Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by takyon on Thursday November 12 2015, @11:30PM   Printer-friendly [Skip to comment(s)]
from the white-hat dept.

Wired and others are reporting on a Tor blog post claiming that Carnegie Mellon University researchers were paid by the Federal Bureau of Investigation to help attack Tor hidden services:

"Apparently these researchers were paid by the FBI to attack hidden services users in a broad sweep, and then sift through their data to find people whom they could accuse of crimes," Dingledine writes. "Such action is a violation of our trust and basic guidelines for ethical research. We strongly support independent research on our software and network, but this attack crosses the crucial line between research and endangering innocent users."

Tor's statement all but confirms that Carnegie Mellon's attack was used in the late 2014 law enforcement operation known as Operation Onymous, carried out by the FBI and Europol. That dark web purge took down dozens of Tor hidden services, including several of the most popular Tor-based black markets for drugs including the Silk Road 2, and led to at least 17 arrests. Tor, for its part, has made efforts to subsequently block the attack, which it says it first detected in July of 2014.

When WIRED contacted Carnegie Mellon, it didn't deny the Tor Project's accusations, but pointed to a lack of evidence. "I'd like to see the substantiation for their claim," said Ed Desautels, a staffer in the public relations department of the university's Software Engineering Institute. "I'm not aware of any payment," he added, declining to comment further.

Tor's Dingledine responded to that call for evidence by telling WIRED that it identified Carnegie Mellon as the origin of the attack by pinpointing servers running on Tor's network that were used in the de-anonymization technique. When it asked Carnegie Mellon if the servers were being run by its researchers—a suspicion based on the canceled Black Hat conference presentation—the anomalous servers disappeared from the network and the university offered no response. The $1 million payment, Dingledine says, was revealed to Tor by "friends in the security community."

Previously:

July 26, 2014: Russia Offers $111,000 to Break TOR Anonymity Network
September 30, 2014: Tor Executive Hints at Firefox Integration
November 8, 2014: Huge Raid to Shut Down 400-plus DarkNet Sites
November 10, 2014: Tor Project Mulls How Feds Took Down Hidden Websites
November 17, 2014: Is Tor a Honeypot?
December 22, 2014: Servers Seized After Tor Developers Warn of Potential Government Attempt To Take Down Network


Original Submission

Related Stories

Russia Offers $111,000 to Break TOR Anonymity Network 12 comments

International Business News reports that Russia is offering $111,000 to any citizen who can crack the popular encrypted Tor network.

FTFA:

The Russian federal government is concerned about the number of people using Tor to anonymously surf the web in the country and has set up a competition to find a technological solution to solve the problem.

The Russian Ministry of Internal Affairs (MIA) is offering 3.9 million roubles ($111,000, £65,370) to researchers who will "study the possibility of obtaining technical information about users and users equipment on the Tor anonymous network," according to a translated version of the proposal. In order to apply, entrants must pay 195,000 roubles, and foreigners are not allowed to enter the competition, in order to ensure the "defence and security" of the Russian Federation.

I imagine a lot of Russian crackers will be right on this.

Tor Executive Hints at Firefox Integration 18 comments

The Daily Dot has a story about a browser vendor who wants to package Tor as part of its private browsing mode. From the article:

Several major tech firms are in talks with Tor to include the software in products that can potentially reach over 500 million Internet users around the world. One particular firm wants to include Tor as a “private browsing mode” in a mainstream Web browser, allowing users to easily toggle connectivity to the Tor anonymity network on and off.

“They very much like Tor Browser and would like to ship it to their customer base,” Tor executive director Andrew Lewman wrote, explaining the discussions but declining to name the specific company. “Their product is 10-20 percent of the global market, this is of roughly 2.8 billion global Internet users.”

The author elaborates:

The product that best fits Lewman’s description by our estimation is Mozilla Firefox, the third-most popular Web browser online today and home to, you guessed it, 10 to 20 percent of global Internet users.

The story appears to have gleaned most of its information from a tor-dev mailing list post. An interesting reply from Tor developer Mike Perry explains how Tor can be modified so that the network can handle the extra load.

Huge Raid to Shut Down 400-plus DarkNet Sites 31 comments

Silk Road 2.0 and 400 other sites believed to be selling illegal items including drugs and weapons have been shut down. The sites operated on the Tor network - a part of the internet unreachable via traditional search engines. The joint operation between 16 European countries and the US saw 17 arrests.

