[Author Prev][Author Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Thread Index]

Re: [tor-talk] tor-talk Digest, Vol 33, Issue 17



My problem is SR did not sell anything,the vedorers did the selling?


On Fri, Oct 4, 2013 at 2:37 AM, <tor-talk-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>wrote:

> Send tor-talk mailing list submissions to
>         tor-talk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>         https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>         tor-talk-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>         tor-talk-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of tor-talk digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>    1. Re: Silk Road taken down by FBI (mirimir)
>    2. Re: Silk Road taken down by FBI (Juan Garofalo)
>    3. Re: Silk Road taken down by FBI (Phil Mocek)
>    4. Re: Silk Road taken down by FBI (mirimir)
>    5. Re: Silk Road taken down by FBI (Juan Garofalo)
>    6. Re: problems with TOR and Silk Road (Vladimir Teplouhov)
>    7. Re: problems with TOR and Silk Road (mirimir)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Fri, 04 Oct 2013 03:22:24 +0000
> From: mirimir <mirimir@xxxxxxxxxx>
> To: tor-talk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [tor-talk] Silk Road taken down by FBI
> Message-ID: <524E3470.1070804@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> 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
> >
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Fri, 04 Oct 2013 00:50:45 -0300
> From: Juan Garofalo <juan.g71@xxxxxxxxx>
> To: tor-talk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [tor-talk] Silk Road taken down by FBI
> Message-ID: <860ACA42A227315F5D668D6B@F74D39FA044AA309EAEA14B9>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
>
>
>
> --On Friday, October 04, 2013 2:11 AM +0000 mirimir <mirimir@xxxxxxxxxx>
> 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?
> >
> > Yes, that sounds about right.
> >
> > But, how would we know that?
>
>         It's 'public knowledge'?
>
>
> http://www.forbes.com/sites/jennifergranick/2013/08/14/nsa-dea-irs-lie-about-fact-that-americans-are-routinely-spied-on-by-our-government-time-for-a-special-prosecutor-2/
>
>
>
> >
> > 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.
>
>         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.
>
>
> > --
> > tor-talk mailing list - tor-talk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > To unsusbscribe or change other settings go to
> > https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Thu, 03 Oct 2013 21:15:00 -0700
> From: Phil Mocek <phil-lists@xxxxxxxxx>
> To: tor-talk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [tor-talk] Silk Road taken down by FBI
> Message-ID: <524E40C4.10301@xxxxxxxxx>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
>
> krishna e bera:
> > If the FBI had to use a subpoena it means the VPN provider wasnt
> > cooperating, but was forced by legal means to hand over the info.
> >
> > It would be unrealistic to expect any provider in any country to destroy
> > subscriber info after they had received a notice from a judge ordering
> > it to be turned over to police.
>
> I don't know which is relevant in this case, but please note that unlike
> judicial subpoenas, [administrative subpoenas][1] in the United States
> are not issued by judges.
>
>  [1]:
> <http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/08/administrative-subpoenas/all/>
>       ("We Don?t Need No Stinking Warrant: The Disturbing, Unchecked
> Rise of the Administrative Subpoena," by David Kravets, 2012-08-28)
>
> --
> Phil Mocek
> http://mocek.org
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Fri, 04 Oct 2013 04:31:46 +0000
> From: mirimir <mirimir@xxxxxxxxxx>
> To: tor-talk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [tor-talk] Silk Road taken down by FBI
> Message-ID: <524E44B2.6050308@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> On 10/04/2013 03:50 AM, Juan Garofalo wrote:
> >
> >
> > --On Friday, October 04, 2013 2:11 AM +0000 mirimir <mirimir@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > 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?
> >>
> >> Yes, that sounds about right.
> >>
> >> But, how would we know that?
> >
> >     It's 'public knowledge'?
> >
> >
> http://www.forbes.com/sites/jennifergranick/2013/08/14/nsa-dea-irs-lie-about-fact-that-americans-are-routinely-spied-on-by-our-government-time-for-a-special-prosecutor-2/
>
> 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,
> somehow.
>
> >> tor-talk mailing list - tor-talk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >> To unsusbscribe or change other settings go to
> >> https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Fri, 04 Oct 2013 01:37:31 -0300
> From: Juan Garofalo <juan.g71@xxxxxxxxx>
> To: tor-talk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [tor-talk] Silk Road taken down by FBI
> Message-ID: <19D3CF71F2A714865260A91A@F74D39FA044AA309EAEA14B9>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
>
>
>
> --On Friday, October 04, 2013 3:22 AM +0000 mirimir <mirimir@xxxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
>
> > 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.
> >
>
>
>         Of course, that makes sense - if you believe them.
>
