Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Hacker Builds a Dark Net Version of the FBI Tip Form

Posted by samzenpus on from the here's-a-tip dept.

Daniel_Stuckey writes A London-based programmer has set up a new hidden service for anyone using Tor to submit anonymous tips to the FBI. With the new .onion hidden service link, which accesses the FBI's tips page through a reverse proxy, Mustafa Al-Bassam told me in an IRC chat that he's engineered a "proof-of-concept," demonstrating how the bureau might go about setting up a more secure system for receiving crime tips.

41 comments

  1. Epic Fail by danknight48 · · Score: 1, Funny

    but adds no additional security beyond just visiting the FBI’s tips page over a Tor connection.

    So. Some guy sets up a Tor link to a webpage:
    - Gets his own news story
    - Gets "Hacker" status

    Lol....Epic slow news day.

    1. Re:Epic Fail by Z00L00K · · Score: 0

      It depends on the tip if they investigate it or not.

      A single tip may not be a case for action, but it may still be useful to raise awareness of that something is going on.

      If more than one indication comes in then the tip may be useful.

      --
      If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
    2. Re: Epic Fail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Lol, you won't even know who he is... Ever heard of tflow?

    3. Re:Epic Fail by davester666 · · Score: 1

      Alternately, if the tip is about someone they are already interested in, it doesn't matter if the info comes from someone anonymous and/or if the information is even marginally truthful or accurate, they will still present it to a judge as fact to get a warrant they couldn't get before.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
  2. The FBI does not want Anonymous tips by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I do not any law agency really wants anonymous tips. They want a way to track you down for one reason or another.

    1. Re:The FBI does not want Anonymous tips by danknight48 · · Score: 2

      I do not any law agency really wants anonymous tips. They want a way to track you down for one reason or another.

      I see where your coming from :)

      Dear FBI,

      I heard that Santa is abusing his gnomes at Xmas time by not paying the minimum wage.

      I also have proof that he is using Amazon Logistics instead of chimneys.
      Please investigate this. I simply dont have any more room in my recycling bin for more cardboard.

      Yours Sincerely,
      Mr. Anonymous

    2. Re:The FBI does not want Anonymous tips by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      your != you're

    3. Re:The FBI does not want Anonymous tips by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Your you're is the correct you're for the you're that was meant. But, his your was the wrong your.

      I also hate it when you'retards your their you'res.

    4. Re:The FBI does not want Anonymous tips by danknight48 · · Score: 0

      your != you're

      American English != British English

  3. Great resource for the kidnapped! by jtara · · Score: 0

    If I am ever kidnapped, I will be sure to remember this!

    I can use Tor to post an "anonymous" tip, and then the FBI can rescue me quickly!

    Maybe I cant get surreptitious Internet access, I can convince the kidnappers to use the Tip site to taunt the FBI! Get them to think I'm on their side. "Hey we can use TOR to tell the FBI how badly f*cked-up they are!

    1. Re:Great resource for the kidnapped! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      ... the FBI can rescue me quickly!

      Didn't you watch 'Scorpion'? The FBI can track your movements via your IP address. Just use a wi-fi tablet/laptop daily.

      Does anyone remember the Tv. show 'Whiz kids', shown at prime-time viewing? Firstly, it was a detective show for tweenies, so there wasn't a lot of danger to the teenage characters. Like 'X-files' years later, there wasn't any character development. But the worst part, was the idea of every piece of information they needed could be found on a computer. It was so unrealistic, as was the idea that everybody would use a computer on a daily basis and computers would talk. OK, that last one is still unrealistic.

      The show 'Scorpion' has a different problem: The massive amount of counter-intelligence it spreads. The FBI doesn't need all those no-knock warrants and zero-day exploits; every file and message you send is copied by third-party routers. User authentication and cyber-security is worthless; the FBI can crack your computer remotely and immediately. Lastly, the FBI can find you (or at least, your computer) anytime, anywhere. Given 'Silk road 2.0', that last one may be true.

  4. Antithetical by Dereck1701 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Anonymity is complete antithetical to what the the FBI and most other "law enforcement" agencies want, to know everything about everybody for all time so that their jobs are easier. At the same time they want the general public to know next to nothing about their activities beyond that they are "working for the common good/have everything under control". This is of course no way to run a free society and as such there are rules (or there are at least supposed to be) limiting their behavior. I'm not sure anonymous tips are compatible with a free society, they encourage flagrant abuses, such as officers submitting their own tips to attempt an end run around the fourth amendment and people with axes to grind submitting false/misleading tips against those whom they dislike.

    1. Re:Antithetical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Betray Your Family & Friends. Fabulous Prizes to be Won"

    2. Re:Antithetical by Immerman · · Score: 1

      Actually I imagine most law enforcement"agencies would love securely anonymous tips: They get clues from people who might be too afraid to come out publicly, which would cut down on "yet another gang murder in the middle of a crowded street where nobody saw anything" situations, while also allowing them to submit their own anonymous tips when they need to bureaucratically bolster their intuition. The possibilities for abuse are of course astounding, but that doesn't seem to bother the SWAT teams currently breaking down doors based on spurious less-securely-anonymous tips.