Although details of how the sites were identified are not given, it does suggest that software now exists that removes the veil that behind which the DarkNet once hid. Any Soylentils have any ideas of how this might be achieved? This story might be the clue.

More information can be found here : http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-29950946

Tor Project Mulls How Feds Took Down Hidden Websites 32 comments

Little is known about how U.S. and European law enforcement shut down more than 400 websites, including Silk Road 2.0, which used technology that hides their true IP addresses. The websites were set up using a special feature of the Tor network, which is designed to mask people’s Internet use using special software that routes encrypted browsing traffic through a network of worldwide servers.

The Tor Project, is a nonprofit that relies in part on donations. The project “currently doesn’t have funding for improving the security of hidden services,” wrote Andrew Lewman, the project’s executive director, in a blog post on Sunday. ( https://blog.torproject.org/blog/thoughts-and-concerns-about-operation-onymous )

It is possible that a remote-code execution vulnerability has been found in Tor’s software, or that the individual sites had flaws such as SQL injection vulnerabilities. But Lewman wrote The Tor Project had little information on the methods used by law enforcement in the latest action.

“Tor is most interested in understanding how these services were located and if this indicates a security weakness in Tor hidden services that could be exploited by criminals or secret police repressing dissents,” he wrote.

http://www.pcworld.com/article/2845352/tor-project-mulls-how-feds-took-down-hidden-websites.html

[Related]: https://blog.torproject.org/blog/hidden-services-need-some-love

Can anybody help Andrew Lewman understand what happened ?

Is Tor a Honeypot? 26 comments

In July, Yasha Levine reported on a number of apparent conflicts of interest concerning the Tor project and those who promote it as a means of protecting one's anonymity online. In addition, evidence is presented that Tor users are actively being surveiled by the NSA, including a leaked NSA document noting the opportunity presented by this "critical mass" of targets. A follow up article reveals the hostile response from some Tor advocates.

Recently we saw law enforcement exercise their capability to identify and shutdown sites hidden via Tor.

Servers Seized After Tor Developers Warn of Potential Government Attempt To Take Down Network 26 comments

Shortly after a warning was posted on the Tor blog of potential attempts to disrupt the network, a node operator has reported that several servers running exit nodes were seized in an apparent government raid.

It is unclear whether the recent seizure has any relation to the warning posted on the Tor blog. The operator of the nodes recommends not to use any of his mirrors or relays until he has investigated and provides a signed message verifying their safety.

..and from another source...

Santa's elves seem to be busy this holiday season. A few days ago, the TOR project blog warned of upcoming attacks against the network, specifically that certain servers (directory authorities) crucial to the security of the TOR network's operations would be seized. Tonight, there are reports of exit nodes being compromised by opponents with physical access to a USB port. The servers in question seem to be on Dutch soil.

http://article.gmane.org/gmane.network.tor.user/34619

Tor Wars: CMU Says FBI Came Not With Cash, But a Subpoena 12 comments

Carnegie-Mellon University has fired back in the TOR war, saying that it wasn't paid by the FBI to reveal its de-anonymisation research outputs.

The university's statement on the matter is here and includes the following:

"There have been a number of inaccurate media reports in recent days regarding Carnegie Mellon University's Software Engineering Institute work in cybersecurity.

"Carnegie Mellon University includes the Software Engineering Institute, which is a federally funded research and development center (FFRDC) established specifically to focus on software-related security and engineering issues. One of the missions of the SEI's CERT division is to research and identify vulnerabilities in software and computing networks so that they may be corrected.

"In the course of its work, the university from time to time is served with subpoenas requesting information about research it has performed. The university abides by the rule of law, complies with lawfully issued subpoenas and receives no funding for its compliance."

Does it make it better that the government seized their research, which they paid to develop, without due process of law [Ed: isn't a subpoena a legal process?] or compensation?

Originally covered by SoylentNews.


Original Submission

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 12 2015, @11:35PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 12 2015, @11:35PM (#262408)

    Then they went to Uber.

