, we had a search warrant. By the way, clean the cat's litterbox.")

      But I am not a lawyer, so I don't know if it's necessary that they inform you that they are executing a search warrant. But if they do, the owner of the property being seized would be First May and that's who they should be notifying.

      Now, again, IANAL. And to draw the real world analogy, if the police are looking for my gun in your car, they definitely have to tell you they're searching your car. I'm not sure they have to tell the me that they're searching for my gun. So I could very well be wrong.

      But, personally, I think that's the way it should work.

  7. It's a trap? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    If I were the people who ran the server, I'd go over the hardware with a fine-toothed comb, and wipe/rebuild the software. There's no telling what (legal or illegal) tracking crap the FBI put in it, if they're giving it back without a huge fight.

    1. Re:It's a trap? by jdastrup · · Score: 2

      RTFA - they are not going to use the returned server.

  8. Men in Black? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If they really wanted to be inconspicuous they would not dress like they are not FBI agents. I guess that just comes with the persona and elitist culture.

    1. Re:Men in Black? by bluemonq · · Score: 1

      Because it would have totally been not suspicious if the server that was seized by the FBI was returned by some unknown guys in t-shirts and jeans?

    2. Re:Men in Black? by hoboroadie · · Score: 1

      My personal observation of Special Agents in the 70s led me to believe that they were completely unable to discern their remarkable image conformity. (e.g. undercover in the suburbs of Mecklenburg County, dressed like Ephram Zimbalist Jr. Whom are we trying to kid?)
      A friend later confirmed that when she did psych evaluations of Agent prospects, the only ones considered had to have a psychopathic ability to disassociate with their intended evil actions. The new ones appear to be going more for the Tim McVeigh look, befitting their continuing role in domestic terror.

      --
      They feared that it could be used to suppress protest or support unpopular rule.
    3. Re:Men in Black? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Either you or your friend is an absolute liar. I'm guessing you.

    4. Re:Men in Black? by hoboroadie · · Score: 1

      I have no reason to believe my friend was lying to me, nor am I so desperate to post on /. as to state anything that is not factual, or my actual opinion, as it may be. My friend is a psychiatrist, which is generally grounds to doubt one's veracity, but in her case she actually seems to be a reality-based-person.
      I'm guessing you eat boogers and lick dingle-balls.

      --
      They feared that it could be used to suppress protest or support unpopular rule.
  9. Rarity by lannocc · · Score: 2
    From TFA (emphasis mine):

    The footage, taken by a small surveillance camera MF/PL technologists installed after the FBI seizure of the server, is a rare glimpse of what appears to be an FBI operation.

    The FBI has returned equipment? Rare indeed!

  10. So What Was the FBI Supposed to Do? by eldavojohn · · Score: 5, Insightful
    This is sort of awkward since I donate ~$50 to the EFF and wear their shirts around town but ... what was the FBI supposed to do? Throw up their hands and say "Nothing can be done" to the parents and students at the University. It's not like they went through an inappropriate channel to seize this server. What law was broken? On top of that, April 18th to May 3rd is a much faster turnaround than what I would credit the FBI.

    Sure it was heavy handed -- in about the same way as shutting down traffic for a major accident is heavy handed. You know we have the ability to just plow that wreckage off our highways and get on with our lives but noooo the police want to find out who was at fault and make sure everyone is okay. Even though it inconveniences thousands of people every day and, predictably, the accidents keep happening despite the police officers' efforts.

    Predictably, the threats continued even after the server seizure

    That's gotta be the stupidest part of this summary. The idea wasn't to stop the threats but to trace them! If logging wasn't turned off on that server, the FBI would have been able to trace it. That being the only thing they could do, they did it. I mean, if I was a student or parent, I would be really upset if the FBI said "Well, we could confiscate that server and mildly interrupt e-mail service for 300 people but it will only tell us who is doing it if logging is turned on and it's probably not so we're just going to go ahead and let this all continue to happen."

    Yeah, hundreds of people were inconvenienced when their e-mail was disrupted ... with the safety and lives of hundreds of other people at the university in mind when it happened.

    Big bad FBI, trying to follow the only lead they have on some sick pervert who gets off to bomb threats. Shame on them! Sometimes I think law enforcement is damned if they do, damned if they don't.

    --
    My work here is dung.
    1. Re:So What Was the FBI Supposed to Do? by Barbara,+not+Barbie · · Score: 1, Insightful

      As you pointed out, this is a VERY fast turn-around ... almost like they hope that people will use it in a "business as usual" fashion ... like a honeypot?

      Not even telling them that it was back so that the owners could decide if they even wanted to risk leaving it in place? VERY suspicious.

      --
      Let's call it what it is, Anti-Social Media.
    2. Re:So What Was the FBI Supposed to Do? by Anomalyst · · Score: 2

      Howzabout mirroring the switch port and logging/filtering the traffic thru snort to grab the IP addresses of inbound SMTP connections before the remailer scrubs them. What a bunch of networking maroons. The keystone Kops got nothing on this bunch of "investigators:.

      --
      There is no right to feel safe thru security vaudeville at the expense of everyone's freedom, privacy and tax money.
    3. Re:So What Was the FBI Supposed to Do? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or... they could've turned on logging and left the server in place. After all, providing email service to your students isn't really a crime, now, is it?

    4. Re:So What Was the FBI Supposed to Do? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, obviously the FBI had to do something, with students and parents up their ass, but everyone here on slashdot knew better than to think seizing an anonymizing server would result in anything more than anonymized data.
      We need to do something about the general, CSI-watching public who believe all encryption can be cracked given enough commercial breaks.

    5. Re:So What Was the FBI Supposed to Do? by jimmifett · · Score: 1

      The FBI didn't notify anyone involved in returning the server, that's the problem.
      The server could very well have had additional software/hardware installed to snoop the network remotely, or store the data secretly on the server for later physical retrieval. Retrieve keys, passwords, cyphers, etc.

      Would you let anyone just install hardware/software on your network without your knowledge? Esp if the device was already confiscated without your notification in the first place?

    6. Re:So What Was the FBI Supposed to Do? by StuartHankins · · Score: 2
      According to TFA, there was no notification to the customers, the people renting space on the server:

      On April 18, 2012, a Riseup server located in MF/PL's [May First/People Link] colocation cabinet and managed by ECN, a progressive provider in Italy, was seized by the FBI. MF/PL found out about the seizure when Riseup reported that there was no response from the server. Technologists visited the server location and found that the machine had been removed.

      That makes me wonder exactly what procedures were not followed. You can't just go around removing servers at will.

    7. Re:So What Was the FBI Supposed to Do? by silas_moeckel · · Score: 1

      The responsible thing would have been to request the information from the server owners. They got heavy handed when they seized it effectively ruining any goodwill with the people most able to help them. Honestly the last thing you want to do it turn a server off. If spammers can figure out how to use encrypted VM's somebody else covering there tracks sure can.

      Having dealt with the FBI computer people would say this about on par with the shoddy work they seem to do. Fire the lot and let the SS computer guys take over they have a clue, understand that it's part of there job to be polite and efficient.

