[tor-talk] Silk Road taken down by FBI

[mirimir]

On 10/04/2013 02:21 AM, Roger Dingledine wrote:

> On Fri, Oct 04, 2013 at 02:11:26AM +0000, mirimir wrote:
>> On 10/04/2013 01:54 AM, Juan Garofalo wrote:
>>>     I'm wondering if I got this right:
>>>
>>>     The NSA is supposed to be concerned only with 'national security'
>>> issues and can't spy on 'ordinary Americans'. In practice the NSA spies
>>> on everyone paying no attention to 'legal' restraints.
>>>
>>>     If the NSA happens to find the location of, say, a 'criminal' tor
>>> hidden service, the NSA will forward the information to the pertinent
>>> 'agency', say, the DEA, and the DEA  will lie about how they got the
>>> information, presenting a 'plausible' alternate explanation. Is that how
>>> they basically operate?
> [snip]
> 
>> Of course, the FBI could be totally lying in the complaint.
> 
> Can you point to a specific statement in the affidavit that would be a
> lie if the "NSA conspires to tip off FBI" theory were true?

OK, I just read the Maryland complaint. It's obvious what happened.

An FBI undercover agent contacted him, wanting to sell large quantities
of cocaine. He found a buyer, and delegated the details to his employee.
Said employee had full admin access to his servers.

His employee then provided his ACTUAL PHYSICAL ADDRESS to the undercover
FBI agent. The FBI mailed 1 Kg (very highly cut) cocaine to said
employee, and arrested him on receipt. Said employee soon told the FBI
all that he knew.

So now the FBI had access to the servers. There's no reason to suspect
that they needed to compromise Tor to gain access, or for anything else.

There's more drama about the murder for hire stuff, but it's irrelevant.

> Remember, the job of the guy writing the document is to lay out a set
> of correct facts which together show clear evidence that he's a criminal.
> 
> Or to say it differently, it's his job to figure out the right way
> (including the right order, and the right subset) of presenting his
> facts so they make his case the best way he can.
> 
> And he's under no obligation to include all of the facts -- just the
> ones that make his case most likely to win.
> 
> I'm not saying that this version of the conspiracy did or didn't happen
> this way. You're right that "look, he screwed up enough different ways,
> why do you need a more complicated theory?" is a convincing argument.
> But if it *did* happen, there's no reason for them to have to lie --
> they could have (should have) just gone and done all the things they
> say they did, to be able to write a winning case.
> 
> --Roger
>