What's wrong with this country, that nowadays people are so afraid of being disappeared that they run away to Russia, Ecuador, and Germany. We're doing something wrong.
What's wrong with her you mean? The type of people affected by rendition or hit teams are a rare breed. Ultra-rare. The typical method is arresting, optionally a high bail, plea offer, and then rough time in court. If convicted, you're in a prison where you usually get to at least talk to outsiders and maybe get out early for good behavior.
Quite the opposite of people disappearing you. Now that she's in Europe, the CIA's jurisdiction, she's at greater risk of this happening in form of thug violence against Americans, tourists, whatevet. I'm guessing that's uncommon to rare step, too, so dont know risk level
> Now that she's in Europe, the CIA's jurisdiction, she's at greater risk...
History has shown that geographic location is no protection from the CIA. MKULTRA being a clear example of obviously illegal activity. But I really doubt that the CIA would be interested in a TOR developer, that is NSA territory. While the NSA has a much less colorful history, they do burgle when they feel they need to.
The only thing protecting you from the CIA are nukes.
So what you need as a hacker is some really good zero-days and some excellent viruses - leashed to your survival.
If that would be done by a lot of people, backing each other up, keeping the digital backbone of society as hostage, something like a justice system could be restored.
Nah, history shows CIA rarely messes with people unless they threaten it or are a target. NSA's TAREX and HUMINT teams come from CIA and ISA. They do the foreign work for them. So, if NSA or FBI escalated, a CIA or ISA team could come after her. More likely CIA as they're default.
ISA, yes. CIA, no - or at best extremely rarely. The CIA keeps what it pulls from the military, the NSA by comparison is a revolving door and relies heavily on loaned assets. For TAREX you can pretty easily find the USMC MOS that regularly gets loaned out, they don't even try to hide it. If the NSA wanted something they'd be much more likely to use resources from the host nation, not ISA and especially not CIA.
I can't speak to tgat. What I do have is numerous writeups from journalists on spooks that did it plus lots of different slides saying it's CIA with a few referencing ISA. National Clandestine Service naturally. You got a solid, public source saying TAREX or NSA HUMINT is rarely CIA?
Pg 2, change 1: this is very telling - as they've basically redefined the mission statement in order to avoid the association.
Pg 3: NSA HUMINT is from the US Army command. Bonus info - this is the primary point of connection to the other services (USMC CI being a good example).
Pg 7: TAREX personnel are loaned to CIA operations, not the other way around.
Besides that, the history and culture of the two (NSA and CIA) are very important to keep in mind. The NSA is very old school military, it is structured that way and it behaves that way. The CIA is a very different animal, to the point where comparing the two is like comparing the FBI to the National Park Service.
I overlooked that Army command part. Might be my memory loss from injury since every reference I'm digging up has Army on it. Tks for reminder. I know there's a joint NSA/CIA group similar to TAREX with human assets and CIA capabilities since I used to track them. It's possibly ever secretive Special Collection Service (SCS) mentioned here:
It's Sentry Osprey in ECI leaks that mentions TAREX and CIA assets. So, my memory was right. SCS is just a hunch, though, as it's a natural collaboration point that has massive SIGINT resources too.
You mean you actually believe that an organisation with no transparency and no accountability that routinely slaughters civilians in double digits, is engaged in illegal torture etc etc will staunchly follow an arbitrary jurisdiction?
In jail she might die on accident just because your jails murder people for fun.
Or she might get murdered purposefully - for eg deny medical care...
Written on a broken phone, sorry for any typos
I mean the ECI leaks state a clear division of labor on SIGINT issues. If it's domestic, the FBI handle it as we've seen in leaks and court cases. If it's foreign, then the CIA or other operators handle it. Their methods are typically bribery, extortion, or B&E's. Targets of high interest are sometimes kidnapped under rendition program or executed via drone program. Both of the latter are active in Germany. BND also cooperates strongly with NSA and CIA.