  • (Score: 5, Interesting) by K_benzoate on Thursday November 12 2015, @11:45PM

    by K_benzoate (5036) on Thursday November 12 2015, @11:45PM (#262411)

    If a crime is so transparent to the rest of society, so hard to detect, and so lacking in impact to those not involved, is it still a crime? How does someone using The Silk Road to buy or sell drugs affect me at all? It's actually a huge improvement from the old school drug trade which DID sometimes affect my life. If the junkie and the dealer are both sitting in their own private homes and conducting business online--fine with me. The rest of the operation is online dangerous (to users and innocent bystanders like me) BECAUSE it's illegal. Make it legal to grow poppies or whatever and suddenly the whole operation is done in the light of day where it can be scrutinized and regulated.

    It's not legitimate for the Government to spend my money trying to stop this. Put that money into non-criminalizing drug treatment programs instead.

    --
    Climate change is real and primarily caused by human activity.
    • (Score: 4, Informative) by K_benzoate on Thursday November 12 2015, @11:51PM

      by K_benzoate (5036) on Thursday November 12 2015, @11:51PM (#262413)

      The rest of the operation is online dangerous

      Should read "The rest of the operation is only dangerous"

      --
      Climate change is real and primarily caused by human activity.
    • (Score: 2) by Nuke on Friday November 13 2015, @12:03AM

      by Nuke (3162) on Friday November 13 2015, @12:03AM (#262419)

      So Dr Shipman in the UK, who for kicks was giving fatal injections to old people living alone, his patients, and went undetected for 30 years because, er, it was hard to detect, was committing no crime? Could argue he was doing them a favour as mostly terminally ill anyway.

      How about the bank computer guy who diverted all financial rounding, if less than 0.5 pence, to his own account?

      • (Score: 2) by n1 on Friday November 13 2015, @12:50AM

        by n1 (993) on Friday November 13 2015, @12:50AM (#262434) Journal

        You make a very valid point about Shipman being hard to detect.

        However, the impact of his crimes was quite far reaching, impacting on friends and family of the victims, and he was the only consenting party in the crimes, the victims did not ask for it.

        If Shipman didn't murder those people, there was no serial killer waiting on the street corner for old people to murder, fulfilling the supply-and-demand element of the murder market.

        Drug crimes are fairly unique I think, in that the victim is apparently society in general, as both sides of the market are criminal. The vendor and the consumer are both acting illegally, but willfully in an arrangement between themselves. If the drug user or seller robbed or killed someone in the process of obtaining the drugs or money for the transaction, well that's already a crime in the form of robbery, murder or assault.

        I think thats the point that was being made about it being a victimless crime that is extremely hard to detect.

        • (Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 13 2015, @01:28AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 13 2015, @01:28AM (#262444)

          > Drug crimes are fairly unique I think, in that the victim is apparently society in general, as both sides of the market are criminal.

          Bribing public officials.

          FWIW, one solution I've heard proposed to fix the problem with bribes is to make giving bribes legal. The idea is that when both sides are illegal both people have reason to keep it a secret. But when the briber can get off scott-free he has much less reason to protect the official he bribed, so if the briber has anything to gain by exposing the bribee he will do it. I'm not saying the idea is perfect, but it is likely to be much more effective at exposing corruption than the current system.

    • (Score: 1) by tftp on Friday November 13 2015, @12:06AM

      by tftp (806) on Friday November 13 2015, @12:06AM (#262420) Homepage

      It's not legitimate for the Government to spend my money trying to stop this

      The state has a legitimate interest in keeping its citizens healthy because those people may be one day needed to defend the country. The society also has a legitimate interest in keeping its members healthy because drug habits cost healthcare money and increase crime. (You cannot buy stuff on Silk Road or elsewhere for long if all that you do in life is drugs.) This all, naturally, collides with the personal interest (and freedom) of a person to do whatever he wants with his body.

      One solution to that - as I already proposed here a few months ago - is a special zone, with walls and guards, where drugs can be purchased and used freely. Any adult can come in, and anyone who is free of drugs in their body can leave. Doctors will be available to test the leaving patrons, and to help those who need it. Inexpensive rooms will be available inside to recover from drug use. Those doctors will be paid by the entry fees and by the other income, as drugs are cheap - much cheaper than what criminals charge for them now. That would be like a casino. I may not want to see roulette tables on street corners; however the vice can be lawfully and safely exercised in special locations. Similarly, those who want to do car racing are already welcome to do so on private tracks; those who want to walk around naked can sign up with a nudist club; those who like to shoot clay can do so in properly equipped places.

