Seattle Police Raid Tor-Using Privacy Activists (thestranger.com)

Frosty Piss writes: Seattle police raided the home of two outspoken privacy activists early on March 30th. Jan Bultmann and David Robinson, a married couple and co-founders of the Seattle Privacy Coalition, were awakened at 6:15 a.m. by a team of six detectives from the Seattle Police Department who had a search warrant to examine their equipment. They claimed to be looking for child pornography, however Bultmann and Robinson believe the raid is because they run a Tor exit node out of their home. They said they operated the node as a service to dissidents in repressive countries, knowing full well that criminals might use it as well, much like any other communication tool. The Seattle Police Department acknowledged that no child porn was found, no assets were seized, and no arrests were made. Seattle's blog The Stranger notes that the FBI has conducted many other Tor raids across the country, and Friday quoted a tweet from the co-founder of Seattle's Center for Open Policing addressing the police. "You knew about the Tor node, but didn't mention it in warrant application. Y'all pulled a fast one on the judge... you knew the uploader could have been literally anyone in the world."

Comments

Standard tactics

[Calydor]

This is pretty much standard operating procedure. They can't outlaw anonymizing services, but they can make running them so much hassle that very, VERY few people want to get involved.

Re:Standard tactics

[Sax Russell 5449D29A]

That's why organizations such as EFF need to be actively involved in promoting the technology and we need to be actively supporting them. They have also lobbying power to some degree, which is of course helpful for the cause.

Re:Standard tactics

[Etherwalk]

This is pretty much standard operating procedure. They can't outlaw anonymizing services, but they can make running them so much hassle that very, VERY few people want to get involved.

Things that backfire include pissing off judges. If they knew about the Tor exit node then they almost certainly lacked probable cause. Probable cause requires considering all of the facts, not *just* the ones favoring guilt. If, in fact, they knew about the exit node but failed to include it in the warrant application, they are going to have (1) pissed off a judge who finds out about it, and (2) they have probably opened up their department to a lawsuit for violating the constitutional rights of the people whose home they invaded. While they obtained a warrant, they did it by withholding information they knew to be relevant to the PC determination.

If they did not know, of course, that analysis changes.

Re: Standard tactics

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not about search by warrant that is the issue. It's the reasoning behind it and leaving out key information for the judge in deciding the warrant.

Imagine a warrant for a place that drugs passed through. Fine... Until you find out that it was true 6 years ago. Changes the thought process for the judge.

Re: Standard tactics

[sumdumass]

What would be fundamentally different if the judge knew about the TOR node? I simply don't see it. You go to a judge and say we have evidence that this illegal post came from this ip address and tracked it to this physical address. We need to search for evidence of the illegal posting. So what does knowing of the TOR node change about that other than there is a valid reason evidence may not exist at the physical address? The fundamentals are still the same. The only difference is that they don't take the systems when they don't find something immediately.

Re: Standard tactics

[Etherwalk]

Evidence tending to show a lack of probable cause must be included in making a determination of whether PC exists. It's a "totality of the circumstances" test. The TOR exit node tends to show a lack of PC--it is much less likely that there will be evidence there of any kind.

Re: Standard tactics

[sumdumass]

There is no evidence of a lack of probable cause though. The problem is that there was still an illegal post made from that ip address which was assigned to a physical address and specific people. You still have probable cause to look for evidence that it was made from a computer at the physical address or through the TOR node. Nothing about the node changes that other than possibly clearing the person when the evidence doesn't exist.

Re:Standard tactics

[arth1]

No, this was handled properly. Suspected illegal activity was investigated and they were quickly found to not be part of it with minimal inconvenience. I'm not sure why this is even a story

Because to obtain a warrant, you need probable cause, not possible cause.
This difference is quite important to many of us who want to feel protected from our country turning into a police state.

