Slashdot Mirror


The Technologies That Betrayed Silk Road's Anonymity

itwbennett writes Silk Road was based on an expectation of anonymity: Servers operated within an anonymous Tor network. Transactions between buyers and sellers were conducted in bitcoin. Everything was supposedly untraceable. Yet prosecutors presented a wealth of digital evidence to convince the jury that Ross Ulbricht was Dread Pirate Roberts, the handle used by the chief operator of the site. From Bitcoin to server logins and, yes, Facebook, here's a look at 5 technologies that tripped Ulbricht up.

129 comments

  1. Stupidity is a technology now? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Looks like I might have my shot at being a multimillionaire.

    1. Re:Stupidity is a technology now? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Yes, Facebook is a technology.

    2. Re:Stupidity is a technology now? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The NSA is known to use Facebook. Local police departments are known to use Facebook. (Listen to some police chatter. Its one of the first steps they take in every investigation now.)

      Why do people still use Facebook? I don't get it. Anti-privacy fetish?

    3. Re:Stupidity is a technology now? by gweihir · · Score: 1

      Indeed. What "betrayed" Ulbricht was his own incompetence and/or laziness. None of the technologies mentioned worked in any other way than expected by a competent individual. Plain, old-fashioned police work was quite enough to find him, and the only tricky part was getting to his laptop while it was decrypted. And even that only helped because he did not separate his data into different encrypted containers, and unlocked the disk in public, with no working dead-man switch.

      I still have doubts whether everything happened as described, but if this is a "parallel construction" (i.e. LEOs lying to courts under oath), then it is a very convincing one.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    4. Re:Stupidity is a technology now? by Rei · · Score: 1

      Yes, being social and open is the opposite of being private. Plenty of people are well aware of the consequences and make that choice of their own free will.

      Then there are also idiots like Ulbricht who have pretty much a religion around Tor, Bitcoin, and crypto and think it can actually guarantee their privacy when they're doing stuff that they shouldn't be doing.

      --
      "That girl is a witch!" "Yeah, but she's our witch. So cut her the hell down!"
    5. Re:Stupidity is a technology now? by Rei · · Score: 1

      The problem is not his particular slip-ups - it's the widespread nerd belief that Tor, Bitcoin and crypto are going to keep you safe from whoever-you're-a-thorn-in-the-side-to. The list of potential ways to accidentally leak your identity is massive; sooner or later, you're going to slip up. Just like what happens with all "perfect crimes".

      Honestly, if you really want to be safe from arrest (at least for a while), move to Russia, pay off and/or befriend the right people, be a Putin supporter, and only do things that are a PITA to people in western countries. In the current political climate they're more likely to give you a medal than deport you.

      --
      "That girl is a witch!" "Yeah, but she's our witch. So cut her the hell down!"
    6. Re:Stupidity is a technology now? by gweihir · · Score: 2

      What you say is partially true. It is fully true if you still want convenience (and Ulbricht clearly did). If you do things right, you get a very high level of security, but it means things like having no storage in you laptop, only a tails CD, typing in long passwords yourself, and never, ever use any computer that ever has seen your real identity for any "business"-related task ever.

      That said, most people cannot get to that stage, but if you ever have worked with a computer that is authorized for classified data or have talked to somebody that has, you know that there are entirely different levels of isolation and protection that can be reached. It does not even need much in the way of software or hardware. It needs extreme discipline and real understanding.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    7. Re:Stupidity is a technology now? by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      Honestly, if you really want to be safe from arrest (at least for a while), move to Russia, pay off and/or befriend the right people, be a Putin supporter, and only do things that are a PITA to people in western countries. In the current political climate they're more likely to give you a medal than deport you.

      Wouldn't it work the other way around, too? Stay in the US, but only do things that are a PITA to people in places like Russia or China?

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

  2. TL;DR by OverlordQ · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Rusty treated OpSec as suggestions instead of law.

    --
    Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
    1. Re:TL;DR by Jeremi · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Rusty treated OpSec as suggestions instead of law.

      Of course, he also treated the law as suggestions instead of law. I have no sympathy at all. :P

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    2. Re:TL;DR by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The real story is how @loldoxbin is still doing just fine.

    3. Re:TL;DR by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course, he also treated the law as suggestions instead of law. I have no sympathy at all. :P

      Because law is infallible. /s

    4. Re:TL;DR by neurovish · · Score: 1

      Rusty treated OpSec as suggestions instead of law.

      Of course, he also treated the law as suggestions instead of law. I have no sympathy at all. :P

      I think most people treat the law as suggestions. Have you ever gone faster than a posted speed limit?

  3. More than a little retarded by HBI · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If I were running a criminal enterprise via my computer, wtf would you go out in a public place and do so? At least sit in your car or something.

    Why would I have a facebook account?

    Why would I be advertising on facebook for people to join my enterprise?

    Why would I keep logs of any sort?

    There is so much stupid here, it hurts. Some "Dread Pirate" he turned out to be.

    --
    HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
    1. Re:More than a little retarded by hodet · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Sounds like a case of hubris. He was overconfident in his abilities and probably got more and more sloppy as time went on, convincing himself that he was too smart to get caught.

    2. Re:More than a little retarded by drinkypoo · · Score: 4, Interesting

      He was overconfident in his abilities and probably got more and more sloppy as time went on, convincing himself that he was too smart to get caught.

      I think it's more convincing himself that his opponents were too dumb to catch him even if he was sloppy... but they're not complete idiots, obviously.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    3. Re:More than a little retarded by taustin · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The cops don't have to be smarter than the crooks to catch them. They only have to be competent, and patient.

    4. Re:More than a little retarded by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It seems to me, that when he was just starting he didn't realize the magnitude of the enterprise he was launching; later he tried to go back & cover his tracks, but couldn't do it completely. And then he made a few slipups along the way.

    5. Re:More than a little retarded by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The cops have the Big Cops on their side. As in Cops Who Can Do Math. Actually a whole army of such.

