Hacker Builds a Dark Net Version of the FBI Tip Form

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.

Comments

Epic Fail

[danknight48]

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.

Re: Epic Fail

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:Epic Fail

[davester666]

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.

The FBI does not want Anonymous tips

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:The FBI does not want Anonymous tips

[danknight48]

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

Re:The FBI does not want Anonymous tips

[Anonymous Coward]

your != you're

Re:The FBI does not want Anonymous tips

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Antithetical

[Dereck1701]

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.

Re:Antithetical

[Immerman]

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.

Re:Antithetical

[meta-monkey]

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.

Re:Antithetical

[rogoshen1]

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 :(

Re:Antithetical

[vux984]

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.)

Re:Antithetical

[Immerman]

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.

Re:Antithetical

[vux984]

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.

Re:Antithetical

[Immerman]

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.

Romanes eunt domus

[Thud457]

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.

Re:Romanes eunt domus

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:Great resource for the kidnapped!

[Anonymous Coward]

... 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.

Brilliant

[Zamphatta]

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.

Re:Brilliant

[rogoshen1]

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.

Re:Brilliant

[grep -v '.*' *]

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? :-)

As Admiral Ackbar said...

[antdude]

"It's a trap!" ;)