      As a free society of course we should recognize that potential for abuse and make sure anonymous tips can't be used as justification for any but the most non-invasive of actions. Get a tip that there's a meth lab operating at 123 Xyz street? Send an officer to walk past and do a sniff test, maybe even knock on the door and sell them some tickets to the policemen's ball to get a better look around. But if you're going to kick in the door and shoot the dog you'd better damn well have a warrant based on something a lot more substantial than an anonymous tip.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    3. Re:Antithetical by meta-monkey · · Score: 2

      But if you're going to kick in the door and shoot the dog you'd better damn well have a warrant based on something a lot more substantial than an anonymous tip.

      The anonymous tip just needs to mention the suspects are black.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    4. Re:Antithetical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ain't that true.....

    5. Re:Antithetical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The purpose of our founding documents is purposed precisely on the premise to make the government's job harder AND make the people's job easier*.

      * Except in New York, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Illinois, Wisconsin and California.

      Guys, don't forget The Onion reference in .onion

    6. Re:Antithetical by rogoshen1 · · Score: 1

      are you implying that parallel construction is anything but a bedrock of modern policing? Cmon man, even the supreme court ruled it was 'constitutional' -- we live in a society filled with bad actors at every turn who will victimize you at some point. Let's not make their job easier by handcuffing the FBI/police with needless due process :(

    7. Re:Antithetical by vux984 · · Score: 1

      As a free society of course we should recognize that potential for abuse and make sure anonymous tips can't be used as justification for any but the most non-invasive of actions. Get a tip that there's a meth lab operating at 123 Xyz street? Send an officer to walk past and do a sniff test, maybe even knock on the door and sell them some tickets to the policemen's ball to get a better look around. But if you're going to kick in the door and shoot the dog you'd better damn well have a warrant based on something a lot more substantial than an anonymous tip.

      Well said.

      Except consider, for example, a kidnapping. If you receive an anonymous tip about one of those... is it really enough to send an officer by to walk by, or maybe knock on the door?

      And as soon as you bend a little bit, and say, ok... yeah that's a bit special... you open up the door to massive abuse. Cops can phone in anonymous kidnapping related tips for drug-houses they want to bust...

      On the other hand; you don't want to reject an anonmous tip. If the kidnappers girlfriend is the one that made the call -- she has every reason not to want it ever traced back to her. And I'd rather she make the call than not simply because she knew she'd be revealed as the caller.

      The compromise I think is to allow the police to bang down a door on an anonymous tip, but

      a) they need a warrant - a judge has to decide and agree its in the public's best interest to act on the anon tip.

      b) anything else they discover going on is immune from prosecution -- so that eliminates using a kidnapping tip as a pretext to get the door opened so they can "discover" some meth. (As they know they'd never get a warrant to break down the door opened just on an anonymous tip about the meth.)

    8. Re:Antithetical by Immerman · · Score: 1

      Nope, no exceptions. A warrant should *always* be required for invasive action. An anonymous tip by its very nature is not any form of evidence. Breaking in someone's door because of an anonymous tip throws the door wide open to witch hunts without any repercussions to the accuser. Every kidnapping that occurs would be open season for anyone who wanted to SWAT their enemies.

      Maybe, *maybe*, you could get a legitimate warrant based on an anonymous tip if that tip contained enough independently verifiable details to make it credible - but then you're not really acting on just a tip anymore. In your kidnapping case if having a name/address/etc. isn't enough to find at least a few shreds of corroborating evidence, *something* to cast legitimate suspicion, then there's no reason to assume that it's anything but the baseless accusation of someone with an axe to grind. Maybe you go to his house, question him, keep him under observation, but if you're going to violate his sovereignty as a democratic citizen you'd better damn well have some evidence to back your play.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    9. Re:Antithetical by vux984 · · Score: 1

      A warrant should *always* be required for invasive action.

      I'd actually said a warrant should always be required. I'm just musing about when one might be actually granted based on an anonymous tip.

      An anonymous tip by its very nature is not any form of evidence.

      Its is evidence. There should be due consideration that it could be an outright fabrication, that it was obtained illegally, that the police themselves may have called it in, etc. But it IS evidence.

      . In your kidnapping case if having a name/address/etc. isn't enough to find at least a few shreds of corroborating evidence, *something* to cast legitimate suspicion, then there's no reason to assume that it's anything but the baseless accusation of someone with an axe to grind.

      That's fair.

    10. Re:Antithetical by Immerman · · Score: 1

      Perhaps my choice of words was sub-optimal, butf you need a warrant to go on patrol you'll completely debase the warrant-issuing system. Warrants are necessary when an officer is doing something that would otherwise be illegal - mostly stuff invasive to your constitutionally protected civil rights.

      evidence: (noun) the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

      An anonymous tip is *information*, but due to the totally unverifiable nature of its source it offers not the slightest shred of indication of truth - hence it does not qualify as evidence of anything. At best it's a hint as to how/where to find evidence.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
  5. Romanes eunt domus by Thud457 · · Score: 2

    1. There are no legitimate uses for TOR. Anyone using it is a terrorist.
    2. The FBI is not in the business of law enforcement. Go find somebody that cares. Good luck.