    6. Re:More than a little retarded by demonlapin · · Score: 3, Insightful

      As the saying goes, it's not enough to be smarter than every cop; you have to be smarter than all the cops put together.

    7. Re:More than a little retarded by rogoshen1 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      also the cops only have to 'get lucky' once. the criminal (or suspect) needs to be lucky 100% of the time. The odds are definitely in the police's favor.

    8. Re:More than a little retarded by Comrade+Ogilvy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yup. The real secret to not being caught by Columbo is not, as would be geniuses tend to think, by having a "full proof" scheme by which Columbo will never be able to prove you did it. It is by never showing up on Columbo's suspect list in the first place. Ulbricht's post that reveals his email was probably his doom, putting him on a select list of mere hundreds of people who knew about Silk Road early in the game. Then it becomes a numbers game, and the list shortens and shortens until the Dread Pirate has made one too many small errors.

    9. Re:More than a little retarded by blueg3 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This is true.

      I mean, the "cybercrime" investigators that work for the FBI are not stupid and they're not incompetent. If you're running a large, well-known drug-selling site, they probably will put resources into finding you. On top of that, the deck is really stacked against you -- as a criminal, you need to avoid making any mistakes, while the investigator only need to wait for you to make a mistake. They're patient. (And "investigator" is not just people working for the police -- it's also anyone who might both have reason to dislike you and also motivation to reveal your identity to the police.) So, it may well be possible to hide indefinitely from prosecution, but it's not easy.

    10. Re:More than a little retarded by rmdingler · · Score: 3, Funny
      Careful now.

      I have it on good authority one can go from "the worst pirate I ever heard of" to "that's got to be the best pirate I've ever seen" in less than *one film at the Bijou.

      *It's a colloquial measurement, like football fields and olympic swimming pools.

      --
      Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

      Ernest Hemingway

    11. Re:More than a little retarded by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Once again, asshole, leave the intellectually disabled out of this.

    12. Re:More than a little retarded by rmdingler · · Score: 1
      It's either that,

      or, as evidenced by his breaking of his own rule "Don't face away from the door" when accessing network in public" (cheated, article insight), he had been overcome with the paranoia of getting caught for so long that he believed it to be inevitable. It seems there were protocols in place for multiple wallet (camouflage) transfer that he may have ignored in transferring money to his own laptop accounts.

      We can agree he was not an honest boy, but he did some smart shit for a while... he just didn't have an end game, unless it was "he planned to get caught".

      --
      Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

      Ernest Hemingway

    13. Re:More than a little retarded by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      Sounds more like he was stupid from the get go, and it just took a little time for it to catch up with him.

      And it points out the truth of what I've said repeatedly - security is more than encryption. Much, much more.

    14. Re:More than a little retarded by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Posting anonymously, just because. :-)

      While I am not, and have not been involved in any criminal matters, I happen to be somewhat paranoid about my privacy. If you have.. interesting private fetishes that won't get you into any legal trouble but WILL generate mockery from your co-workers, you learn that in that private world you have to simply be very careful.

      Let me tell you, if you want to keep your professional and private lives separate, being 'careful' for decades is very, very difficult. You always have to resist the impulse to chat about what you do at work, lest you create a connection between the two. You have to resist posting about each side in their various communications forums.

      Maintaining privacy for extended periods of time is just difficult. For a week? Sure! Constant vigilance! Wheee! After a year, you start to slack off. Maybe you start to think "fuck it." Maybe not getting caught with anything will make you lower your guard. Maybe there will be a point of time when you start to take shortcuts. You may also greatly regret the public Usenet postings you made under your real name in your early college years when you were young and dumb and thought "privacy? Who will ever care about this?" You might even think "eh, I'm tired of being in the closet. Who really cares if I'm a furry anyway? I don't even do any of that weird stuff people would associate with them."

      Then you come back to your senses and get back into the closet, and keep your two lives separate! But boy, it's difficult to not accidentally leave evidence around Google, etc.

    15. Re:More than a little retarded by Stan92057 · · Score: 2

      Because not all criminals are smart nor are they smart as they think they are.

      --
      Jack of all trades,master of none
    16. Re:More than a little retarded by Altrag · · Score: 2

      Sounds like the FB link was used more for correlation than direct evidence -- they even included an example (the FB account had pictures from Thailand posted at approximately the same time that DPR was bragging about a trip to Thailand on some other forum.) Its unlikely he did anything like posting "come see my illegal website!" on his real-name account. (Of course they did mention that he used his own name @gmail.com for a reply address so who knows..)

    17. Re: More than a little retarded by AvitarX · · Score: 2

      The lack of end game is key.

      If you're making real money doing illegal things, yup I need an end game, and it needs to be a relatively soon date. Unless you're real smart, there's a practical limit to what can be spent anyway.

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
    18. Re:More than a little retarded by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      "full proof"

      Foolproof.

    19. Re:More than a little retarded by shugah · · Score: 1

      Doesn't sound like there was a whole lot of math involved; just old fashion police work.

      --
      If you aren't part of the solution, then there is good money to be made prolonging the problem
    20. Re:More than a little retarded by LordWabbit2 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      That's just the thing, at some point someone will make a mistake, he should have been more like the Dread Pirate Roberts and retired before that happened. From what I understand he had made a lot of money, should have walked away while he still could (yeah, yeah I know easier said than done).

      --
      There are three kinds of falsehood: the first is a 'fib,' the second is a downright lie, and the third is statistics.
    21. Re:More than a little retarded by houghi · · Score: 2

      it's also anyone who might both have reason to dislike you and also motivation to reveal your identity to the police

      This is what causes many criminals to get arrested. I can be a jealous competotor or even a jealous partner or just some poor joe presured into giving up your name.

      So even if you make no mistakes, you can still get caught. So after that you need to leave no evidence they can use against you.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    22. Re:More than a little retarded by Rei · · Score: 2

      Haha, I knew right from your second paragraph that you must be a furry. ;)

      While I don't personally get it, power to you, man. :) Rrrawr! And my sympathies for having to be in the closet about it. :(

      --
      "That girl is a witch!" "Yeah, but she's our witch. So cut her the hell down!"
    23. Re:More than a little retarded by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yiff in hell, furfag.

