[tor-talk] Silk Road taken down by FBI
mirimir at riseup.net
Fri Oct 4 02:51:09 UTC 2013
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?
>> 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?
I don't remember anything about how they identified his hosting
provider. And I'll reread the complaints.
> 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.
Point taken. However, other than using totally-made-up online personas,
I'm very much a straight shooter ;) So for me, presenting a set of facts
that makes his argument, while neglecting to mention the
unconstitutional stuff that provided the opening, amounts to lying.
> 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.
What about crimes committed by the FBI in the course of the
investigation? If they were revealed, much of the FBI's evidence might
be excluded, I believe.
> 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.
One never wants to get to disputing evidence with the FBI.
More information about the tor-talk