I doubt she's at risk of serious stuff but she's outside FBI's more limited scope now. Instead, if they escalate, local authorities will grab and extradite her with assistance if needed from CIA or NSA. Probably none will be needed past local cops if she thinks presence in Germany is safe from US authorities.
The comment you're replying to was bad enough, but turning up the rhetorical indignation like this takes the thread in exactly the wrong direction. HN needs fewer grandiose denunciations and generic tangents, and more concrete and thoughtful discourse.
This person had no reasonable reason to flee to Germany. Beyond paranoia and maybe a persecution complex. The FBI isn't going to "disappear" someone they subpoena.
Tor Project distributes binaries, though. So it's not unreasonable to immediately hop on a flight to leave the country permanently. Once they hand you a national security letter (or use some other leverage), not sure what effective recourse you have. I think it would be like dodging service in a lawsuit (which can work).
I seriously don't understand this NSL business. There's this secret institution misusing the name court which kinda doesn't exist but makes rulings and if you're on the naughty list of the powers to be, you might get an invitation. To me this all sounds like dark ages of inquisition. I thought we were over that with Enlightenment and such and there were no witch burnings anymore. The painful effect is that many people self-censor and act like they're in China or DDR (communist Germany). Better not get on their radar.
That's really easy to say behind a throwaway account on the internet. It's a much harder choice when it's your life and freedom on the line, and I don't know if anyone can truly say it for sure until they're in that position.
What you said. The ECI leaks say they use them gor SIGINT-enabling. In Lavabit, the court order was to compromise all the keys then lie to users that it never happened.
What verifiable evidence do you have that no NSLs have been issued demanding encryption keys, or that all such NSLs have been successfully challenged in court?
That is what is legal. So sure, if the FBI was going to completely violate the law they can send something that looks like an NSL. But they could do that even if NSL isn't legal.
It's irrelevant. The ECI leaks had one statement that said that the FBI "compels" US companies to assist in "SIGINT-enabling" (backdoors or taps). We should assume they can secretly order such things given it was in the most secretive leaks.
For foreign companies, they sent the black bag operators of CIA or ISA to get job done. ISA is an interesting outfit to have coming after you or your data.
So, she could legally be compelled to do something disuptive to catch criminals like Feds do all the time in physical spaces (esp hotels). Thing is, leaving to avoid that might put her at risk of what's used outside jurisdiction. Fleeing was a bad move.
Are you serious? Have you read what the FBI has done so far? It's one thing to get subpoenaed by a public servant of a real court, but it's reasonable to be afraid if FBI agents act like they want to serve her papers in person by a fake court named FISA and either shut her up or force into cooperation in something she wouldn't do if given the option.
If it's secret, it's not a real court. Even the founding fathers of the USA would disagree and they're kinda still fresh history-wise in terms of justice systems around the world.
Let's also not forget that the US government employs well over 1 million employees and several million contractors. They don't all move in the same direction or have a hive mind.
The Department of the Navy developed the original Tor.
The State Department helped fund it (because it can be used by dissidents in countries with authoritarian governments).
The US intelligence apparatus has allegedly funded ways to analyze and/or sabotage anonymous usage of Tor.
Nah, it's that plus ability to create propaganda to use against locals to further imperialist agenda and protect our assets over there. Voice of America, for example, was a CIA spokespiece being funded by the same group.
A thing one should clearly understand, if the FBI is looking to "talk" to someone in this manner, it is because they ALREADY have the warrant in the 'oven' and ready to go. They are simply attempting to chat to SIMPLIFY their work in hopes the subject of the warrant voluntarily or inadvertently incriminate oneself.
Worrying about the jury should be the least of her concerns at this point. If she does not have the resources (millions) to mount a vigorous defence it does not matter. And even if she does have the money, the prosecution will try to take it away from her via asset freezes, large bails, etc. Awhile in jail, she won't be able to work effectively with limited phone calls and monitored attorney visits.