      --
      No sir I dont like it.
    8. Re:So What Was the FBI Supposed to Do? by Hentes · · Score: 2

      what was the FBI supposed to do? Throw up their hands and say "Nothing can be done" to the parents and students at the University.

      Yes. There is no way to stop anonymous threats from happening. But you aren't required to evacuate every time a 12 year old kid calls you.

    9. Re:So What Was the FBI Supposed to Do? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They could have shut down the campus and university network, as that would undeniable prevent any more threat being sent over email. It would also be very visable for the students and parents!

    10. Re:So What Was the FBI Supposed to Do? by cpu6502 · · Score: 1, Insightful

      No law was broken?!?!?

      Try reading the Bill of Rights sometime. The FBI broke the 6th law in that document (also known as the 4th amendment) which requires obtaining a search warrant from a judge prior to entrance.

      And yes sometimes the bad guy gets away. That is preferable to harassing innocent people & treating them like criminals (example: patting down their breasts and crotches) (example: randomly searching through cars) (example: arresting people who publish anti-war pamphlets) (example: rounding-up asian-Americans & tossing them in jail cause it's world war 2) (example: assassinating Americans because you SUSPECT they might be terrorists) (example: strip-searching old people before they can fly) (example: forcing a breast-feeding mom to stand in a glass jail for an hour, rather than let her take her pumping equipment home to her newborn kid) (example: ......

      INFORM yourself of what's happening in the world.

      --
      My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    11. Re:So What Was the FBI Supposed to Do? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They didn't need to seize the server at all. they could have just taken a copy of the logs, if there were any. It's like taking an entire camera to search for incriminating photos when they could just dump all the photos and search through that. Or, to put it another way, imagine they hauled off entire server recording a CCTV system to investigate a breakin/shoplifting/etc. They could've just copied all the data and kept the server running, then sorted through all the data back at the office.

    12. Re:So What Was the FBI Supposed to Do? by a90Tj2P7 · · Score: 1

      Not even telling them that it was back so that the owners could decide if they even wanted to risk leaving it in place? VERY suspicious.

      There's no comment about whether or not the owners, ECN, were told. Riseup and May First are only clients of the service. It's funny how their press releases keep glossing over that fact and present it like someone broke into their offices and stole their server, when they're just users of a hosted third-party service.

    13. Re:So What Was the FBI Supposed to Do? by Guppy06 · · Score: 1

      everyone here on slashdot knew

      How? Has "everyone here on Slashdot" laid hands on that server and inspected its configuration themselves? Or is "everyone here on Slashdot" just taking the operator's word about it?

    14. Re:So What Was the FBI Supposed to Do? by orrorri · · Score: 1

      The issue is not that it was inconvenient for several hundred people, the main issue is the warrant covered. Allowing the FBI to search not just the remailer, but giving the FBI full access to poke through and grab whatever information they wanted from the entire server.I would not want my apartment to get searched because someone else in the building did something.

      And sure, you can justify it to yourself that it was to help other people, but the point is there is a precedence out there now [or was it there already? i haven't researched that]... if someone uses gmail and sends a bomb threat, confiscate all gmail servers, and have access to everyone's accounts. That sounds legal, that sounds right. That is NOT an invasion of privacy.

      Even if you agree with the cause, you cannot give carte blanche to the FBI to do whatever they want with the entire server. Make the warrant be specific. They can only search the information about the remailer. If they want anything else on the server, that is a different warrant.

    15. Re:So What Was the FBI Supposed to Do? by sangreal66 · · Score: 1

      That's an issue between the customer and the provider which owns the server (ECN), not the FBI. If ECN wasn't notified by the FBI that would be a separate issue, but that hasn't been claimed.

    16. Re:So What Was the FBI Supposed to Do? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The responsible thing would have been to request the information from the server owners.

      It's a mixmaster remailer; messages come in, go into a queue, get decrypted and sent out. It's designed so that you can't easily tell where the message came from without rewriting the software to explicitly log that.

      The only way to tell where the message came from after the fact would be to have previously captured all incoming messages and decrypt them until you found the right one. And it would almost certainly have come from another remailer anyway, probably in Outer Mongistan.

      You could try to analyse SMTP logs, but the remailer doesn't send messages in the same order it receives them so that would probably just tell you it could have come from any of dozens of other servers.

    17. Re:So What Was the FBI Supposed to Do? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, I have to agree. The FBI doesn't seem to have done anything wrong really.

      In the search warrant, the facility itself was OWNED by XO Communications and the server was in cabinet 05.9300.13 maintained by Highwinds.

      None of the reports here on slashdot or the various linked articles seem to make any mention of these companies and there is not statement from either. It seems rather likely that XO communications, since they own the datacenter, was well aware that the FBI was entering the datacenter to execute a search warrant. And the XO employees let them back in to put it back.

      Whether mayfirst/riseup were notified seems to be out of the scope of the FBI's concern. For all we know, the companies directly involved in the seizure (data center and cabinet management) were notified. The fact that the users further down the line weren't notified seems to be a shortcoming of the management companies.

    18. Re:So What Was the FBI Supposed to Do? by jklovanc · · Score: 1

      The security guard at the front door didn't notice the FBI coming in?
      The network administrators didn't notice a server popping up on their network?
      If you have to be officially told that a server has been added to your system the network admins have a major security issue.

      Could the fast turn around be caused by the FBI taking images of the drives or possibly have completed their investigation and not found anything. It is even possible that they are actually trying to be responsive and restoring service as quickly as possible.

      Another question, if the service is so important then why is relying one a single server? Shouldn't important servers have fallback servers? If there is no user information why isn't there an image that can be quickly restored to another server to get the service back up in hours. To me this indicates that the importance of this seized server has been overblown.

    19. Re:So What Was the FBI Supposed to Do? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The FBI was interested in looking like they were doing something, not actually solving this issue.
      There are enterprise network solutions that can be plugged in-line between 2 devices that will record everything. This is commonly used at network providers and large ISPs. The FBI has these devices too ... trust me. This could have been inserted in under 60 seconds of service interruption and wouldn't have required the server to be removed. I bet the server owner would have approved the snooping - with the court order AND I bet they would have helped.

      It appears taht the FBI didn't choose the best solution, in this case. That's all we're saying. This being /., some would call them stupid.

      When my car was stolen and found a few days later, the police called, told me where to pick it up. They did not return it, but I probably could have gotten a sherrif's deputy friend to drop it off ... we;re small town enough for that here. The FBI returning the server is extremely suspicious. I would expect modified hardware was installed and would have use that as a selling point, since some clients would want that. OTOH, I'd wipe the server completely, reload all bios and drivers and dban the hdds before reloading the base OS.

      Where I work, our servers boot off a SAN, so when the FBI comes to grab them, they get CPU, RAM, and interfaces, not data. If they realize this, then our 400 clients with data on the SAN will really have a bad day.

    20. Re:So What Was the FBI Supposed to Do? by jklovanc · · Score: 1

      Not at will but you can when you have a search warrant specifically designating the server.