    24. Re:More than a little retarded by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, you also have to consider seemingly innocuous things. I may be AC here, but on another website I have a username and I occasionaly drop info about myself like what kind of car I drive and what city I live in and such. If someone really cared they could probably use this information to identify me. They probably don't care that much and I just blend into the woodwork. Security through no one gives a fuck who I am.

    25. Re:More than a little retarded by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      wasn't that the plot of just about every drug dealer movie made in the '70s?

      Yeah, the criminal was going to make one big last score and retire and every time he got caught.

    26. Re:More than a little retarded by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      (original AC here) Well yes indeed. I have the online name, and I have the RL name, and I've tried to make sure there is no connection between the two. So I rarely mention anything about my work when using the online name. In my earlier post, I mentioned I'd made stupid Usenet postings back when I was in college and didn't take privacy seriously. The postings themselves were innocuous, but the .signature I attached to them contained the RL name, the online furry alias, and the college I was attending. Over time, I've been changing that alias, but there's enough history there.

      I have enough nosy coworkers that I worry about what they would find if they decided to really start digging things up.

  4. Feds tipped hand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    While the Feds were enforcing drugs laws, they tipped off about some of their methods.

    Now, terrorists will now go and make sure these openings are closed; possibly messing up investigations of other Feds who want to stop terrorism.

    End the Drug War. It's doing us no good.

    1. Re:Feds tipped hand by OverlordQ · · Score: 1

      They didn't tip anything. All of this is pretty obvious investigation methods. Mouse wigglers and other tools to keep laptops and desktops powered and unlocked while you move them have been around for a long time.

      --
      Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
    2. Re:Feds tipped hand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      Also, this whole story probably is BS.

      They used some classified NSA method (I can think of at least two major approaches) and now they spread some BS in order to cover their REAL methods.

      "Parallel Construction" at work.

    3. Re:Feds tipped hand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      they caught him with his laptop unlocked and logged in. all private keys in the open. they didnt have to use any NSA method.

    4. Re:Feds tipped hand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly. Smells like parallel construction.

    5. Re:Feds tipped hand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Oh boy, that is what they want ***YOU*** to think.

      Just read how Churchill ordered "recon planes" to "mysteriously" show up five minutes before the bombers dropped the ordnance on the u-boats.

      He fooled Admiral Dönitz with that method.

    6. Re:Feds tipped hand by duranaki · · Score: 2

      And how did they know to stalk him until they found him with his laptop open and unlocked to begin with? I haven't followed the case closely, but from the article I didn't see what technological failure led them to him to begin with. Every point seemed to be: Once they had his laptop, they could prove he did XXX because of this technology. Maybe I missed the part where they explained how he became a suspect worth stalking to a library to begin with. Until that's explained, seems like secret NSA method is the most likely.

      This article seems to agree there's something odd about the investigation: http://arstechnica.com/tech-po...

    7. Re:Feds tipped hand by Comrade+Ogilvy · · Score: 4, Informative

      Someone named rossulbricht@gmail.com revealed himself as one of the first people who knew about Silk Road. Item #4 in TFA. (Could be lying/misinformation, but it is a plausible explanation.)

    8. Re:Feds tipped hand by JustSomeProgrammer · · Score: 2

      He posted on Bitcointalk.org early on about the site and then later on posted a help wanted add on Bitcointalk.org that contained his personal real name email address rossulbricht at gmail dot com. That was pretty damn stupid.

    9. Re:Feds tipped hand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      they caught him with his laptop unlocked

      A band of feral FBI agents just happened to roam into the library he was at and just happened to watch the guy logging into silk road? What bad luck!

    10. Re:Feds tipped hand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ahhh yes, it must be a conspiracy rather than the more obvious answer that the guy was an idiot, he posted under his own name and email address early in the life of silk road. Most likely he would have been on a very short list of likely suspects under observation for a long time, given his blatant stupidity in chat, facebook and recording everything he did it realy was always just a matter of time till he was caught.

    11. Re:Feds tipped hand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They knew from physical surveillance that he went into the library. They knew from monitoring the Silk Road itself that DPR logged in a few moments later. They entered the library and staged some sort of fight behind him; when he turned around to see WTF was going on, they grabbed him.

    12. Re:Feds tipped hand by gweihir · · Score: 1

      While I agree that the war on drugs has no positive effects and massive negative ones, any halfway competent terrorist did not need that tip-off.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    13. Re:Feds tipped hand by david_thornley · · Score: 2

      Recon planes did not mysteriously show up five minutes before. Recon plane pilots were told to search in this area today, just do it and don't ask questions, and things proceeded from there.

      Nor did he fool Doenitz, who suspected that his communications were being read. He went to the Germany crypto folks, and they said, "No, that's impossible, but if you insist we'll give you a special Enigma with an extra rotor". This is one reason why 1942 was a good year for Germany in the Battle of the Atlantic. Once that was cracked, Doenitz thought the same thing, but was flatly told he had to be wrong.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  5. Good lord, that photoshop job. by Sowelu · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Not much really needs to be said.

  6. Yawn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    itworld is bad enough, but posting "$N $foo that $bar" filler tripe? Come on guise, no need to insult our intelligence that much.

  7. Caught flat-footed... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Looks like what happened is that Ross got tired of having to log in, and the Feds were quite shrewd at catching him with the pants down. I'd say this was a coup on the LEO's part, nailing someone so fast they couldn't even close their laptop.

    Pretty much, one gets sloppy over time, the 2FA turned into 1FA, then an automatic login. A tumbler turned into just spending the coins, and so on.

    My lesson? Here in the US, it isn't anything I'm worrying about, since I'm not running a criminal enterprise. I keep FDE on all computers so that Jack Crackhead (who is going to yank things from the wall that look "techie" so he can hand them to a fence for a hit of meth) is going to cause a hardware loss, as opposed to data falling into the wrong hands.