Juries are a double-edged sword: they can be the end of you or your only hope. Plenty of people go free in trials despite odds against them. Certain things you do upon encountering the police can greatly increase or decrease your odds of winning in court. It's imperative to behave in a way that minimizes risk immediately and long-term. Fleeing a country when a cop merely asks you to talk to them will look guilty to almost every judge or jury out there. There's a small subset you can convince given circumstances but this is a big no-no in general.
Regarding the rest, that might happen, it might not happen, and yet people still get off with decent attorneys. Again, police investigations involve lots of probability. You play the odds to your benefit. If you're worried about that stuff, then leave America for some country that has no problems in its judicial proceedings plus whatever freedoms and economic opportunities you need. Do it now. Don't wait till a FBI agent is interested in you or you're on their List.
It took Apple, a multi-hundred-billion dollar corp., all its legal force to fight against being forced by FBI to crack the phone. A person being forced to do similar stuff (like backdooring Tor for example) by way of NSL wouldn't probably be able even to involve his/her lawyer.
I remember reading another article on HN a few weeks ago (maybe, time flies) where she was planning to go to Berlin. Feels disingenuous for CNN to state she was dodging the FBI if she's been planning to go there.
The quote from the developer, in the article, makes it look like she left to avoid dealing with the FBI:
> "I was worried they'd ask me to do something that hurts innocent people -- and prevent me from telling people it's happening," she said in an exclusive interview with CNNMoney.
This is also fairly convincing:
> Lovecruft had intended to move to Germany someday, but she put those plans on overdrive. She booked a flight to Berlin that weekend, including a return flight she had no intention of taking -- just to avoid raising suspicions.
> I had already been in the process of moving, permanently, to Germany, and had retained a German immigrations lawyer several months prior to these events. [1]
It's not like she just impulsively thought about Germany and left that week. Yes, it was a catalyst, but it seems to me that she was already on the fence, ready to leave. She even said she was waiting for her visa approval to be accepted after the FBI had made a request to interview her.
It has been established that she had already been considering a move to Germany. That is not at issue here. The issue is whether or not she timed her departure to avoid contact with the FBI. If she did, the article's premise is justifiable.
She bought a return ticket she did not intend to use, to throw the FBI off her trail. She would not have done that if not to avoid the FBI. Given this, and her own statements in the CNN article, the evidence that she timed her departure to avoid contact with the FBI is overwhelming.
Lovecruft had intended to move to Germany someday, but she put those plans on overdrive. She booked a flight to Berlin that weekend, including a return flight she had no intention of taking -- just to avoid raising suspicions.
On Dec. 7, without seeing family or friends, she took a taxi to San Francisco International Airport. She nervously made her way past TSA agents wearing a $1 pair of blue-green aviator sunglasses, unsure if she was breaking any laws by leaving the country.
She changed her plans and (apparently) intentionally masked her intentions. It's an obnoxious headline, but it doesn't seem to be particularly inaccurate.
Highly doubt she'd be escaping FBI in Germany.
If SHTF and there's an actual federal warrant issued she'll get extradited back to the US of A in a hurry. At that point she could of course try escaping to Russia for example but that's a whole another can of worms altogether.
From what I read in the news the EU is tightening their borders quite a bit and is reinstating intra-EU border control to deal with the refugee crisis so that won't help either.
Ok, tired from work, but on a laptop finally. Here's a try at an assessment of the situation tying it all together.
Ok, Tor's success & team's safety is often brought up in NSA, FBI, & so on discussions but shouldn't be. It's exceptional. It was created to protect military comms. CIA-connected and State Dept found great use for it. Plenty of support from powerful groups just as much as opposition from NSA and FBI. Harder to attack legally as crypto-export exempts apps for resisting censorship, it's non-profit, and source is out there. Technically, it will stop opponents government fans use it against but often fail in reality against NSA or FBI. Potentially. Concept is called NOBUS and they like those things. So, Tor is exceptional in the sense that it's unlikely to get strong, legal or technical attack... destructive attack... by U.S. government's scariest. Less, but some, risk for its developers as well.