    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

    1. Re:Romanes eunt domus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Terrorism is defined as the attempt to change public policy by means other than voting (which does NOT work BY DESIGN).

      Eff-Tee-Eff-Wye

  6. MITM? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Looks like a great way to sniff FBI tips.

  7. Brilliant by Zamphatta · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I love this. It shows the authorities how TOR can be used in their favor, instead of demonizing it and making it out to be no good for anything but criminal activities.

    1. Re:Brilliant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Godwin trigger in 3...2...1...

    2. Re:Brilliant by rogoshen1 · · Score: 1

      it's a wet dream for parallel construction though. the beauty of an anonymous tip is that the FBI could tip themselves off, and 'investigate it' without having to divulge how that intel was gathered, where it came from, or who submitted it.

      the fact that they aren't jumping all over this makes me kind of happy actually.

    3. Re:Brilliant by Threni · · Score: 0

      I wonder if the people who created TOR thought it might be useful to the authorities. (That's a LOL, by the way.)

    4. Re:Brilliant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      TOR began as a US Navy project for protecting the identities of spies/informants abroad while they relayed information back to the USG.

    5. Re:Brilliant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am pretty sure currently those anonymous tips are already abused, they can even track them down and since it is 'one of their own', they just pretend they never found out.

    6. Re:Brilliant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it's a wet dream for parallel construction though. the beauty of an anonymous tip is that the FBI could tip themselves off, and 'investigate it' without having to divulge how that intel was gathered, where it came from, or who submitted it.

      OK, say that we remove this option then. What prevents FBI from already doing that?

      Your concern should be that there is no oversight. Good luck trying to change that.

    7. Re:Brilliant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      TOR began as a US Navy project for protecting the identities of spies/informants abroad while they relayed information back to the USG.

      "(That's a LOL, by the way.)"

    8. Re:Brilliant by grep+-v+'.*'+* · · Score: 1

      It shows the authorities how TOR can be used in their favor...

      But ... but ... what if we want to waterboa^H^H^H chat with the "informant"?

      After all, if he's willing to betray his friends, how can we continue to trust him without sharing a little drink once in a while?

      Back on topic: yes, but you assume that the people in control (a) WANT Tor in a good light, (b) don't want their department to get tainted with the "evil Tor" stigma, and (c) actually understand what's going on.

      Strike that last one, the people right UNDERNEATH the people on top know how things work; the people on top know how people work.

      --------------
      Paranoid? I'm not paranoid. ... Why do you continue to look at me like that? :-)

      --
      If the universe is someone's simulation -- does that mean the stars are just stuck pixels?
  8. As Admiral Ackbar said... by antdude · · Score: 1

    "It's a trap!" ;)

    --
    Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
  9. Re:Epic Win by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When he was 16, and ircop on anonops, thejester published 50 lines of assault code to attack anonops network. The kid sent back an improved version consisting of just 3 lines.

    The first day of OpTunisia, word was Tunisian government was phishing passwords of facebook and other social media to which the Tunisian state-owned ISP ATI blocked https access. He was 16, logged into a Tunisian OpTunisia participant's home computer and found ATI was phishing passwords indeed. An hour or so later he uploaded an anti-phishing script to userscripts.org, enabling Tunisians to successfully counter their governments script. Pages of protesters stopped disappearing.

    Feel free to submit any old jokes to the FBI tips form - over tor. For the lulz. ktxbye.

  10. An example of how this is counterproductive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ANON: Hey FBI there's a bomb in the mall
    FBI: Thank you anon you're my best ally, we're on it.
    FBI arrives and finds no bomb. Nothing explodes. The time of the agents is wasted.

  11. topic "dark" or "bright" - a case for snow-white ? by dschinn1001 · · Score: 0

    from 13th century up into latest 60ies of 20th century in UK - "witches" were burnt or sentenced to death, simply because they were "witches" or simply they were "communists" - today the dangers are more higher for democracies, when by settlements and rules and laws things are allowed for example like "forensic psychiatry" for prisoners (with hidden experiments, we never are told or reported about ... from gov ... ?! ) - so it is not correct to throw anything together into one pot or to meddle and stir simply in groups, who simply "look like" hackers - to hack in English means simply "to write a program" and to crack means in English simply "to destroy something with force" ?! - so it looks as if the gov wants to crack programmers, because they simply want to work free ... ?! - as you see here in search results the dangers, that democracy is disestablished by government (or by more important careers ?!) is today higher like it was before WW 2 the situation too ! - here are examples of search results : https://www.google.com/search?... https://www.google.com/search?... https://www.google.com/search?... https://www.google.com/search?... https://www.google.com/search?... https://www.google.com/search?... https://www.google.com/search?... https://www.google.com/search?...