    However, as for BitCoins, my stash is so pitiful, it almost isn't worth the bits they take up on a HDD, my external server is part of a VPS and I just SSH directly to it without a password (using RSA key encryption), and I just use the OS's password storage mechanism (KeyChain for OS X) for passwords. Since most of my documents are stashed on GDrive, I'm sure there are easier ways for a LEO to access them other than a SWAT raid.

    1. Re:Caught flat-footed... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I see you ate their story.

      They dont need any physical touching of your computer. And surely they already have your ssh keys - just in case.

    2. Re:Caught flat-footed... by jabuzz · · Score: 2

      It looks to me that the biggest goof he made was using the Altoid pseudonym more than once, and on one occasion leaving an obvious connection to himself. After that it was mainly just patience on behalf of the law enforcement officers. If he had not made that crucial mistake they probably would still not have any idea who dreadpirateroberts was.

  8. Anonymity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    You can't be anonymous with a handle. This was a case of ego, and wanting a 'name' to associate with 'deeds'. Just because a name isn't one you are born with doesn't mean it isn't associated with you. Even if you create a false identity to represent you, you still own that identity. Even an encryption key can be an alias. Police are completely used to tracking people by alias, and linking aliases to human beings. It's their job, they have been doing it for years.

    In the end, his goal was to associate a number of impressive 'deeds' with a 'name' that he would later claim as his when he felt it was a safe time. This way he could enjoy the fame that all of his work had built up. Just the fact that he was doing this for money, and trying to create earnings through the system was enough of a risk. A huge risk. Keeping that, alone, under wraps, would be tough. Ego just made it easy for them.

  9. Non-repudiation by mitcheli · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The advantages to Encryption and defense-in-depth strategies is they are based on the triad of information assurance, one key of that is "non-repudiation". The "downside" to non-repudiation is the ability to connect the dots come litigation time. Interesting that they mention that the SSH sessions used key based authentication when the opposing attorneys claimed that anyone can name their systems "frosty" and use the login name "frosty". My question is, did the key on the laptop that was supposedly logged in as "frosty" also correlate to the key on the server? If so, the "anyone" list just got a lot smaller.

    --
    Select from tblFriends where interesting >= 4;
  10. we're accepting the article as fact. by turkeydance · · Score: 1

    well, there might be more "tech" to it than just this reportage.

  11. Problem Exists Between Chair and Keyboard by darkmeridian · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I think the knee-jerk response is to say that the problem exists between the chair and keyboard. Just reading the article makes it impossible to draw another conclusion. He was nabbed in a public library before he had a chance to turn his laptop off so nothing was encrypted. Similarly, ARE YOU TAKING NOTES ON A CRIMINAL FUCKING CONSPIRACY? Why would you ever keep data in plain text even if the hard drive is encrypted? I am not expecting the FBI to raid me at any time, but just out of caution, I have my computer encrypted using Bitlocker (yeah, I know) and all data at rest is stuck in a hidden TrueCrypt partition. If I want to access it, I have to sign in separately. But most hilariously, he had a stupid freaking Facebook page that linked him directly to his true identity and Silk Road.

    However, this only underscores how difficult it is to have operational security for any complex business. At some point, he needs to keep track of all transactions, with reasonably easy access. It's a pain in the ass for me to repeatedly log in and access data. I can only imagine how difficult it must have been to conduct business. I guess the bottom line is that physical security is crucial.

    --
    A NYC lawyer blogs. http://www.chuangblog.com/
    1. Re:Problem Exists Between Chair and Keyboard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Boy, they have a Special Service to break into the crypto rooms of foreign embassies.

      They did this to a GDR embassy somewhere in asia. And you know, the GDR did have shitty cars but sure as hell they had top-notch security services right on par with NSA itself. They surely listened to a good number of NATO generals and chiefs of state.

      So, good luck with your "physical security".

    2. Re:Problem Exists Between Chair and Keyboard by westlake · · Score: 1

      I am not expecting the FBI to raid me at any time, but just out of caution, I have my computer encrypted using Bitlocker (yeah, I know) and all data at rest is stuck in a hidden TrueCrypt partition. If I want to access it, I have to sign in separately.

      and if you are nabbed when you have signed in and your TrueCrypt partition is exposed?

    3. Re:Problem Exists Between Chair and Keyboard by Altrag · · Score: 1

      Why would you ever keep data in plain text even if the hard drive is encrypted?

      Because its very hard to read when its in encrypted form. That's why they had to nab him after he had everything unlocked and fast enough that he wouldn't have the opportunity to lock it again.

      Just think of how many people they would have had to have just sitting around moving the mouse every couple of minutes around the clock to ensure that the laptop didn't go into screen saver mode and auto-lock itself again lol (well ok probably only long enough to copy the HDD to an unencrypted external drive.)

    4. Re:Problem Exists Between Chair and Keyboard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have two doors and a stair in between. Even with a no-knock warrant that gives you plenty of time.

    5. Re:Problem Exists Between Chair and Keyboard by gweihir · · Score: 1

      As to moving the mouse, there are devices for that. And the first thing you do is to copy-off all data and full the memory content. If you have Firewire, the second can even be done by somebody that has no computer skills at all.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    6. Re: Problem Exists Between Chair and Keyboard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Accelerometer lock.

  12. Seems like the technologies didn't get him by jandrese · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Looks like he was done in by being stupid more than the technologies.

    The article is more than a little sensational too. "He was done in by CHAT!" No, he was done in by keeping a goddamn log of his criminal activities. The fact that it happened to be chat is beside the point. Probably the only entry in there that deserves the headline is the Bitcoin one, only because it highlights how people misrepresent Bitcoin (It's so anonymous that every single transaction ever is recorded on the internet!). The article points out that he could have used tumblers to hide his bitcoins, but with the volume of coins Silk Road deals with that probably wasn't practical. Tumblers are really only useful for relatively small numbers of coins at a time. Put too many in and take too many out and your transactions stand out.