Another background is U.S. legal system. Ours is an adversarial system where anything you say to cops can be ignored or used against you as highest form of eyewitness testimony (confession) for conviction. What you say that assures innocence is hearsay and tossed out. Feds and prosecutors can use any number of lies and scams... including fake jobs or deals... to trick you into confession. The result is that around 97% never make it to trial: plea bargained as they appear to have no hope of winning. Prosecutors especially like to make severe examples out of hackers with Aaron Schwartz a recent example. Defense attorneys advice: never talk to the police or consent to searchers. Repeatedly ask for lawyer.
So, we have a woman... idk her so going by the article... that works on Tor project or software. Implies she might be a hacker or possess such skills. An organization that absolutely hates hackers, activists, and Tor contacts her needing help. She and her lawyer agree to meet them to see what's up but they want her alone. They try to contact her directly despite her insistence on a lawyer. At this point, it's either a legitimate request for assistance on a case or they're building a case against her while trying for an early confession or strong evidence using a common tactic. She can't know since they won't tell her. And can legally lie.
She decided to flee to Germany. They'll at least have to present some evidence to get her extradited. She feels she might avoid the NSL's or any forced backdoors over in Germany. She was also going to go over there anyway. So, that's her decision.
Now, it might be a bad idea. One, if FBI's interest was good or small bad, her running to another country just put her on a bad list they keep. Two, running when cops show up indicates guilt to many judges and juries. Three, any protections she has if FBI or NSA target her within American jurisdiction disappeared the moment she left. She can now be targeted by German authorities, NSA, CIA, and Army. It's unlikely outside of electronic eavesdropping or extradition given what I said about Tor being special. So, likely outcomes are that they'll ignore her or we'll find out what they're wanting with higher odds of conviction if it's a charge since she fled.
That's the situation as I see it after studying these organizations for a long time. I'm also operating with very limited information about her and her situation. So, I only have so much confidence in the conclusions.
what's the point of going to Germany; might as well have stayed and faced the music. Germany would extradite her immediately. seriously, FBI probably has offices there.
Whatever her reasoning, she chose the same destination as people like Jacob Applebaum who "[...] has moved to Berlin, where he has applied for residence authorization; his stated reasons include that he doesn't want to go back to the USA because he doesn't feel safe and that privacy protections are better in Germany than in the US. In December 2013, Appelbaum said he suspected the U.S. government of breaking into his Berlin apartment." [0]
What "faced the music"? That idiom implies she did something wrong. She's fearful of gagged coersion, not necessarily of being charged with a crime.
All she has to do is stop contributing to the Tor Project if she is coerced, but apparently she is more interested in moving to a country that has values more closely aligned with the Tor Project. Yes, the German government could potentially use similar coercive means, the CIA could do it while she is in Germany, or the US judicial system could extradite her (but AFAIK that would require charges being brought).
"He stole very important information that has fallen into the wrong hands so I think he should not be brought home without facing the music." --Hillary Clinton
John Kerry: "Edward Snowden is a coward, he is a traitor and he has betrayed his country, and if he wants to come home tomorrow to face the music, he can do so"
Nancy Pelosi: "I think he should come back and face the music for what he did … [but] the music shouldn’t be the death penalty or life in prison."
Well few statists like whistleblowers, because they share the Sgt. Barnes philosophy of "when the machine breaks down, we break down". Republicans expressing the same sentiments are more likely to be pandering, because the demonstration of failure on the part of the state is more in line with their platform.
Depends on how nicely the US asks and how much they can avoid attracting public attention. Germany apparently[0][1] still maintains secret contracts with the US (and supposedly other former Allied forces) despite the supposed "full sovereignty" provided in the Two-Plus-Four Agreement of 1990. Also the lackluster official response to the NSA revelations and other US diplomatic debacles indicates the German government values the German-American relationships much higher than the well-being of German residents[2] (if not citizens).
This is a non-story. Nobody knows what FBI wants. It may actually be for legitimate reasons or not. It seems before FBI just wanted to ask questions, but since Isis didn't want to be asked any questions the FBI now went and got a subpeona. That's it.
Nobody knows that the FBI wants. It may actually be for legitimate reasons or not.