      • (Score: 4, Interesting) by n1 on Friday November 13 2015, @12:37AM

        by n1 (993) on Friday November 13 2015, @12:37AM (#262430) Journal

        My assumption would be that 'special location' should be the privacy of the drug users own home. Like sugar, tobacco, alcohol, prescribed medication and other 'legal' drugs/highs can be consumed in 'special locations' or can be consumed in the comfort of ones own residence.

        If you drive drunk, walk the streets intoxicated, go to work drunk etc, you don't get the "oh it's legal, i drank the 40oz before i left home this morning, totally not drinking on the job" excuse, dangerous behavior with criminal or social penalty exists for such cases. We need 'drug zones' as much as we need 'free speech zones'.

        There are so many people with addictions and crutches already, stigmatizing and segregating people is not a solution to that. You can get your high from consumerism, buying useless shit you don't need. Put your whole family into debt, make yourself homeless. But that's ok, because taxes were paid all along the way and your wasteful lifestyle was good for the states GDP. The only irresponsible thing you did was not pay off that credit card, not the irresponsible consumerism and consumption in pursuit of the necessary psychological stimulation to make life worth living.

        Do irresponsible consumers, workaholics, binge eaters, chocolate addicts, fast-food junkies, work-out addicts, etc get a special 'freedom zone' too? They can all create socially and personally damaging results for the participants and those around them.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 13 2015, @02:45AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 13 2015, @02:45AM (#262471)

          But that's ok, because taxes were paid all along the way and your wasteful lifestyle was good for the states GDP. The only irresponsible thing you did was not pay off that credit card, not the irresponsible consumerism and consumption in pursuit of the necessary psychological stimulation to make life worth living.

          I think you might find this article about the dark side of free markets [theconversation.com] to be of interest.

          "It is now not uncommon for 11-year-olds to be diabetic. I see one reason for it every time I check out at my local Safeway in Washington. The candy is right there at the cash register, waiting to be eaten.

          But this does not mean that the manager of the store is mean or even irresponsible. If she has qualms about this practice, she would face a real dilemma: she needs to show a profit. The margins at supermarkets are tiny. No matter what her morals, she has almost no choice but to place those sweet impulse buys where customers can see them. In other words, there is an economic equilibrium in which businesses take advantage of every opportunity to increase profits. In such an equilibrium, the candy will be at the checkout counter.

          Curiously, while economists understand each and every such instance where people are tempted to buy things that are not good for them, they fail to appreciate that this occurs because of a general principle of economics. They fail to understand that free markets, as bountiful as they may be, will not only provide us with what we want, as long as we can pay for it; they will also tempt us into buying things that are bad for us, whatever the costs.
          ..."

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 13 2015, @03:14AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 13 2015, @03:14AM (#262481)

          Do irresponsible consumers, workaholics, binge eaters, chocolate addicts, fast-food junkies, work-out addicts, etc get a special 'freedom zone' too? They can all create socially and personally damaging results for the participants and those around them.

          Chocolate? Addicts? You kind of lost me there. How does my consumption of chocolate cause damaging results for you either socially or personally? Not that I'm addicted, mind you. I don't actually need to eat the chocolate....

          • (Score: 2) by Zz9zZ on Friday November 13 2015, @03:45AM

            by Zz9zZ (1348) on Friday November 13 2015, @03:45AM (#262491)

            Emotional damage when you haven't hard your chocolate fix, financial costs from poor diet, eating too much chocolate and raising the prices for the rest of us :P

            --
            ~Tilting at windmills~
        • (Score: 3, Insightful) by TheGratefulNet on Friday November 13 2015, @04:37AM

          by TheGratefulNet (659) on Friday November 13 2015, @04:37AM (#262503)

          sounds like you are in favor of a nanny state.

          I could not disagree with you more. people should be free to do whateve they want as long as it does not hurt others, and doing drugs does NOT hurt others. if you think it 'harms society' you have been listening too much to nancy reagan et al.

          the war on drugs is the dumbest waste of money this country (and the ROW) has ever engaged in. stupid beyond belief, for those who actually have experience in this area.

          I could care less if someone shows up 'at work' drug or stoned; that is not the issue. if they are unable to function or are a danger, that's quite another thing; but if someone is able to manage it (many are), then I see nothing wrong with it.

          people drive distracted all the time. any parent with brats in the back seat is more of a danger on the road than most 'stoners' are. they are far more distracted and a risk to those around them. someone who is sleep deprived is a danger. someone who is emotionally upset is a danger. and yet, we seem to want to demonize the 'drug users' even though they are a small percentage of the problem people in the world.