    The article does harp a lot on how this information was only available because Ulbrict was dumb and let his laptop be snatched out of his hands while he was logged in. It is somewhat frightening to consider how poor the government's case might be if he had simply been facing the other direction.

    --

    I read the internet for the articles.
    1. Re:Seems like the technologies didn't get him by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

      No, he was done in by keeping a goddamn log of his criminal activities.

      No, he was done in by being a criminal. No fascist, totalitarian , big brother conspirasies required this time. Every once in awhile thugs get caught acting thuggish. It's hard for thugs not to get caught because they stand out from normal people who don't look and act like thugs. This is the way the world really works. Sure, there are times when news reporters might tell a fish story, or outright lie! But contrary to popular belief, people arn't stupid. I mean, not that stupid. All of this is quite amusing to me, at least for today. One day this thug will be on the news for his upcoming parole hearing, and I will say -"Oh! I remember that guy!" But I really won't remember that clearly.

    2. Re:Seems like the technologies didn't get him by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... It is somewhat frightening to consider how poor the government's case might be if he had simply been facing the other direction.

      The Gunfighters seat, never sit with your back to the door/room.

    3. Re:Seems like the technologies didn't get him by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Well if he was facing the other direction the government wouldn't be bringing the case to trial yet - the cops didn't just stumble into him and luck out, they were monitoring him looking for an opportune moment to strike.

    4. Re:Seems like the technologies didn't get him by gweihir · · Score: 1

      Indeed. Or if he was using a honey-pot himself (working with a completely clean computer and ssh in to some completely clean servers to have the feds think he was doing something bad), when in reality he was giving then an "easy" way to get at his data. Good security includes traps for the attackers...

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    5. Re:Seems like the technologies didn't get him by jandrese · · Score: 1

      That would require him being both a criminal mastermind and probably tipped off that he was about to be snagged. This was a guy who got scammed out of over a million bucks by a confidence game. He wasn't a tremendous mastermind. Just a guy who was smart enough to set up a website using the Darknet and Bitcoin for the most obvious application of both but had the crazy idea of maybe not making it a scam this time (like most other darknet drug site) and actually selling the drugs.

      --

      I read the internet for the articles.
  13. How do we know this is not parallel construction? by Magnus+Pym · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This seems like a perfect use of parallel construction: figure out who he is by using illegal/secret technologies, and develop a plausible narrative of how legal methods were actually used. Maybe we are jumping too quickly to the "He was stupid" conclusion.

  14. Re:How do we know this is not parallel constructio by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Dont say that, you act like a terroaaarist !!!!

    How are they supposed to control the plebejans ???

  15. Bitcoin and criminals by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I do not understand how bitcoin makes the life of a criminal any easier.

    The hash identifying the wallet cannot be secret because otherwise people would not know how to pay you. All the transactions in/out of the wallet are traceable and duly recorded in the block chain. Therefore, everybody can see all the transactions in and out of the criminal's wallet. Finally, at some point the criminal will have to convert the bitcoins into cash. When he does so, he will be forced to go through an exchange and there will be a record somewhere of his back account.

    So what am I missing? Why do criminals use bitcoin?

    1. Re:Bitcoin and criminals by bobbied · · Score: 2

      Because on places like Slashdot they read "BitCoin is anonymous!"

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    2. Re:Bitcoin and criminals by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Tumblers.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    3. Re:Bitcoin and criminals by tnk1 · · Score: 1

      Bitcoin is not really completely anonymous, but it is portable, and criminals need to move millions of dollars around. With bank regulators in the West being more on top of laundering, criminals want to send their money to countries that are still soft on laundering. To do that, cash is extremely inconvenient. Bitcoin, as long as it is a feasible store of wealth which can be exchanged for currency, is perfect for moving millions out of the US to somewhere where the criminals can cash in.

      And so what if a trail has some drug deals on it? Every dollar bill in the US over a certain age has probably been passed in a drug deal at one point or another....

    4. Re:Bitcoin and criminals by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Most paper money have a level of drug residue.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    5. Re:Bitcoin and criminals by gweihir · · Score: 1

      Stupidity. That BitCoin is not really anonymous has been known for a long time.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    6. Re:Bitcoin and criminals by Rei · · Score: 2

      Yep. Base your operations in Russia or another country reluctant to extradite to the west, and then use bitcoin to get the money to you so it can't be readily blocked. Even if they identify you, they probably can't extradite.

      Seems to be the strategy that the CryptoWall folk are using, at least.

      --
      "That girl is a witch!" "Yeah, but she's our witch. So cut her the hell down!"
  16. Re:How do we know this is not parallel constructio by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Even if it was parallel construction, the game is then to make sure that no path to legal methods exists.

    Crime has always been played by the rules of the jungle; nobody gets to cry technical foul at the end.

  17. Didn't they have a mole? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    They had all that evidence because tehy had a man on the inside, duh. Sure DPR/Ulbricht wasn't the greatest at stealth to begin with, but DHS was inside building up evidence.

    http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/silk-road-mole-dread-pirate-roberts-paid-me-1000-week-i-tracked-him-down-1483452

  18. Re:How do we know this is not parallel constructio by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    You don't need parallel construction when they seized his lap top.

    All of this is based on the seizure of his lap top.

    The bit coins, the chat logs, the encryption keys, the SSH logins.

    If they didn't seize the lap top in tact, they would have had a much more difficult time with this. It would have been he said/she said buried in tech gobbledygook.

    But they did get his lap top, in tact, in plain text. I imagine getting the lap top was primary goal of his arrest. They'd probably have let him run and catch him later, if they could get his lap top.

    And once they got that lap top, the world opened up for them. He was laid bare.

    His most trusted ally ratted him out. It's that simple.

  19. Who is Dread Pirate Roberts? by lippydude · · Score: 2

    "As Ulbricht's trial unfolded over the last month, one character appeared again and again in the chat logs prosecutors pulled from the laptop seized from Ulbricht at the time of his arrest: a man calling himself Variety Jones, and later, Cimon " ref.

  20. ONce again, it'[s not anon. by geekoid · · Score: 1

    If you can get something from a to b on the internet, people can figure it out.