Which is precisely the point -- Lovecruft, justifiably, had no way of knowing what the government operatives had in mind, and wanted from her; whether it was something comparatively insipid and harmless (just some junior investigators throwing darts, and checking boxes on a list someone gave them); or something all-out insane and pernicious, like what they did to Swartz.
Would she be woken up at 6 a.m., and made to watch as agents ransacked her apartment, confiscating anything that looked like personal notes, and anything that looked like a digital device? Would she be strip-searched, and held in solitary confinement for hours (even after family and friends posted bail), or longer, with no explanation? Would she face the prospect of indefinite imprisonment if she refused to disclose the passphrases to any of her encrypted devices?
Would she be pressured into providing testimony against her friends and collaborators -- and/or "turning" outright, and becoming a paid informant? Would she hold her ground? Would she break?
Any of the above was a very real possibility. Which is why this is anything but a "non-story."
> Would she be strip-searched, and held in solitary confinement for hours (even after family and friends posted bail), with no explanation? Would she face the prospect of indefinite imprisonment if she refused to disclose the passphrases to any of her encrypted devices?
Has the FBI done this before? I could see the CIA doing this to foreign nationals, and obviously that's horrible, but has the FBI done anything like that? I'm not saying they haven't, I would just like an example or two.
I was referring to what happened to Aaron Swartz in the aftermath of his arrest, according to various sources. For a suspected transgression of far lesser significance.
Whether the FBI was involved in that particular aspect of his ordeal, I can't say.
Slight nitpick - they're asking him to enter the password, not disclose it. I'm not sure how much difference it makes but the distinction is specifically mentioned in the article.
Can we quit with the ridiculous speculation? If they wanted to do that they'd have done it, instead of spending weeks trying to contact her they could've just went to her in person.
No it wasn't. Unless you are engaged in a criminal acts, the likelihood of the FBI arresting you are pretty damn slim. Sure it probably happens all the time, but there are 300 million Americans. The chances that it happens to any given person are nil.
The fact that the FBI reached out first is a pretty big clue that they she wasn't a target of an investigation. You don't subpoena the targets of the investigation.
ryanlol, do you in fact understand how our adversarial system works in US? This aint Finland. Anything you say to them is to be used against you in court as a confession. Anything making you look innocent is tossed out as hearsay. To get confession, feds and prosecutors can lie to you to set you up however they can with unclear limits they're always pushing. As in Russian hacker story, this includes fake job offers or asking you to "help them out" by giving them info. You, esp if a hacker or Tor developers, should never talk to FBI under any circumstances as odds are they're building a case. They often spend weeks to months on that, too, while giving you rope to hang yourself. Then, if you dont, they drop it all on you at once for shock.
So, her situation may be anything from a help request to compelled assistance to imprisonment in making. Who knows. However, any defense lawyer would tell her to not talk to FBI alone under any circumstance or volunteer assistance that makes her look criminal if taken out of context before a jury. Her lawyer is happy to hear their questions and mediate answers. So far, they wanted to bypass him. That's reason for concern.
> ryanlol, do you in fact understand how our adversarial system works in US? This aint Finland. Anything you say to them is to be used against you in court as a confession.
Yes, having personally dealt with the FBI while in the US and having been on the receiving end of some extraordinarily shady tactics from them. (I.e. MLAT requesting my arrest and claiming that I social engineered the FBIs Las Vegas field office for personal information on the agents that previously raided me) I'm very familiar how the US adversarial system works.
>So, her situation may be anything from a help request to compelled assistance to imprisonment in making. Who knows. However, any defense lawyer would tell her to not talk to FBI alone under any circumstance or volunteer assistance that makes her look criminal if taken out of context before a jury. Her lawyer is happy to hear their questions and mediate answers. So far, they wanted to bypass him. That's reason for concern.
While I certainly don't think her concerns deserve this much attention, I'm not questioning their validity. Of course you should be concerned if the FBI is trying to contact you!