          I wish people would stop looking for 'easy boogeymen' to blame. its not helping.

          --
          "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
          • (Score: 2) by n1 on Friday November 13 2015, @10:34AM

            by n1 (993) on Friday November 13 2015, @10:34AM (#262578) Journal

            I think my point got lost in there. I am not advocating a nanny state at all, my argument it against it. Maybe your reply to me was by accident?

            If you drive drunk, walk the streets intoxicated, go to work drunk etc, you don't get the "oh it's legal, i drank the 40oz before i left home this morning, totally not drinking on the job" excuse, dangerous behavior with criminal or social penalty exists for such cases. We need 'drug zones' as much as we need 'free speech zones'.

            I didn't say there should be criminal penalty for everything, just pointing out that criminal and social consequences already existt. I am not endorsing 'freedom zones' because where do you draw the line, thats why i used fast-food junkies and workaholics as examples of other types of people who would need special zones to protect society if we go down that route.

        • (Score: 1) by tftp on Friday November 13 2015, @05:00AM

          by tftp (806) on Friday November 13 2015, @05:00AM (#262508) Homepage

          If you drive drunk, walk the streets intoxicated, go to work drunk etc, you don't get the "oh it's legal, i drank the 40oz before i left home this morning, totally not drinking on the job" excuse, dangerous behavior with criminal or social penalty exists for such cases.

          Those penalties are usually applied after the drunk driver kills someone. Converted into my model, all drunk patrons of all drinking establishments would be driven home by specially arranged taxicabs - or allowed to sleep it off in a nearby hotel. Regardless of the method, they would be safely kept off the streets - for their own benefit and for benefit of others. Otherwise "a few bad apples" will eventually spoil it for everyone, the society will scream bloody murder, and all new cars will be sold with alcohol sensors, on consumer's dime. Freedoms then will be lost, not increased.

      • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 13 2015, @01:24AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 13 2015, @01:24AM (#262442)

        Wow, that's probably the most authoritarian "fix" to the war on drugs as anyone could possibly come up with. Entrance and exit drug testing? So if you want to smoke a joint after dinner instead of drink a beer you have to commit hours if not days of your life? And that all presumes your CSI-level understanding of drug testing is how it works in real life.

        Come on man.

        • (Score: 1) by tftp on Friday November 13 2015, @07:01AM

          by tftp (806) on Friday November 13 2015, @07:01AM (#262540) Homepage

          A modern day opium house... safe to come and do the drug(s) within. Opium houses were common a long time before the war on drugs - they just were convenient for users.

      • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Anal Pumpernickel on Friday November 13 2015, @08:41AM

        by Anal Pumpernickel (776) on Friday November 13 2015, @08:41AM (#262562)

        The state has a legitimate interest in keeping its citizens healthy because those people may be one day needed to defend the country.

        Then you'd have to ban everything that could conceivably make people unhealthy and force people to exercise. How much is freedom worth to you? If you think this is a good idea, probably not much.

        Furthermore, I assume you speak of the draft. Government thugs have no legitimate moral authority to force people to fight for them in a war, and indeed, if someone were to shoot said government thugs for trying to force them into some war, I wouldn't feel too bad for the thugs. Running away or refusing and going to jail are acceptable ways to rebel. There should be an explicit constitutional ban on the government's ability to call for drafts, regardless of the situation.

        If you meant voluntary service, then you can't mandate that people be 'healthy' because they might one day, at some unspecified point in the future, decide to enlist in the military. That's no longer voluntary and would impact the freedoms of people who have no desire to be in the military.

        The society also has a legitimate interest in keeping its members healthy because drug habits cost healthcare money and increase crime.

        Many people have said that government healthcare will enable a nanny state to control what you put into your body or what you eat. Good job proving them right, in a way. However, this is not necessary, because we can simply accept that the fundamental right to control your own body is more important, and then accept increased taxation (assuming that's even needed). Few seem to consider this possibility, as if freedom as a concept is completely foreign to them.