    21. Re:So What Was the FBI Supposed to Do? by jklovanc · · Score: 1

      The responsible thing would have been to request the information from the server owners.

      That would give the server owner time to wipe it and claim "scheduled maintenance". No officer is going to tell people where they want to search.

    22. Re:So What Was the FBI Supposed to Do? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The FBI didn't notify anyone involved in returning the server, that's the problem.

      No one? According to who? The Data Center was run by XO Communications (from search warrant), the server cage was managed by Highwinds (also from search warrant), according to maylink/riseup the server was operated by ECN.

      All we have are statements from maylink/riseup. Yes, clearly they were not notified, how do you know that none of the other 3 companies between them and the server were not notified?

    23. Re:So What Was the FBI Supposed to Do? by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 1

      The idea wasn't to stop the threats but to trace them

      OK, how about this: Predictably, the remailer kept no logs, the messages were sent through a chain of multiple remailers, and the seizure of the remailer contributed nothing to the FBI's investigation.

      If logging wasn't turned off on that server, the FBI would have been able to trace it.

      Only if the user was so stupid that they used a single remailer, something which people are routinely warned against and which typical remailer software will not do by default. If the server had logging enable, the FBI would have been led to another remailer; the chances that all the remailers in the chain have logging enabled is small (we hope).

      I would be really upset if the FBI said "Well, we could confiscate that server and mildly interrupt e-mail service for 300 people

      Actually, there was no interruption in service. The remailer system is resilient to a single remailer being taken offline. The problem with this raid is that it had absolutely no investigative value, and was performed purely to gain access to the private keys. Indeed, if the FBI wanted to catch the person sending the threats, they would have gotten a court order to monitor the activity of the remailer, rather than seizing the equipment.

      Big bad FBI, trying to follow the only lead they have

      Yes, their only lead being that anyone on Earth might have sent the messages. Solid investigative skills there, FBI.

      Sometimes I think law enforcement is damned if they do, damned if they don't.

      That has something to do with the fact that they have absolutely no respect for civil rights or basic human dignity. With so many unjust laws on the books, with so many attempts by the FBI to prevent the general public from having access to good cryptography software, it is not hard to understand why people have such a poor opinion of them.

      --
      Palm trees and 8
    24. Re:So What Was the FBI Supposed to Do? by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 1

      Howzabout mirroring the switch port and logging/filtering the traffic thru snort to grab the IP addresses of inbound SMTP connections before the remailer scrubs them

      1. Mixmaster does not use SMTP
      2. Mixmaster is resilient to passive eavesdropping
      3. Those connections would lead them to other remailers in the network
      4. There are a large number of remailer users in the world; the FBI would have narrowed their investigation down to at least thousands of people.
      --
      Palm trees and 8
    25. Re:So What Was the FBI Supposed to Do? by silas_moeckel · · Score: 1

      Funny they do this all the time, they had no reason to suspect the server owners of anything. I work in the colo space getting a few request like this is a week is not uncommon (70k physical servers, easy to have hundreds of hosting VM's per server each with hundreds of web sites each and it's easy to have a few million web sites pointed in your direction). We collect up the info that was requested and charge them for our time to do so. They had no reasonable reason to suspect the colo of anything, possibly one of there tenants, and probably one of there tenants users.

      --
      No sir I dont like it.
    26. Re:So What Was the FBI Supposed to Do? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure it was heavy handed -- in about the same way as shutting down traffic for a major accident is heavy handed.

      I don't know about the US, but here they dont take my vehicle and personal affects hostage for two weeks because some anonymous driver threatened someone verbally..

    27. Re:So What Was the FBI Supposed to Do? by jklovanc · · Score: 1

      We collect up the info that was requested and charge them for our time to do so.

      Try putting yourself in the FBI's shoes. Would you really accept the word of any company that they searched every nook and cranny of a customer's server and passed all that information on to the police when something as important as a bomb threat is involved? Any colo has a bias in keeping their customers happy and little interest in keeping the police happy. The colo may net even have access to the information as they may not have proper user ids and passwords. The other issue is that the police may want to admit the hard drive into evidence as it is much more reliable that a copy of a copy of incomplete data retrieved by admins untrained in electronic forensic investigation. The defense needs to have access to all data on the server so they can do their own analysis.

    28. Re:So What Was the FBI Supposed to Do? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who cares why they returned it. Why were the network ports still active?

    29. Re:So What Was the FBI Supposed to Do? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A law enforcement badge can get you a lot of leeway. Could it be that the world isn't as you think it is? Nah, it couldn't be, because then the world would be as you think it is, which it clearly is!

    30. Re:So What Was the FBI Supposed to Do? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      YES~

  11. um..how did they get in? by who_stole_my_kidneys · · Score: 2

    On April 24th, the FBI quietly returned the server, without notifying either Mayfirst / People Link or riseup, and were caught on video doing it. what kind of no security operation are they running at this datacenter? The last place i worked , to get in the datacenter required a thumb reader, to get into the clean room, that then detected if more than one person had entered and would not let you past that door untill the other door was closed and no other people were in the clean room, and it was ALWAYS staffed to see people coming and going. For just random people to come in , take a server, then put it back later with out any one knowing is some where i would never store my server.

    1. Re:um..how did they get in? by hoggoth · · Score: 2

      These aren't 'random people' wandering around a data center. This is the FBI. They flashed some badges, made some threats, and when they were done they zapped everyone with a neuralizer just to be sure.

      --
      - For the complete works of Shakespeare: cat /dev/random (may take some time)
    2. Re:um..how did they get in? by a90Tj2P7 · · Score: 1

      On April 24th, the FBI quietly returned the server, without notifying either Mayfirst / People Link or riseup, and were caught on video doing it. what kind of no security operation are they running at this datacenter? The last place i worked , to get in the datacenter required a thumb reader, to get into the clean room, that then detected if more than one person had entered and would not let you past that door untill the other door was closed and no other people were in the clean room, and it was ALWAYS staffed to see people coming and going. For just random people to come in , take a server, then put it back later with out any one knowing is some where i would never store my server.

      It isn't their data center. Or their server. They're users of a service provided by ECN.

    3. Re:um..how did they get in? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It isn't their data center. Or their server. They're users of a service provided by ECN.

      Not true. May First/People Link and Riseup share the colocation facility in NYC from which the server was received and to which it was returned. Riseup hosts the server for ECN. ECN, an Italian organization, was not notified before or after the seizure by the FBI.

    4. Re:um..how did they get in? by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

      How do you know they didn't get permission from the owners of the datacenter? After all, the datacenter isn't the property of the RiseUp guys.

  12. wipe and dump by wannabegeek2 · · Score: 1

    I sincerely hope the server owner and users consider tne equipment hopelessly compromised, and quickly and completely dispose of it.

    --
    Never ascribe to malice or conspiracy that which can be adequately explained by ignorance or stupidity.
    1. Re:wipe and dump by Barbara,+not+Barbie · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I sincerely hope the server owner and users consider tne equipment hopelessly compromised, and quickly and completely dispose of it.