    It's only about increase the level of cost to figure it out.

    Just like anything encrypted that needs to become human readable at some point can be figured out. Not necessarily the way you are thinking.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  21. Re:How do we know this is not parallel constructio by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Dude. Conserve the use of your space key.

    Laptop, intact, bitcoin. They do not have spaces.

  22. The true architect of Silk Road: Variety Jones by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Variety Jones, perhaps the true mastermind behind Silk Road, had the perfect level of involvement. He was disconnected and impossible to track, which means he ran this empire through a patsy. This isn't meant as an insult to Ulbricht. It's too hard to do everything right at that level of involvement. Jones's mistakes only had negative ramifications for Ulbricht. You could say that his only error that might come back to him was that he didn't explicitly tell Ulbricht to keep logging disabled for his Tor chats, which allowed Jones's writing habits and estimates of his schedule (time zone) can be analyzed and perhaps mapped to his other (less obscured) online activity in a manner similar to Ulbricht's Facebook notes about Thailand.

    Who knows, perhaps Jones, who was quite arguably the true architect of Silk Road, is now serving the same capacity in another similar enterprise.

    1. Re:The true architect of Silk Road: Variety Jones by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Who knows, perhaps Jones, who was quite arguably the true architect of Silk Road, is now serving the same capacity in another similar enterprise.

      I do find it incredulous that the Silk Road mastermind was using Wifi in a public library when he was caught. It has been demonstrated elsewhere that the FBIs technical explanation as to how they caught DPR is false. Maybe the whole thing was a false front and Jones worked for the FBI all all along.

    2. Re:The true architect of Silk Road: Variety Jones by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      Is this the second coming of Kaiser Soze?

  23. Re:How do we know this is not parallel constructio by im_thatoneguy · · Score: 2

    Parallel construction could be considered though 'Fruit of the Poisonous Tree' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F...

    If they only found him by ?illegal NSA wiretapping? the laptop would inadmissible. My understanding is that most parallel construction (supposedly) isn't for the sake of using illegally obtained evidence but simply to protect the method or person by which the evidence was obtained. Which also could be the case here. Maybe they actually got him using a sophisticated and warranted attack that they don't want people know they're capable of (e.g. how they took down SilkRoad 2 and 3 and 4.)

    Then again IANAL so who knows, maybe all of my law and order reruns are of no use in this instance. :D

  24. Re:How do we know this is not parallel constructio by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    While that is possible, most cops I know and have met are not that devious or clever. They are patient and observant, and very successful. The mindset is that only a dumb person will turn to crime. So often it is true that they keep very busy and have quite the arrest history to prove it works. Greed does even the best criminals in. DPR wanted to be billionaire I'm sure. He could have quite 1 year in and gotten away easily. He could have just gone back to work or whatever.

  25. Re:How do we know this is not parallel constructio by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In order to effect the seizure of his laptop and search it they needed probable cause. If their whole case relied only on the laptop, that would be precisely where the parallel construction would be needed because they wouldn't be able to explain how they identified this particular individual in their investigation.

  26. Re:How do we know this is not parallel constructio by DarkOx · · Score: 2

    My understanding is that most parallel construction (supposedly) isn't for the sake of using illegally obtained evidence but simply to protect the method or person by which the evidence was obtained.

    May I inquire as to why you think this? Do you have any interesting evidence or even anecdotes that lead you to this conclusion or is this just what the nice man from the DOJ told you?

    Additionally I can see virtue in protecting the persons evidence was obtained from in *some* cases, but the methods? In a free society with an adversarial justice system based on the presumption of innocence, what legitimate goals are furthered by secrecy around evidence gathering methods?

    --
    Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
  27. It's all about the laptop by plazman30 · · Score: 1

    It seems to me that if he had managed to close the lid on his laptop, the prosecuters would have been completely screwed.

    Encryption is great stuff, but the IBKAC loophole can get you every time.

    IBKAC = Interface Between Keyboard and Chair

    1. Re:It's all about the laptop by gweihir · · Score: 1

      Indeed. Just working behind two doors and/or having a dead-man-switch handy would have been enough.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    2. Re:It's all about the laptop by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      > Indeed. Just working behind two doors and/or having a dead-man-switch handy would have been enough.

      Nobody expects the spanish inquisition, the SAS, GSG-9, S. Matkal, GIGN, GROM, SEAL-6 or Spetnaz to come through the window on fast-rope? With a Silent Hawk Laden-copter hovering above?

      In fact, military-style commandos usually enter through the walls, using tube-like shaped charges to form a nice big manhole, out of concern for the possible booby-trapping of doors and windows. Or they will first infiltrate the basement / attic, gas the building from there russian theatre style, then carry out the targets and collaterals on stretchers. Or simply drop in a flash-bang grenade through the chimey for starters, which leaves the inhabitans unable to tell their left and right hands apart for several minutes.

      After all, that Kim Un Dotcom guy was caught, even though his ranch was a fortress. They came for him in a black helicopter and said drop your shotgun now, cause we have RPGs.

    3. Re:It's all about the laptop by EmagGeek · · Score: 1

      IBKAC = Idiot Between Keyboard And Computer

      Oh well, it almost works.

    4. Re:It's all about the laptop by gweihir · · Score: 1

      That is all very impressive, but not relevant at all. The FBI clearly does not have this kind of resources. They did not even manage to bug his keyboard or eavesdrop on it, both well within the range of gifted amateurs. You seem to also forget that a good dead-man-switch will protect against all these as well. The window shatters, the wall blows, you fall of your chair or jerk your hand away from the computer and the thing is locked. You can even easily rig one to your hart-rate or breathing these days.

      No, the problem was that Ulbricht did not expect them to be on his trail at all and had no protection in place.

      My guess would be that you are a typical American with zero understanding that subtlety beats brute-force any time. The FBI folks in question did use subtlety, and they where very successful with it. It does require a bit of patience and skill though.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    5. Re:It's all about the laptop by plazman30 · · Score: 1

      They used subtlety to find out where he was going to be and patiently waited until they were in a position to quietly sneak up behind him and grab the laptop before he had a chance to do anything about it.