But seriously, this isn't FBI agents threatening her (although trying to bypass ones lawyer is certainly unethical). This is FBI agents trying to contact her for whatever reason, that is not a threat from the FBI though.
A FBI agent coming up to you and yelling about how he's going to ruin your life is most certainly a threat, and again something which I've personally been on the receiving end of.
"But seriously, this isn't FBI agents threatening her (although trying to bypass ones lawyer is certainly unethical). This is FBI agents trying to contact her for whatever reason, that is not a threat from the FBI though."
This is the crux of our disagreement and where I'm not totally disagreeing. We both say in various comments they might just want to talk to her. So, at this point, it can't be considered a threat with any certainty.
Given how they work, though, it's reasonable to consider it a probable threat if they (a) claim they want help, (b) want no lawyer present, and (c) [important] haven't offered or accepted immunity (at least NDA) for whatever goes on. The defense attorney on Don't Talk to Police mentioned that last one in case of IRS. "They just want to talk and not arrest/convict? Ask for immunity for whatever comes up. They left? That figures."
So, she shouldn't have fled. We have too little information to know if they intend to threaten or just get assistance. Yet, if they have malicious intent, they often don't do it the way they did you. Many of them gently lure a person in to do their own social engineering to connect remaining dots or get the golden confession for fast trial. Then, the crazy shit starts. This happens so much it should be a top consideration if they call you being nice.
So, the real question is, how does one assess at this point whether it's malicious or benign? It's an open question unfortunately. I'd consider going straight to the FBI field office with my lawyer to talk to an agent. We'd record the conversation. If it's questioning about me, I'd ask for termination of that line of questioning or immunity for anything involving me. If they won't do either, I leave and then treat them as a threat. I'd definitely get someone to talk to them first just to see how they act, though, before considering leaving.
They wanted to ask her questions. Lawyer could be present. She didn't want to. FBI now has a subpoena. I have no idea where you're getting this "indefinite imprisonment" stuff from. They didn't have a warrant for her arrest.
No, they told Isis's lawyer explicitly that they'd run around him and do so by approaching Isis in public[1]. Doing that would require them to have some basic idea of Isis's movements and the willingness to wait to set up an ambush. Given that, it's not unreasonable to suspect they're attempting something shady and that Isis is quite smart not to simply "trust us." There is no reason to trust law enforcement that wants to sidestep entirely legal representation.
It's also clear you didn't read the article entirely before making a comment that now acts to distract and misinform.
>They wanted to ask her questions. Lawyer could be present. She didn't want to.
Did you not read the article?
>Lovecruft told CNNMoney she had been willing to meet the FBI with her attorney present. But Rosenfeld was told by agents that they would circumvent him and approach Lovecruft directly.
Never talk to a cop or fed without a lawyer present if you are being questioned for anything other than a traffic ticket or you were just the victim of a crime. Even then, be careful what you say. They are not there for your benefit.
From my point of view, the US Government has not acted in such a way that they deserve to be extended any "benefit of doubt". The three recent events linked below come to mind as supporting material.
They have consistently demonstrated their willingness to break the law when it is inconvenient for them, as well as actively working to expand their power and authority at any expense.
If the FBI wasn't willing to speak to her with her lawyer present, IMHO, they were not looking for something legit. They had ample opportunity to subpeona her before she left the country and neglected to do so. In fact, they waited until she left.
This whole situation feels like the FBI pressuring this person so that they can get the information they want out of her while avoiding their legal obligations.
If that were true, they would have had no problems communicating through her lawyer initially. The previously linked article discussed the FBI threatening to grab her off the streets and interrogate her without counsel: "If we happen to run into her on the street, we're gonna' be asking her some questions without you present." and "We would strongly prefer to meet her in person. We have teams in Los Angeles, San Francisco, Chicago, New York, and Atlanta keeping an eye out for her" [1,2]
The story is that the FBI refuses to tell her or her lawyer why they desperately want to speak to her, but only in person inside of their jurisdiction.
Thanks for sharing your opinion. Can you explain why a non-story is important enough for you to take time away from presumably important things in order to poo-poo it?
