VPN Provider's No-Logging Claims Tested In FBI Case (torrentfreak.com)

An anonymous reader writes from an article published on TorrentFreak: [A] criminal complaint details the FBI's suspicions that 25-year-old Preston McWaters had conveyed "false or misleading information regarding an explosive device." The FBI started digging and in February 2016 two search warrants against Twitter and Facebook required them to turn over information on several accounts. Both did and the criminal complaint makes it clear that the FBI believes that McWaters was behind the accounts and the threats. With McWaters apparently leaving incriminating evidence all over the place (including CCTV at Walmart where he allegedly purchased a pre-paid Tracfone after arriving in his own car), the FBI turned to IP address evidence available elsewhere. "During the course of the investigation, subpoenas and search warrants have been directed to various companies in an attempt to identify the internet protocol (IP) address from where the email messages are being sent," the complaint reads. "All the responses from [email provider] 1&1, Facebook, Twitter, and Tracfone have been traced by IP address back to a company named London Trust Media [doing business as] PrivateInternetAccess.com. A subpoena was sent to London Trust Media and the only information they could provide is that the cluster of IP addresses being used was from the east coast of the United States," the FBI's complain reads. "However, London Trust did provide that they accept payment for their services through credit card with a vendor company of Stripe and/or Amazon. They also accept forms of payment online through PayPal, Bitpay, Bit Coin, Cash You, Ripple, Ok Pay, and Pay Garden."

While McWaters is yet to be found guilty, it's a sad fact that some people will use anonymizing services such as VPNs, pre-paid phones and anonymous email providers to harass others. And thankfully, as this case shows, they'll need to hide a lot more than their IP address to get away with that level of crime.

Comments

Encryption and anonymization is a two edged sword

[Anonymous Coward]

1. It protects your freedoom to have your information private and not snooped on by others, or the government.
2. It protects criminals' freedom to have their information private and not snooped on by others, or the government.
Can't have one without the other, people. If you give up one, you give up both.

Indeed

[nospam007]

"And thankfully, as this case shows, they'll need to hide a lot more than their IP address to get away with that level of crime."

Yes, they have to go to a local starbucks.

Re:whats the issue of this story?

[PopeRatzo]

I'm a liberal democrat. The Government gets into my pants way too much and way to easy.

Maybe it's time for government to protect citizens and regulate corporations instead of the other way around.

What happened to this place

[Anonymous Coward]

I find the tone of the comment at the end odd. While not condoning the actions, I'd figure Slashdot and its readers would be much more interested in the de-anonymysing dimension of the story than the he got what he deserves mentality of that comment.

No, that's wrong.

[mrchaotica]

You can certainly give up on legitimate uses of encryption, but criminals aren't going to quit using it themselves.

Therefore, the choice is not whether to give up freedom in return for safety, but whether to give up freedom in return for nothing of value at all. Unless you're a totalitarian sociopath, it's an easy choice!