      You are correct that Ulbricht was rather arrogant and did not take necessary precautions. I am not a "typical American" that believes brute force beats subtlety. Had they attempted to use brute force, he would have been alerted and managed to do something to prevent them from getting into his laptop.

    6. Re:It's all about the laptop by gweihir · · Score: 1

      Indeed. Brute force is rather ineffective if your aim is not mostly indiscriminate destruction. That is why the military is quite unsuitable for a lot of "enforcement"-type tasks. Can be seen in the current drone wars that seem to mostly help terrorist organizations make it easier to recruit followers. "Surgical" removal of a target looks different and collateral damage does win harts and minds, just unfortunately it does so for the other side.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  28. Re:How do we know this is not parallel constructio by Rakarra · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Never substitute a conspiracy theory when you don't need one.

    Sure, I suppose the NSA could have used magical spying technology to know everything about Dread Pirate Roberts, but whether they did or not, they didn't need to. He had left enough clues about DPR's identity scattered around in public to put him on a small list of suspects.

  29. Re: How do we know this is not parallel constructi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I hate it when some one finds my lap top in tact and un covers all my il legal activity and bit coin trans actions.

  30. Re:How do we know this is not parallel constructio by RedWizzard · · Score: 1

    Both the "inevitability" and "good-faith" exceptions might apply in this case. But in the end the defence didn't or couldn't use parallel construction to get the laptop evidence omitted so it's irrelevant.

  31. Re:How do we know this is not parallel constructio by gweihir · · Score: 1

    Indeed. And in fact this story is good for freedom, as we can now point out that this guy was caught without dragnet surveillance, without breaking crypto and without all the other stuff the NSA does. Hence what the NSA does gets zero positive press from this, but rather their claims of what it does as being "necessary" is exposed as a lie even for catching hardened Internet drug-lords and murderers.

    --
    Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  32. Re:How do we know this is not parallel constructio by N1AK · · Score: 1

    Sure, I suppose the NSA could have used magical spying technology to know everything about Dread Pirate Roberts, but whether they did or not, they didn't need to. He had left enough clues about DPR's identity scattered around in public to put him on a small list of suspects.

    I don't intend to suggest something underhand happened, but I want to highlight what I feel is a flaw to this logic. Once you know someone has committed a crime it will be comparatively simple to find masses of evidence. Yes he might of left information around that could help narrow down suspects, or even incriminate himself, but that doesn't mean that it would have been found, noticed, and acted on.

  33. Re:How do we know this is not parallel constructio by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

    All of this is based on the seizure of his lap top.

    The lap top was just the endgame - he'd already left enough small clues scattered about for law enforcement to figure out who was worth looking at. He made the classic security error of the n00b, he thought he had encryption and that made him safe.

  34. Re:How do we know this is not parallel constructio by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > This seems like a perfect use of parallel construction: figure out who he is by using illegal/secret technologies

    This is very american thinking. In Europe and Japan, guvmint forces catch murderers, kidnappers, bank robbers and tenorists, locked them up or execute them and then there is some discussion post facto, whether the methods used to find them were conductive to the society's progress. However, the duty is to stop criminals first and philosophy second.

    In contrast, US law enforcement and courts seem to exist for one purpose: to facilitate the development of ever more advanced methods of criminality. In America and other anglo-saxon countries you become a hero for life when you murder somebody and can get away with it. This encourages other people to consider leading lives outside the law. In Europe there is no restriction on "double jeopardy" and murderers who once escaped punishment are regularly nailed 10-15 years later, when new evidence comes to life or accomplices loosen lips. Because of this, criminality is not encouraged in Europe, because a perpetrator can never, ever be sure of his eventual success!

    In America, allowing and even ecouraging criminality by the guvmint serves an economic aim. An old lady pensioner sitting on a big pile of savings is detrimental to the economy, as if buried treasure in a pot in the corner of a field. But a criminal who murders her and promptly spends the loot on drugs, pussies and roulette at Vegas is pumping so many thousands into the economy. The victim has no value, but the perpetrator is a symbol of progress and boom in America.

  35. He deserved it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Although TorChat promises encrypted messaging, Ulbricht chose to save the logs in plain text on his computer, creating a trove of conversations with fellow Silk Road administrators. In example after example, the prosecution pointed to logs where the laptop user identified himself as Dread Pirate Roberts.

    Our "drug laws" are arbitrary as they single out some substances but not others.
    So I do feel sorry that he will be locked away for providing a service for people who are interested in certain products but damn he is fucking retard!

  36. Re:How do we know this is not parallel constructio by stealth_finger · · Score: 2

    In a free society with an adversarial justice system based on the presumption of innocence, what legitimate goals are furthered by secrecy around evidence gathering methods?

    It would be nice if we had one of those but are you joking? Cover up the methods to stop people defending against it. it's not fucking rocket science.

    --
    Wanna buy a shirt?
    https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
  37. TEMPEST. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In my opinion the laptop's LCD screen had been observed and read for months before that action-hero like arrest, using remote TEMPEST technology (either via radio reception or they were modulating his AC supply with a harmonious frequency that acted as a carrier to syphon out info from the laptop as he was logged in).

    If there was a need for more "magical" and inadmissible NSA trickery to find Ross, trial couldn't happen. The guvmint would simply arrange for Ross to end up in the crossfire of a random-looking ghetto afro vs hispanic drug gang shootout and come to rest 6ft under and then SR comes to a halt spontaneously.

    Anyhow, I think the aesop is, one should not lead a life of criminalty. If you are clever, well-paying jobs with stable and perfectly legal income are available by the galore. If you think you are smart enough to become the uncatchable millionare crime kingpin, you should be earning at least twice as much by simply sitting at an office chair 8hrs a day. If you are not clever, your criminal carreer will be short and you would earn more in total by spending your days in a dull, but honest workplace. Furthermore, it is hard to raise kids well, when you are the godfather. Pablo Escobar once burned 2 million USD in cash in a campfire, trying to keep his 10-year old daughter warm in the rainforest, as they were on the run from CIA in the last days of his reign. (Yes, that's a true story.)