      It never kept any log files or other personal identifying data, so they could probably make some serious coin auctioning it off to whoever wants to pay the most to get a first-hand look at the lastest guvernment spyware.

      --
      Let's call it what it is, Anti-Social Media.
  13. I guess I don't understand ... by PPH · · Score: 0

    ... why anyone in their right mind would try to sneak in any place to return something.

    When they take it, its either without a warrant, where they just kick in the front door and scream "FBI!", or with one, where they kick in (or knock) and say, "FBI! We have a warrant!"

    But sneaking around without the requisite "FBI" announcement is just a great way to get shot. We have some facilities manned 24/7 by armed guards. You might get lucky and only get Tased*, but its kind of difficult to identify yourself as law enforcement when you are flopping around on the floor and you've just relieved your bladder.

    *Security had some issues with shooting people unchallenged. But now that they carry Tasers as well as semi-autos, you get no warning.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
    1. Re:I guess I don't understand ... by jklovanc · · Score: 2

      Congratulations on being taken in by yet another misleading sensationalistic summary. It is just as likely that the walked up to the facility, presented their credentials and warrant (which they had) and took the server as stipulated in the warrant. Where in any of the articles is there any indication that the FBI kicked down any doors.

      The "caught on tape" phrase is also misleading in that it implies that the FBI agents were sneaking around. It is just as likely that they came to the front door, presented their credentials and stated they were returning the server. They then went into the server room and returned the server to where it belonged. Where in any of the reports is there any statement that the agents were sneaking? Sure they didn't call the server owner or the colocation company telling them what they were doing but that is very different than "sneaking around". If you watch the video you will notice that the agent in front of the rack looks directly at the camera at least three times. He didn't care there was a camera there because they were not sneaking around.

    2. Re:I guess I don't understand ... by Immerman · · Score: 1

      *Security had some issues with shooting people unchallenged. But now that they carry Tasers as well as semi-autos, you get no warning.

      And that's exactly why widespread deployment of tasers and other sub-lethal weaponry among law enforcement is a bad idea. You do considerably less "expected damage" per occurrence, but the frequency of occurrences skyrockets and encourages an institutional culture in which the casual use of violence is acceptable.

      In your case though it sounds like you'd actually prefer it if the guards just shot the intruder and asked questions later, and the tasers are a concession to their inconvenient level of restraint. I really hope you're working in one of the few contexts where such measures might actually be called for...

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
  14. FBI challanges DHS by Anomalyst · · Score: 1

    For the the Peoples Choice award for funniest security vaudeville.

    --
    There is no right to feel safe thru security vaudeville at the expense of everyone's freedom, privacy and tax money.
  15. The FBI has been busy. by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1, Insightful

    The server, which was operated by the European Counter Network ('ECN'), ... was seized in relation to bomb threats sent to the University of Pittsburgh using a Mixmaster anonymous remailer hosted on the server.

    Given their recent activities - Terrorist Plots, Hatched by the F.B.I. - I wouldn't be surprised if the FBI e-mailed that bomb threat themselves so they could legally seize and search the ECN system - brilliant.

    --
    It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    1. Re:The FBI has been busy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wouldn't be surprised if the FBI e-mailed that bomb threat themselves so they could legally seize and search the ECN system - brilliant.

      If it was only one bomb threat, then yes, that might be suspicious. But 145 bomb threats were sent over the course of 2 months, most of which happened over about 3 weeks.

      See also: http://stopthepittbombthreats.blogspot.com/

  16. Ah, Yes, the Tinfoil Hat Game! by eldavojohn · · Score: 4, Funny

    As you pointed out, this is a VERY fast turn-around ... almost like they hope that people will use it in a "business as usual" fashion ... like a honeypot?

    Not even telling them that it was back so that the owners could decide if they even wanted to risk leaving it in place? VERY suspicious.

    The FBI also left a dolly to move the server. Unfortunately the dolly is filled with microphones and wi-fi packet recorders. The FBI also left a fruit basket as an apology. Unfortunately the fruit is laced with mind control chemicals. The FBI also left an apology note. Unfortunately the text is interlaced with words that activate their sleeper agent inside the company.

    I mean I can play the conspiracy game all day, yeah if they installed spyware on it, the FBI are pieces of shit. At least have the decency to request the compliance of the company and let them decide to help you track down a scofflaw. At least you could then tell the parents and students that this company won't comply with your investigation so your hands are tied until further leads.

    I mean, come on, you think that the FBI is that savvy? You think that any two bit network or systems engineer wouldn't be able to pick up on weirdness in network traffic or processes running from/on the machine phoning home to the FBI? Any company worth its salt that accepts a server or hardware back from anybody proceeds to rebuild it from scratch. Flash or upgrade the firmware if you want! It's so hilariously convenient that law enforcement is a barrel of bumbling idiots when they're supposed to be helping us and when they're trying to help us they are seventeen steps ahead of us and already have infiltrated my underwear drawer. In this story they go straight from idiots who can't understand that logging is turned off on this server to installing honeypot software/devices in two weeks into a device they just got. Right. VERY suspicious. And let's face it, this bomb threat guy has already moved on to another remailer and he's not going to return to this remailer that he has inconvenienced.

    --
    My work here is dung.
    1. Re:Ah, Yes, the Tinfoil Hat Game! by element-o.p. · · Score: 2

      I mean, come on, you think that the FBI is that savvy? You think that any two bit network or systems engineer wouldn't be able to pick up on weirdness in network traffic or processes running from/on the machine phoning home to the FBI?

      Google "covert channels."

      You can't know what was done to the server while it was gone. Ergo, you cannot trust that server again.

      While I agree that most likely all the FBI did is image the drive so they could look for information on where the e-mails originated, you can't know that. Yes, even a marginally competent network admin could look for unusual traffic to unusual domains/IP addresses, but if you are dealing with a server used by hundreds of strangers (even if they are customers), it can get pretty difficult to separate the signal from the noise. Then there are the covert channels I referenced earlier. It can be impossible to ferret those out without inside information because literally ANYTHING can be a carrier for information. And quite frankly, while I often question my government's judgment and ethics, I sincerely hope that their cryptography and security experts are more knowledgeable in those fields than I am, considering the information (nuclear and biological weapons tech, for example) that they are tasked with protecting.

      --
      MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
    2. Re:Ah, Yes, the Tinfoil Hat Game! by Barbara,+not+Barbie · · Score: 2

      They returned it without telling the owners that it was returned. What if it had sat there for a month, reporting on every packet passing through it?

      It's not that they returned it so quickly, but that they hoped the owners wouldn't realize it was up and running again.

      The right thing to do would have been to say "Okay, we're done, where do you want us to drop it off?" Not covertly stick it back in the rack and hook it up.

      --
      Let's call it what it is, Anti-Social Media.
    3. Re:Ah, Yes, the Tinfoil Hat Game! by rhizome · · Score: 2

      This is exactly it. The FBI aren't the ones responsible for reinstalling the machine into the rack. They took it on themselves for some reason, and avoiding attention was evidently part of it.

