Slashdot Mirror


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."

9 of 306 comments (clear)

  1. Standard tactics by Calydor · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    --
    -=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
    1. Re:Standard tactics by Etherwalk · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    2. Re:Standard tactics by Nethead · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      -- I have a private email server in my basement.
    3. Re: Standard tactics by stealth_finger · · Score: 5, Funny

      riveting

      --
      Wanna buy a shirt?
      https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
  2. Re:Tor exit node by 110010001000 · · Score: 5, Funny

    He is a hacker. Goes by the name "Zero Cool"

  3. Not the first time in seattle for Police Spying by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 5, Informative

    This is not the first time the Seattle Police have made forays into spying on the citizenry.

    --
    If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
  4. Could be, they just don't understand how TOR works by wirefarm · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I read the warrant affidavit (https://www.seattleprivacy.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/154-AFFIDAVITCONDOINTERENTWAVEG401PARKPLACECEN.pdf) and they were not just "searching for child porn" but searching for the uploader of a specific file to a specific post on 4chan.
    This specificity makes me think that they sincerely thought they could find the uploader of the child porn clip in question, but didn't understand how TOR works, or how exit nodes work, at least.

    If you run an exit node, there's the chance that some pedo is going to use it and their actions are going to be stamped with your IP address.

    Given the level of technical knowledge required to understand the technologies involved, I can't even chalk this up to incompetence on the part of the law enforcement officers.

    --
    -- My Weblog.
  5. Re:Yeah, so? by Sarten-X · · Score: 5, Interesting

    This is a standard (for Slashdot) hit piece against a legitimate police action. Consider a few key details from TFS:

    The Seattle Police Department acknowledged that no child porn was found, no assets were seized, and no arrests were made.

    In other words, an officer had a reasonable suspicion that something illegal happened that required a search, and convinced a judge of such, which is the entirety of Fourth Amendment protection. The police don't have to convince the public that a search is reasonable. They only have to convince a judge. The judge (and his views on privacy and other issues) is elected in a general election.

    In this case, the search ensued, and it's determined that there's no justification for further action (at this time). That's the entirety of the legal process so far. The server operators then chose to buy new hardware and build a new server, but that's their own paranoia, and the police aren't responsible for that.

    "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."

    According to the second (heavily biased) TFA, the detectives learned about the exit node between requesting the warrant and executing the search. Even if known, it doesn't necessarily have to be mentioned in the search warrant. It could be exculpatory, but just as there's no evidence the server operators were responsible for the crime, there's no evidence they weren't.. Are we now assuming that people running Tor exit nodes are now above suspicion? Are they the next group to be unaccountable to the law?

    Despite the outrage by the privacy community, and the anti-police bias in TFAs, it looks like everything here happened exactly as it's supposed to, given the current state of the law.

    --
    You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
  6. No evidence by Etherwalk · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

    The Node highly changes the likelihood that there is evidence of the crime there. Tor exit nodes are designed not to know anything about the sender. This was about posts made from that node. While it is hypothetically possible for a research institution or government agency to modify an exit node, add sniffers, etc..., there is no reason to expect a civilian running an exit node to be doing that. While it is also possible for someone who owns a machine at that address to be the guilty party, the fact that an exit node is present makes it much, much, much less likely. It has a direct impact on the totality-of-the-circumstances analysis someone should use in determining whether PC exists.