Re:Standard tactics

[Nethead]

Exactly, how would they know there was a TOR exit node there? From a local radio report I heard one of the cops was a geek that knew what TOR was. That's why it was handled quickly. All the cops had was an IP and got the address from WaveG in a legal manor. The next thing was to get a warrant and go talk to the guy, that's what they did. The brought along a geek cop too to translate, so to speak. They had the warrant because it could have been a pedo. They brought the geek cop because it could have been an open WiFi and he could help them secure it, and then setup up a honeypot WiFi to catch the pedo which would have been near. Come to find out it's an exit node. Sorry to wake you, I hope you understand. The cops don't like TOR because it causes false hits like this and costs time and money.

Given the case, this went down just like it should. Sure it was early, but cops do that so they can talk to you before you get your coffee and your mind about you. That's standard.

They knocked, waited for him to come to the door. No pets were shot.

Given the description in the warrant there's some sick fuckers out there twiddlin' kids. Yes we want the cops to try to find them. Read the warrant (if you have the stomach) and see how much time has been put into the investigation. Of course they were unhappy that an exit node caused a dead end. But they did NOT take the computer or anything. They were professional about it.

Re: Standard tactics

[AmiMoJo]

We need to stop thinking that an IP address is a useful identifier in the real world. Actions like this create a chilling effect on people running open Wifi and TOR nodes.

Re:I wonder what they installed

[Frosty Piss]

Presuming they don't have the remote access, maybe they use the opportunity to install some spy/otherware on all these nodes they are 'checking'...

Good point. Seattle Privacy Coalition took their servers off-line and replaced them from the hardware up. The Tor node is still down.

Re:Yeah, so?

[Frosty Piss]

They're not suppose to investigate? The couple running the exit node weren't aware that their equipment could be used to facilitate criminal actions?

Let me paraphrase your comment: THINK OF THE CHILDREN! AND TERRORISTS! WHAT ABOUT THE TERRORISTS!

I hate to be the one...

[JThundley]

I hate to be the one defending the cops, but it really sounds like they did things the right way here. They raided a little early, but not in the middle of the night. They knocked on the door instead of ramming it down, they didn't throw flashbangs, they didn't shoot any dogs or anything else for that matter. The cops didn't steal a bunch of unrelated stuff and there were no bullshit charges leveled against the couple.

The real test will be seeing what they do next. If they learned from this raid and generally leave them alone, I have no complaints. If they do this every other week when someone else uses their Tor node for child porn, then and only then is it harassment.

Re:I hate to be the one...

[PopeRatzo]

That's a really low standard for "did the right thing."

"Good for the police for not shooting any one."

We really have lowered the bar, haven't we.

Re:I hate to be the one...

[PopeRatzo]

Good for the police trying to find an active pedo. They had no way of knowing it was a TOR exit node.

Did you read the article? They knew it was a TOR exit mode when they applied for the warrant.

Minimal Inconvenience

[Etherwalk]

No, this was handled properly. Suspected illegal activity was investigated and they were quickly found to not be part of it with minimal inconvenience. I'm not sure why this is even a story. Guess what, if you are around a store that gets robbed or some other crimes the cops will investigate also.

Also, "Minimal Inconvenience" compared to what? The guy had six cops show up at his home at 6:15, barge in, intimidate him, watch as he got dressed, etc...

Yes, it's a minimal inconvenience compared to them arresting him or sending him to federal prison. And it's GREAT that somebody on-scene had the good sense to say they don't even have to seize any assets. But it's still a MASSIVE intrusion into his life, one that the Constitution exists to protect him from.

Most cops are trying to go a good job, so when an officer and a judge sign off on this kind of intrusion without better cause, it makes them all look bad, because it means they wind up hurting the community, hurting the trust between the community and the police, and wasting resources that could be spent going after actual criminals.

Re:Depends on the spin

[rossz]

we give them the benefit of the doubt that they were not simply trying to harass.

There's your mistake. You are giving the police the benefit of the doubt. Never do that. Cops lie. Cops are trained to lie. Cops are encouraged to lie. When judges catch them lying, they sometimes scold them, but it's rare that anything serious happens. The next time, the cops will just go to a different judge. One who is more flexible in his thinking when it comes to rights.

Re:No evidence

[Calydor]

So if evidence points to the public wifi at the local McDonalds, does the police go do a raid there as well?