      --
      When I was a kid, we only had one Darth.
    4. Re:Ah, Yes, the Tinfoil Hat Game! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Get fucked.

      All you're trying to do is discredit a very reasonable premise by conflating it with conspiracy strawmen.

      I hope youre not so pathetically naive as to think that the FBI wouldnt and doesnt routinely track and monitor people without notice or due process... considering we've seen countless fucking examples of people having their cars and other hardware bugged and tracked

    5. Re:Ah, Yes, the Tinfoil Hat Game! by jklovanc · · Score: 1

      At least have the decency to request the compliance of the company and let them decide to help you track down a scofflaw.

      That would just give them time to wipe the drive, reformat it and re-install the disk image. No law enforcement officer is going to give anyone a chance to cover up evidence by telegraphing where they want to search.

      It's so hilariously convenient that law enforcement is a barrel of bumbling idiots

      Excellent generalization and patently untrue. There are thousands of IT professionals in law enforcement ranging from idiots who get all the press to geniuses who are never seen. If you want to be taken in by the bad press then go ahead and leave yourself open to the ones who can code circles around just about anyone.

      As for the "no information on this server" excuse, would you really believe any server owner who said that? Few people would believe that from a large company; why would one believe it from anyone else? Might it be possible that the "annonymizer" is imperfect and there may be usable data on the server? Perhaps the FBI seized to server to cover all their bases. That way if the bombing did happen the FBI can say they did everything possible to prevent it. I believe that the same people who are protesting seizing the server would be blasting the FBI for not seizing the server if a bomb went off.

    6. Re:Ah, Yes, the Tinfoil Hat Game! by mortonda · · Score: 1

      You think that any two bit network or systems engineer wouldn't be able to pick up on weirdness in network traffic or processes running from/on the machine phoning home to the FBI? Any company worth its salt that accepts a server or hardware back from anybody proceeds to rebuild it from scratch.

      This server already has a record of having an anonymous remailer on it, what makes you think the operators know all this?

    7. Re:Ah, Yes, the Tinfoil Hat Game! by 0racle · · Score: 1

      SOP not trusting the server and therefore reimaging it without question is a very different position then the conspiracy theory 'they must have turned the server into a honeypot.'

      --
      "I use a Mac because I'm just better than you are."
    8. Re:Ah, Yes, the Tinfoil Hat Game! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They returned it without telling the owners that it was returned.

      Bullshit. Where in the article is it say that? They brought it back to ECN. Are you claiming that ECN allows people to wander into their server room unannounced, unescorted, and undetected and install things like video cameras and servers? LOL.

  17. Who broke slashdot? by SoupGuru · · Score: 1

    Am I the only one waiting minutes for a slashdot page to load?

    --
    What doesn't kill you only delays the inevitable
    1. Re:Who broke slashdot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Me too, they should get their new Business Intelligence team on it.

    2. Re:Who broke slashdot? by metalgamer84 · · Score: 1

      No, /. has been laggy all morning so far. I keep having to try and reload pages.

    3. Re:Who broke slashdot? by Anomalyst · · Score: 1

      Hopefully they are better than the old Business Stupidity guy.

      --
      There is no right to feel safe thru security vaudeville at the expense of everyone's freedom, privacy and tax money.
    4. Re:Who broke slashdot? by OldGunner · · Score: 1

      I know where they can get a slightly used server....probably for pennies on the dollar.

      --
      Vietnam Veteran / Former Postal Worker -- Use Caution When Taunting!
    5. Re:Who broke slashdot? by geekoid · · Score: 1

      IT' so bad, then when I got an error, I went to CNN to see if something big happened.
      Which says something about the general reliability of /.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  18. Nice suit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Looks like he's going to a funeral.

  19. Yes you are by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 1

    In the law-suit happy world we live in, you dam sure do need to evacuate on bomb threats. If you do, you'll get sued. Even if it is just a case of you didn't evacuate and it is revealed that you received a threat there's a decent chance you get sued. However in the event there is a bomb and it goes off? You are fucked, sued out of existence. So, institutions have to err on the side of caution, on the side of not getting sued.

    What it changed? Change the law first. However you cannot reasonably say to a university "Just ignore it, hope it is nothing and that nobody find out and sues you."

    Also there are ways to stop anonymous threat from happening, you just really, REALLY won't like any of them.

    1. Re:Yes you are by Mordermi · · Score: 2

      I agree with this. Also, my girlfriend works there and I would much rather them evacuate than my girlfriend get blown up because they ignored a threat by "a 12 year old kid" that turns out to be real.

  20. You Need to Slow Down by eldavojohn · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Try reading the Bill of Rights sometime. The FBI broke the 6th law in that document (also known as the 4th amendment) which requires obtaining a search warrant from a judge prior to entrance.

    You mean something like this? The warrant that was linked to not only in the article but also the summary?

    And yes sometimes the bad guy gets away.

    That would be a hilarious motto for any law enforcement agency! I'd opt for "We do everything within our legal rights to catch the bad guy."

    That is preferable to harassing innocent people & treating them like criminals (example: patting down their breasts and crotches)

    You are confusing the FBI and TSA.

    (example: randomly searching through cars)

    You are confusing the FBI and ... your local law enforcement? Who require probable cause?

    (example: arresting people who publish anti-war pamphlets)

    The FBI might have done that in the past during Vietnam but it was probably for other trumped up bogus charges and luckily today we have the EFF/ACLU to take up those cases when that happens. Got any recent examples or really any citations at all for this entire post?

    (example: rounding-up asian-Americans & tossing them in jail cause it's world war 2)

    Wow, dude, that was six decades ago ... yeah it was horrible and I think it's been publicly recognized as horribly racist and is a reason for public shame to the United States. I do not think that's happening today.

    (example: assassinating Americans because you SUSPECT they might be terrorists)

    Again, I think you're confusing the FBI with some other agency ...

    (example: strip-searching old people before they can fly)

    But you repeat yourself ... that's the TSA, not FBI. The TSA definitely has no purpose and needs to be dissolved.

    (example: forcing a breast-feeding mom to stand in a glass jail for an hour, rather than let her take her pumping equipment home to her newborn kid)

    What the hell? Citation?

    INFORM yourself of what's happening in the world.

    Yep, I'm the misinformed one here, got it. Hey, since all government actions are from the same people (you cross state and federal levels several times there) why don't you go tell your local county clerk to stop murdering Afghan children? Makes about as much sense as the rest of your rambling post ...

    --
    My work here is dung.
    1. Re:You Need to Slow Down by cpu6502 · · Score: 1

      The FBI and the TSA are part of the same department You tried to insinuate they are unconnected, but they both fall under the Department of Homeland Security with the same overall boss (Big Brother Janet Napolitano).

      >>>>>example: forcing a breast-feeding mom to stand in a glass jail for an hour...
      >>
      >>What the hell? Citation?