>         Well, I can prove that pigs fly. I start with the premise that
> pigs fly
> and then...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2013 11:53:28 +0700
> From: Vladimir Teplouhov <vladimir.teplouhov@xxxxxxxxx>
> To: tor-talk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [tor-talk] problems with TOR and Silk Road
> Message-ID:
>         <CAE-sae89py3DXEmszwV_NP5w0vLQHMWT3byLC2S+801LQ=
> JdCg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=KOI8-R
>
> 04.10.13, mirimir<mirimir@xxxxxxxxxx> ???????(?):
> > On 10/03/2013 09:59 PM, Vladimir Teplouhov wrote:
> >
> >> Hello.
> >
> > Hey, ?? ?????????e, ?????????? ;)
>
> Sorry, but it would be clearer if I write in Russian - you can
> translate http://translate.google.com/ or http://translate.yandex.ru/
>
> I understand the engineering and scientific terms, but it is difficult
> to properly construct sentences in English ...
>
> Vladimir
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 7
> Date: Fri, 04 Oct 2013 06:37:27 +0000
> From: mirimir <mirimir@xxxxxxxxxx>
> To: tor-talk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [tor-talk] problems with TOR and Silk Road
> Message-ID: <524E6227.5040803@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=KOI8-R
>
> On 10/03/2013 09:59 PM, Vladimir Teplouhov wrote:
>
> > Hello.
> >
> > 1.
> >   ????????? ????? ?????, ? ???????, ??? TOR ??????? ????? ?????????? -
> > ?? 10-15 ?????.
> >
> > ??? ??????? ???? ?????-?? ?????? ???????????(????????????? ??
> > ???????????????????? ???? ????? ????????????), TOR ????????? ??????
> > ????????? ????? ??????(?? ??? ?? ????????) ? ?.?.
> > (???-?? ?? ??????? ? ????? ??? ? ????? ?????? TOR ? ???????? ??
> > ????????? ???? ???????? ??? cookies ? ?.?. ?????????)
> >
> > ??????? ? ?????????? ???????? ??? ??? - TOR ?????????? ???????? ?? 1
> > ?????? ???? ?? ????????? 64k ????????-??????, ??????? ??????...
>
> When was it that Tor took so long to start? If it was in early
> September, you were probably seeing the impact of Mevade bots joining
> the Tor network. See <https://metrics.torproject.org/users.html> and
> <https://metrics.torproject.org/performance.html>. There are about five
> million of them now, but they and Tor have accommodated somewhat.
>
> > ????? ? ?? ??????? ?? ??? ???????? ???????? ?.?. ??????? ??? ???
> > ??????? ? ?????? ?????????? ??????????????????? ???????  (
> > http://eais.rkn.gov.ru/  -- ??? ????? ????? ????????? ??????? ???????
> > ?? IP, ??-?? ???? ??????????? ????????? ??? ????????????? ?????? ?????
> > TOR ?.?. ?? ???-?? ??????? ?????? ?????????? ????????? ????? ??????
> > ??????) ? ????????? ????????????? ?????? ? ????? TOR (??? ???????
> > ?????? ?.?. ???? ????? ?? ??????? ????????? ??????????? TOR),
> > ?? ?????? ? ????? ??? ?????? ????? Silk Road ??? ??????? ?????? ?????
> > TOR, ? ?? ???????????? ????????, ??? ??? ?????...
>
> The story in the Maryland complaint
> <
> https://ia601904.us.archive.org/1/items/gov.uscourts.mdd.238311/gov.uscourts.mdd.238311.4.0.pdf
> >
> makes sense, as I've said in another post.
>
> It could be all lies, of course. Maybe it's an FBI/NSA scheme to hide
> the evidence that they got by compromising Tor. But I'd want some
> evidence for that hypothesis, not just the claim that it's possible.
>
> > 2.
> >    ??????? ??? ??????? ?????? ????? ?????????? - ??????? ????? ? ???
> > ??????????...
> > ? ????? ??? ?????? ????? ??????? ????????? ????? ?? ????????? ????????
> > ? ????? ???????? ?? ??????? bitcoin-??????????.
> >
> > ?????? ????:
> > 1)  ????? ???????? ? ?????????? $ ??????????? ? ???????????..
> > 2)  ??? ??? ?? ????? ??????, ???? ?? ?? ??????????????, ???? ??????? ??
> ?????..
> >     (? ??? ????????? ???, ???? ??????? ?????????? ???????? ??
> > ????????? ????? ????? ?? ????????????? ???? ???????)
> > 3)  ?????????? ??????????? ??? ??????? - ???????????? ???????????????
> > "???????" - ??????? ?????? R&D ?? ??????????????? ? ?.?.
>
> Indeed, he was totally unprepared for any of that. According to the
> Maryland complaint, he delegated the transfer of 1 Kg "cocaine" to the
> guy who was administering his servers! And then that guy got busted, and
> made a deal with the FBI. The rest of it was all manipulated by the FBI,
> total entrapment, in my opinion.
>
> > 3.
> >    ???? ?? ????? ???????????? ?????????? ??? ?????, ?? ?????? ???????
> > ???????? ?????? ? ???????, ?????? ?? ???????? ?? ??????????????, ???
> > ????? ??????? ???? ????????? TOR ??? ???????? ????????..
>
> He's not a criminal! He was just playing at being one ;) He was
> apparently a fool to give someone he didn't have any reason to trust
> full access to his servers. He should have hired a professional
> anonymous administration team, with distributed trust.
>
> Tor is, in some sense, a military project. But that's a good thing, in
> the sense that it's well designed. But no tool, no matter how well
> designed, is idiot-proof ;)
>
> > Vladimir
> >
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Subject: Digest Footer
>
> _______________________________________________
> tor-talk mailing list
> tor-talk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of tor-talk Digest, Vol 33, Issue 17
> ****************************************
>
-- 
tor-talk mailing list - tor-talk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsusbscribe or change other settings go to
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk