[tor-talk] Silk Road taken down by FBI
mirimir at riseup.net
Fri Oct 4 04:31:46 UTC 2013
On 10/04/2013 03:50 AM, Juan Garofalo wrote:
> --On Friday, October 04, 2013 2:11 AM +0000 mirimir <mirimir at riseup.net>
>> 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?
>> Yes, that sounds about right.
>> But, how would we know that?
> It's 'public knowledge'?
I agree that the practice is now common knowledge. What I meant was how
would we know, in a particular case, that they were hiding illegal
evidence (like NSA leaking to FBI regarding crimes by US citizens that
don't involve national security) that enabled the investigation.
Criminal defense attorneys are already working this, from what I've
read. But I'm not optimistic that this will lead to public disclosures.
It's just that a few cases will get dropped.
>> Here, it's more plausible that the found his hosting provider through
>> his bank or credit card account, or through his gmail address. No?
> That's another possibility. More plausible? Perhaps, but who knows.
Actually, as I've posted, it was much simpler. One of his employees made
a really stupid mistake, got busted, and then sold him out.
> However, I wasn't specifically commenting on the silk road case.
> Apologies, the subject says "silk road", but my message was worded in
> general terms.
>> Why assume conspiracy, when there's so much obvious stupidity?
>> Of course, the FBI could be totally lying in the complaint.
> My point exactly. Although we can't know if that's the case, the
> possibility that they are at least partially lying is very real.
I can't deny that. Look at what went down in Boston with Bulger and crew
during the 1970s-1980s. And now the Snowden leaks have revealed that the
whole system is just as corrupt as we cynics suspected. It's disgusting.
But hey, I might as well be amused by it ;)
Full disclosure: I've been rereading Toto's ravings ;) It's fitting,
>> tor-talk mailing list - tor-talk at lists.torproject.org
>> To unsusbscribe or change other settings go to
More information about the tor-talk