      Well Mr. Doubting Thomas who fails to keep himself informed about the world (probably too busy watching Faux News or DNC-NBC), here is your citation. And before you say something stupid... moms ARE allowed to carry breastmilk and pumping equipment on planes. She showed the papers to the SS goons but the rotten fuckers still threw her in that glass jail for an hour, making her lose her flight, and equipment, and forcing her to dump the food for her newbown baby. So Mr. Collaborator, take your stupid defense of the DHS and shove it up your cunt. Defending the tyrannical state means you AGREE with the tyrannical state. You are an ememy of the Bill of Rights and the People.

      VIDEO
      - Mother Kept In Glass Cage For Almost An Hour By TSA
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oKWTzQhiX7M

      Mom forced to breastfeed by the SA nazis
      VIDEO www.youtube.com/watch?v=6v0g3TdJmKo
      ARTICLE:
        http://mybrownbaby.com/2012/03/tsa-forces-breastfeeding-mom-to-pump-in-airport-bathroom-do-you-know-the-rules/

      ARTICLE
      4-year-old accosted by the SA:
      "She started to cry, saying `No I donâ(TM)t want to,â(TM) and when we tried talking to her she ran. They yelled, `We are going to shut down the airport if you donâ(TM)t grab her." Read more at http://www.inquisitr.com/226208/crying-4-year-old-forced-to-go-through-pat-down-after-hugging-grandmother-by-tsa/#XWIWvjxG7GxWhYKu.99

      --
      My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    2. Re:You Need to Slow Down by cpu6502 · · Score: 1

      P.S.

      And when I said "no warrant" I was referring to the SECOND entrance to the building. Yes the FBI had permission to go grab the server for the 1st time. They had NO permission to break-and-enter the building three weeks later. They would have needed to go get another 2nd warrant for the 2nd entrance. They broke the law.

      --
      My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    3. Re:You Need to Slow Down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://todaytravel.today.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/03/05/10582817-tsa-apologizes-to-humiliated-mom-for-breast-pump-gaffe?lite

  21. Trespassing? by HerbertStencil · · Score: 1

    Well, assuming they had a warrant for the seizure in the first place, fine and good that they did their job looking for the bad guys. But I don't think a judge would have given them a warrant to break in and return the server unless they thought no one had noticed it was gone. Why did they not just call the owner and say they wanted to return the server. Were they trying to be nice by returning it to its rightful place. How did they get in to return it? Has this place no security? Did they bully some pimply faced security guard into opening the door? Did the guard have authority to grant them access to the cage? No legal access means trespassing; the feds are not above laws on criminal trespass.

  22. Why mess with the software? why not addl hardware? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    actually, couldn't they just install a piece of hardware like a network logger that would be transparent to the server?

  23. The Harvest by glorybe · · Score: 1

    Should we not read this as the FBI has copied and is studying everything they can stored on that server plus they have tossed in their own secret recipe so that everything that passes through that server from now on flows right to the agency? You can bet that very special attention has been paid to that equipment.

  24. The problem of virtualization by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Server virtualization is pretty awesome for getting low cost, geographically distributed server power.

    But this is the problem you face. Your virtual server is sharing a physical box, disk, and memory with strangers. Strangers who might be doing all manner of things. And who might (as in this case) do something that would cause law enforcement to need to take down the server. Sorry you're collateral damage, but that's frankly the price you pay for shared infrastructure.

    You want guaranteed uptime? Have multiple instances. You want your data protected? Have it in multiple places, encrypted.

    I have a hard time getting mad at "The Big Bad FBI seized a server that had some legitimately bad stuff on it but also had some stuff for other people on it."

  25. Would anyone trust a returned server? by Ries · · Score: 1

    Would anyone trust a returned server from the FBI? I would properly wipe it 3 times and flash the bios a few times just to be sure. That thing could be spyware haven.

  26. For Shame by jimmerz28 · · Score: 1

    The white guy in the tie looks pretty cute...too bad he works for the FBI.

    Then again I do like em cute and dumb.

    1. Re:For Shame by geekoid · · Score: 1
      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    2. Re:For Shame by jimmerz28 · · Score: 1

      Oh wow you need to have a 4 year degree in the respective program (law aside) you're applying to.

      Impressive!

    3. Re:For Shame by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Intelligence requires more than just jumping through hoops set up by educators. One must think for oneself and actually choose to reason universally and consistently. That necessarily excludes those who are a part of or work with institutions that have self-contradictory goals and advocate contradictory propositions. Consider the number of theologist scholars for example. Their ability to recount historical facts and repeat sophist arguments does not mean they aren't dumb. Or consider further those trained in the arguments for teaching of dialectic materialism and other communist propaganda in the 're-education' centers in Korea or in the old USSR. These scholars were highly trained and very convincing, yet they started from some obviously false premises. They were stupid tools.

      Their inclination for self deception and avoidance of some basic axioms are what defines their stupidity. Mechanical repetition of trained behaviors and blindly following rules is a clear sign of being dumb. So, credentials like the ones you list for job prereqs are not valid evidence for rebuttal.

  27. Here's your tinfoil hat. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So, your theory is that....
    a.) the FBI knew exactly which server the ECN data lived on in the CoLo facility,
    b.) knew exactly which other virtual servers were on the same box,
    c.) had sufficient access to fake a bomb threat through someone else's server to justify the search warrant.

    With that much access to the internals of the CoLo, why would they NEED to drum up a pretext to search the server?

  28. The only question I have by koan · · Score: 1

    Was it connected correctly?

    --
    "If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
  29. "transparent" remailers by Onymous+Coward · · Score: 1

    Allow me to take this opportunity to bring up again the idea of "transparent" remailers. The term may seem paradoxical at first, until you realize what "transparent" applies to.

    Here's the idea:

    If remailers are getting taken down because authorities want images of their hard drives, what about just giving that to them? Preemptively? The hard drives should have nothing revealing on them, I think. (Is that your understanding, too?) If the drives have nothing revealing, then remailers could continue to operate despite law enforcement investigation.

    You just submit a drive image to the law enforcement agency.

    The possible sticking points I see:

    • thermal freezing of RAM for memory recovery may make physical confiscation still desirable
    • the attackers may not believe the accuracy of your hard drive content reports
    • (ad hoc) hard drive reports may still somehow leak information and undermine anonymity
    • knowing exact software state (which programs and versions being used and their configurations) may increase vulnerability to intrusion

    My intuition says it may be possible to overcome each of these.

  30. F-F-F-Fuck tha FBI! Fuck tha Police! by TiggertheMad · · Score: 1

    Does it really matter if the FBI or the colocation compant told the server owner it was back?

    Well, you are correct, legally, they probably did everything they needed to. The problem the FBI has, however, is that is perceived as a bunch of power happy bullies that throw their legal weight around whenever it suits them. Wither this is the case or not is moot, if this is the public perception.

    What they should be doing is apologizing more and, and talking and working with people more before just seizing servers right and left. In the long run, you catch more flys with honey than vinegar. I am a pretty honest person, but if the FBI showed up at my front door, my first reaction would be to tell them to fuck off, just based on their reputation. They do some good work trying to catch some really nasty people, but they definitely have a PR problem.

    Additionally, the shouldn't need to hold computers as evidence for more than a few days. I believe police procedure is to pull and mirror the drives before they do anything to the machine so holding hardware is really just being vindictive.

    --

    HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
    1. Re:F-F-F-Fuck tha FBI! Fuck tha Police! by jklovanc · · Score: 1

      What they should be doing is apologizing more and, and talking and working with people more before just seizing servers right and left.

      Apologizing for investigating where the evidence leads them? Working with people and giving the warnings of searches so they can erase evidence? Sure your first reaction would be to say "fuck off" but that would not matter if they had a search warrant. By the way, even if the FBI had an excellent reputation (which is impossible in this tin foil hat paranoia world) any criminal would tell the FBI to "fuck off". It would seem that someone pissed off at the FBI's reputation looks a lot like someone who has something to hide.

      you catch more flys with honey than vinegar

      Actually you catch more criminals by stealth and speed than by broadcasting your intentions. Tell someone you are going to search somewhere and in all likelihood you will not find anything by the time you get there.

      Additionally, the shouldn't need to hold computers as evidence for more than a few days. I believe police procedure is to pull and mirror the drives before they do anything to the machine so holding hardware is really just being vindictive.

      Copies of evidence are generally less reliable in court as they could have been tampered with. Mirroring is generally to protect the information in case it gets destroyed by accidentally setting off a wipe program. If there is a choice between admitting the original drive into evidence or a backup it is always better to admit the original.

    2. Re:F-F-F-Fuck tha FBI! Fuck tha Police! by TiggertheMad · · Score: 1

      I am not advocating saying pretty please to criminals. I am advocating trying to cause less collateral damage in its investigations, and making sure that they are issuing warrants for the right people.

      --

      HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
    3. Re:F-F-F-Fuck tha FBI! Fuck tha Police! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Well, you are correct, legally, they probably did everything they needed to. The problem the FBI has, however, is that is perceived as a bunch of power happy bullies that throw their legal weight around whenever it suits them. Wither this is the case or not is moot, if this is the public perception. "

      The problem with the FBI is not however you perceive them. That is YOUR problem. The FBI does not exist to suit your impression of what you think they ought to be. The notion that they need to conform to the public's impression in order to be correct or effective is a sign of the times. If you feel they are acting clearly outside the law: please state your case. Otherwise, please stop with the propaganda - we have more than too much of that going on in this country. The cause celebre is often just slanted politics. I don't think the FBI, while imperfect, are really a bunch of power happy bullies running around throwing innocent people up against brick walls and emptying their pockets in case they are carrying contraband. Again, if you have clear evidence of this, please feel free to provide it. And while you consider this, please also be mindful that anyone in a position of authority or law enforcement is always going to be painted as overreaching or power-happy by the people who are seeking to defend against them. That doesn't make the accused or the guilty necessarily correct.

    4. Re:F-F-F-Fuck tha FBI! Fuck tha Police! by jklovanc · · Score: 1

      How would you do that when the information being looked for could be anywhere on any drive on the server and if the server was kept up could be erased, deliberately or accidentally, by anyone with proper access? How do you handle the competing goals of inconveniencing users and making sure all evidence is gathered and all evidence would be admissible in court. One main issue is that a defense attorney will want to analyze the drive that any evidence has been retrieved from to confirm that it has not been tampered with. One can not do that if the server is still live.

      For example, if one is performing a search warrant directed at personal and common areas in a house does one allow the other occupants to use the common areas while the search is going on? It is an inconvenience for everyone in the house but it needs to be done for evidentiary reasons. The same thing goes for a server.

      Warrants are issues for places and the place stipulated in this warrant included the server at a specific IP.

      If the server was so critical what about backup hardware and disk images. What would have happened if the motherboard just died? Since, supposedly, nothing is stored on the server a clone could have been created in hours. Since that did not happen it points to the server not being all that important.

      PS. The "F-F-F-Fuck the FBI! Fuck the police!" attitude is juvenile. If we want them to solve crimes the FBI and Police need to be able to serve warrants and gather evidence. If people are inconvenienced; too bad, that is the price we pay for justice. I bet you attitude would change if a loved one received a credible threat.

    5. Re:F-F-F-Fuck tha FBI! Fuck tha Police! by TiggertheMad · · Score: 1

      PS. The "F-F-F-Fuck the FBI! Fuck the police!" attitude is juvenile. If we want them to solve crimes the FBI and Police need to be able to serve warrants and gather evidence. If people are inconvenienced; too bad, that is the price we pay for justice. I bet you attitude would change if a loved one received a credible threat.

      Is it? If you ask the average person if they trusted a law enforcement official, what do you think the answer would be. I am a truly boring person in the legal sense, but even I don't trust them an inch. There is a famous proverb that people shouldn't be afraid of their government, the government should be afraid of its people. Law enforcement is here to serve and protect, not harass and intimidate.

      I will gladly be inconvenienced for justice. I will not be inconvenienced because I want to get on an airplane and they are trying to strip search me. I will not be inconvenienced because some cop decides to tear gas every single demonstrator on a block I happen to be walking down. I will not be inconvenienced because they decide to steal a server that I use and is shared with a fucking re-mailer that they can't even get any info from anyway.

      --

      HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
    6. Re:F-F-F-Fuck tha FBI! Fuck tha Police! by jklovanc · · Score: 1

      It is spurious to heap all the the issues from all police agencies together and attempt to use that as justification for not allowing seizure of a server. This case is not about the TSA or riot control; it is about serving a legal warrant.

      Using the word "steal" is also invalid. To steal something is an unlawful act. The server was seized in accordance with a duly attested, signed and served search warrant and was therefore completely legal.

      This is similar to a search warrant served on a vehicle. The police will generally take the vehicle to a secure indoor area to do the search. Following your rules they would not be allowed to do that if the vehicle was used by anyone other than the person being investigated, maybe their spouse or child, as it would inconvenience them.

      As I have said before, I bet you would not believe Google if they said they didn't keep logs so why should the police believe the same statement?

  31. It's a shame... by OldGunner · · Score: 1

    No one jumped out and shouted "Smile, you're on Candid Camera!"

    --
    Vietnam Veteran / Former Postal Worker -- Use Caution When Taunting!
  32. The FBI by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's for you

  33. Ah, Yes, the Tinfoil whitey-tighty Game! by TiggertheMad · · Score: 1

    they are seventeen steps ahead of us and already have infiltrated my underwear drawer.

    Shit! Yours too? I was afraid I was the only one here wearing tinfoil boxers....

    --

    HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
  34. Errr... huh? by sirwired · · Score: 1

    Are you saying that the FBI should phone ahead before executing a proper and valid search warrant? (Which could give those involved ample time to remove incriminating evidence.)

    Yes, if they have a warrant to do so, the FBI can "go around removing servers at will." That's kind of the point of a warrant.

    And I'm pretty surprised Riseup didn't have somebody at the data center follow the agents around and/or ask for an inventory of what was taken from where. IIRC, a full inventory of seized items is something you can request of any warrant executed on your property.

    1. Re:Errr... huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1) The FBI visited the MF/PL offices several days before they seized the server. The director of MF/PL cooperated with them, and informed them that the software that was running the anonymous remailer (Mixmaster) didn't keep the logs that the FBI was looking for.