  38. The "tech" that betrayed him was between his ears by sirwired · · Score: 1

    It wasn't "technology" that betrayed him, it was the sort if unthinking stupidity that leads to the downfall of all sorts of criminals. In another era, he would have been boasting about his exploits at a bar or to impress a date.

    The primary bug was in the Wetware, tech just moved things along.

  39. Re:How do we know this is not parallel constructio by r_a_trip · · Score: 2

    *** Yes he might of left information around that could help narrow down suspects, or even incriminate himself, but that doesn't mean that it would have been found, noticed, and acted on.***

    Well, Silkroad was a huge piece of evidence for criminal activity. I think it is safe to assume that the FBI tripped over that boulder first. Since it was a web-based auction site, someone must have created it and someone must maintain it. Someone with he nym Dread Pirate Roberts seems to run the show.

    Standard investigative work tends to work backwards to the source. In the very early days of Silkroad the nym Altoid pops up and focussing on Altoid, a post with rossulbricht at gmail dot com connected to the nym Altoid is found. I think it is safe to assume that from that moment on the name Ross Ulbricht led the suspect list and all effort was put in to linking DPR to Ross Ulbricht.

    --
    # touch universe # chmod +rwx universe # ./universe
  40. Re:How do we know this is not parallel constructio by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And another way you can get caught: language use (esp. "errors in -").

    Took me less than a minute to find a non-anonymous post in a Microsoft help forum (or usenet newsgroup) that combines "lap top" and "in tact" in the same message.

    Once the most likely suspect is located this way, all you have to do is keep an eye on him, and jump his back when he has opened his lap top.

  41. BITCOIN IS NOT UNTRACEABLE, AND NOT ANON! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    WHAT THE ACTUAL FUCK, SLASHDOT?

    Seriously, are we still perpetuating the total myth that Bitcoin is both anonymous and untraceable???

    Bitcoin is the DEFINITION of traceable. It is also very easily identifiable because of this.

    1. Re:BITCOIN IS NOT UNTRACEABLE, AND NOT ANON! by moeinvt · · Score: 1

      The summary states that the technologies were "supposedly" untraceable and the linked article talks specifically about how LE used bitcoin to trace DPR.

    2. Re:BITCOIN IS NOT UNTRACEABLE, AND NOT ANON! by SharpFang · · Score: 1

      Thing with bitcoin is, it's perfectly traceable from wallet to wallet, but the wallet locations are the big unknown. You don't know who owns the wallet until you have access to the physical machine it resides on. So, you can easily *confirm* the transaction between two individuals happened once you know what their wallet IDs are, but if you don't know who the wallet belongs to, you're unable to determine the person from the Bitcoin operations alone.

      --
      45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
  42. Re:How do we know this is not parallel constructio by DarkOx · · Score: 1

    Cover up the methods to stop people defending against it.

    That's my point thought defendants have right to defend themselves. When does covering up evidence gathering methods serve a legitimate judicial use? Why would hiding the methods used to gather evidence be necessary unless for example the government did something illegal?

    Conducted a search without cause, hacked a system in violation of the CFAA, inserted a mole acting as an agent of the state who induced you to commit the crime which would make it entrapment; etc.

    Protecting the identity of whiteness etc, makes sense but there are really very few situations where I can see secrecy around evidence gathering methods doing anything other than violating the rights of defendants to challenge the evidence against them and allowing the sate to cover up its own misdeeds in the course of the investigation.

    --
    Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
  43. Re:How do we know this is not parallel constructio by mrchaotica · · Score: 2

    My understanding is that most parallel construction (supposedly) isn't for the sake of using illegally obtained evidence but simply to protect the method or person by which the evidence was obtained.

    Parallel construction is illegal even if there is a warrant, because the accused has a Constitutional right to face his accuser. Keeping the method of obtaining evidence secret is simply not allowed (at least, as long as the court itself is actually obeying the law).

    --

    "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

  44. Re:How do we know this is not parallel constructio by stealth_finger · · Score: 1

    Cover up the methods to stop people defending against it.

    That's my point thought defendants have right to defend themselves. When does covering up evidence gathering methods serve a legitimate judicial use? Why would hiding the methods used to gather evidence be necessary unless for example the government did something illegal?

    Um that's what parallel construction is. Getting information though illegal means (usually better and quicker) and the presenting a story about how you got it legally.

    --
    Wanna buy a shirt?
    https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
  45. Stupid popup by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fucking thing

  46. Re:How do we know this is not parallel constructio by N1AK · · Score: 1

    I think it is safe to assume that from that moment on the name Ross Ulbricht led the suspect list and all effort was put in to linking DPR to Ross Ulbricht.

    I also think it is likely that they caught him exactly as they said he did. That doesn't mean that they shouldn't be expected to keep records to show that is what in fact happened, and have their records audited to ensure they tell the truth. We're seeing far too many cases of things like the FBI protecting the police from having to reveal information about certain methods of surveillance to trust their word.

    There are enough examples of very serious crimes, that don't get solved for decades and when they are that the quantity and obviousness of evidence is overwhelming; yet somehow it was missed at the time.

  47. Don't connect your alter ego to your real name! by SharpFang · · Score: 1

    The bottom line is: Don't connect your alter ego to your real name, EVER!

    The list of his failures to hide evidence was long. But none of them would have mattered if they didn't learn his name.

    First, he posted as 'altoid' advertizing the Silk Road.

    Then he posted as 'altoid' seeking help with 'bitcoin service' and soliciting contact with a gmail address which was based on his real name.

    That's what got his name on the police's radar. That's why they began to monitor him. Since then it was just a matter of time to slip and reveal true identity. All he had set up would hide him 99.99% of time, making a casual observer or random search to notice his activity pretty much impossible. But a focused observation - being a suspect - could easily correlate things between his two identities. And from then on it was just about catching him red-handed.

    --
    45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2