      2) The FBI didn't serve the warrant on MF/PL or Riseup. They served it on the data center, and didn't inform either party, who found out when Nagios starting screaming at them. If the FBI had said, "We're taking your property, we already disconnected it from the 'net" I'm sure a representative would have come down and asked for such an inventory.

  35. Which is it? [Re:Anonymous mails to send bomb...] by Geoffrey.landis · · Score: 1

    The text of the article and the information in the articles it links to seem to state different things.

    The article linked states:

    "...the FBI returned to May First's offices, this time with a subpoena, requesting information about the server. We [the EFF] helped them respond to the subpoena and May First turned over what minimal information it had; namely that the server was running the anonymous remailer program Mixmaster"

    But the link in that goes to this site http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/local/neighborhoods-city/internet-service-to-help-in-probe-of-pitt-threats-631734/
    which states:

    "An Internet hosting service through which at least three University of Pittsburgh bomb threats passed said Monday that one of its servers was "hijacked" and it is cooperating with the FBI.... May First/People Link believes someone illegally hacked into ECN's system, which requires members to log in, and emailed the bomb threats, said Alfredo Lopez, co-director of May First/People Link. "The problem is, somehow this joker got in, and we don't believe they had an authentic login. We think they did some kind of shenanigan to get in there," Mr. Lopez said. ...

    These seem to be completely different things! The article states that they were running an anonymous remailer which, assuming it's done right, doesn't leave any trail. But the link in that text states that they believed that "someone illegally hacked into their system" and "they did some kind of shenanigan to get it"-- which could plausibly have left fingerprints, since real-world hackers aren't always the genius criminal masterminds that the movies like to portray.

    Which is it? Were they "illegally hacked" using "shenanigans", or were they running a remailer open to anonymous login? Or, did they actually run an anonymous remailer, but told the FBI that they were hacked?

    --
    http://www.geoffreylandis.com
  36. So? by geekoid · · Score: 2

    They got a warrant, took it. When done the replaced it.

    Wow..yeah.. stop the presses...

    Some people are trying too hard to find a reason to be angry.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    1. Re:So? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Really ever heard of the 4th? read any of the other comments? They are supposed to inform the owner prior to serving the warrant. But maybe that just isn't important to you.

      Mods what chap giving this idiot a +3, if he isn't going to at LEAST the mods should read the comments first.

  37. Plan of action by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hardware rootkits are bad, mkay?
    1) remove hdd, destroy, sell or research it.
    2) check for modifications and remove all batteries, flash all firmwares.
    3) donate returned server to orphanage (with cheap hdd and a clean install).
    4) aquire new server.
    This scenario is the only smart thing to do.

  38. Re:Why mess with the software? why not addl hardwa by Khyber · · Score: 1

    Anyone with a brain would go over that system with a fine-toothed comb to look for such things, and then wipe the system and restore from a known-good backup, and diff update.

    --
    Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
  39. Warrants generally require notification. by Above · · Score: 1, Interesting

    If the police come to your house and search it with a warrant when you are not home, they are required to leave a copy of the warrant "in plain sight" in most instances. Except for a few rare cases the law generally requires that the owner of the property being searched and seized be notified, and this is the accepted way to do it.

    In this case ECN says they were not notified. We don't know why, but there are a number of interesting possibilities:

    • The police served the warrant on XO, their hosting provider. This has been done before, and I have a feeling one of these days one of the cases will make it to the federal appeals court or even supreme court. A colo is more like a apartment building than a hotel, and in most jurisdictions the named in an apartment search must be the leasee, not the apartment owner. If the police did this leaving the warrant with XO was enough legally, but not right, and XO should have told ECN.
    • The police named ECN, in which case they should have left the warrant in plain sight. We can argue a bit about what this means, but when taking one server I think taping it to the rack near where the server was taken would fit the bill. Since ECN sent staff and saw nothing, I'd say this didn't happen. It prevents ECN from mounting a proper defense and involving their lawyers early, and I think judges should frown on it. Unfortunately few of these cases have made it anywhere, and Judges don't understand colo...yet.

    Either way, XO or the FBI fubared the notification at a corporate and legal level respectively.

    Now, let's look at putting it back, first in the real world. FBI gets a warrant to search your house for a joint, breaks in when you're not at home, searches it, and finds what it thinks is a joint. Takes that, runs it off for testing and finds out it's full of oregano or something. Does the FBI now break back into your house when you're not home and put the joint back? Heck no. It would in fact be breaking and entering. Your right to privacy is being broken. Plus, they just don't do it, anyone who's ever retrieved seized property knows you go to the evidence room, fill out a bunch of paperwork, and you're on your own to take it back home. No warrant is ever issued to return property.

    I think a competent lawyer could have a lot of fun with this case. Invasion of privacy, breaking and entering, civil trespass, etc, all from returning it. The FBI should have given ECN a notice to come pick it up, and they didn't. Thing is, I'm sure they know better, this really does feel like some sort of cover-up attempt. "What server? We don't have any of your servers. Are you sure it's missing?"

  40. Re:Why mess with the software? why not addl hardwa by darkpixel2k · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Anyone with a brain would go over that system with a fine-toothed comb to look for such things, and then wipe the system and restore from a known-good backup, and diff update.

    Trash the server, it's the only way to be sure. In fact, since they appear to have been in the datacenter, just nuke the entire site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.

    --
    There's no place like ::1 (I've completed my transition to IPv6)
  41. Morons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sunbird and Jeremiah...you are both fucking morons.

    "Caught returning the server"? ooooohhhhh!

    Waste of fucking bandwidth.

    Dumbshits.

  42. replaced in 3:17 by NemoinSpace · · Score: 1

    Wonder how much time they charged the department.

  43. It's the stupid idiot one. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Your post being one example of this.

    stupid fucking idiot.

  44. Meanwhile, in tech... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Does anyone know what equipment is being used for the rack camera/recorder? I'd not seen that before and I'm definitely interested in putting cameras in my racks too, provided the cost isn't too high. I don't particularly care to spend a fortune in co-lo fees just to host a camera and DVR.

  45. Re:Which is it? [Re:Anonymous mails to send bomb.. by uninformedLuddite · · Score: 1

    Can you provide me a link to this Shenanigans software of which you speak.

    --
    The new right fascists are bilingual. They speak English and Bullshit.
  46. Memo to self : by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

    When installing CCTV inside a server housing rack, also arrange a nice, helpful internal light (probably wired to a simple door switch) so that the people opening the rack can see the wiring loom, power connectors, etc. And so the camera can see their faces. So that the CCTV's viewers/ payers can actually get some value for their investments.

    --
    Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  47. Re:Why mess with the software? why not addl hardwa by mgcarley · · Score: 1

    Screw worrying about the software - hopefully the important stuff is on a clean backup anyway.

    My concern would be whether they may have installed a hardware spy device of some description.

    --
    Founder & COO, Hayai India (hayai.in) / USA (hayaibroadband.com) // t: @mgcarley