        As for drugs increasing crime, that is false. People commit crime and then drugs become the excuse. Drugs cannot cause crimes because they are not sentient. If you take drugs and then commit crimes, that's on you. If being under the influence of drugs makes certain people more likely to commit crimes, then that is still their fault for taking the drugs and then taking those actions. You cannot blame drugs for this.

        One solution to that - as I already proposed here a few months ago - is a special zone, with walls and guards, where drugs can be purchased and used freely. Any adult can come in, and anyone who is free of drugs in their body can leave.

        The only real solution is to respect people's fundamental right to control their own bodies. Anything else is unacceptable. Safety is far less important than freedom, and as such, I'd much rather live in a society that respects our freedoms but is less safe and less stable.

        If you're willing to trade fundamental liberties for safety and/or to save money, you are a mere coward who lacks principles. Why so many people who despise freedom live in countries that supposedly strive to be free rather than just moving to existing dictatorship hellholes is beyond me. I guess that's part of being an authoritarian: You want to strip everyone of their freedoms.

    • (Score: 3, Interesting) by NCommander on Friday November 13 2015, @12:49AM

      by NCommander (2) Subscriber Badge <mcasadevall@soylentnews.org> on Friday November 13 2015, @12:49AM (#262433) Homepage Journal

      Disclaimer: I agree with you, and feel that drug legislation needs a drastic reworking.

      The problem isn't the user directly, the problem is the money raised by illicit drugs which gets re-invested in organized crime. Drugs are relatively cheap to make, and have high markups, and can be used to build more criminal enterprises above; i.e., building out the ability to gun run, etc.

      If drugs were legalized and a chain of custody to make sure they were legally produced, I'd have no problem with people choosing what they put in their body. However, I don't like the idea that those who choose to use (or need) have to fund organized crime to get what the government says we shouldn't have.

      --
      Still always moving
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 13 2015, @02:14AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 13 2015, @02:14AM (#262461)

        Decriminalization and legalization could allow small time drug producers to grow marijuana or mushrooms in their own homes, undercutting organized crime.

      • (Score: 2) by Mr Big in the Pants on Friday November 13 2015, @03:02AM

        by Mr Big in the Pants (4956) on Friday November 13 2015, @03:02AM (#262478)

        This has been obvious to open minded people for decades, as per usual the close minded mouth breathers take decades to catch up.

        In others words: drugs being illegal helps fund crime in general. So again we come back to the the ridiculous 1950's insanity surrounding recreational drugs causing even more problems...

        For example in my country pot and meth production funds our most violent gangs and has turned them into nationwide business networks - both illegal and legal businesses.

        And STILL our government does nothing but mumble about this...

      • (Score: 2) by K_benzoate on Friday November 13 2015, @04:20AM

        by K_benzoate (5036) on Friday November 13 2015, @04:20AM (#262498)

        Most drugs come from PLANTS, some of which are literally classified as intrusive weeds which grow so rapidly and hardily that they are considered invasive pests to more profitable agriculture. When they're legal, the price will drop so low that it will be impossible for anyone to make much profit off it. There is no organized crime being funded from tomatoes, there shouldn't be with cannabis either.

        --
        Climate change is real and primarily caused by human activity.
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 13 2015, @01:51AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 13 2015, @01:51AM (#262452)

      > If a crime is so transparent to the rest of society, so hard to detect, and so lacking in impact to those not involved, is it still a crime?

      Woah. I had to read that like five times before I realized you were not defending government surveillance in the same way the courts keep turning down challenges due to "lack of standing."

  • (Score: 1) by That_Dude on Thursday November 12 2015, @11:56PM

    by That_Dude (2503) on Thursday November 12 2015, @11:56PM (#262415)

    The Feds got unmasked too - not sure what that budget was though.

    The wheels on the bus go round and round.

  • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 13 2015, @12:38AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 13 2015, @12:38AM (#262431)

    Back when I was at CMU in late 80's, there was this famous(?) guy staging continuous protest at SEI building going on for sometime now. Cuz he didn't like SEI doing defense research work. Wonder if he's still at it.

    Anyhoo, you can bet CMU/SEI is doing (and has been doing) some creepy work of nebulous nature for defense dept/contrators, for sure.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 13 2015, @03:30AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 13 2015, @03:30AM (#262487)

    This is like something Doctor Evil would do.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 13 2015, @08:35AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 13 2015, @08:35AM (#262559)

    On one hand I want the freedom to talk to people securely and *privately* if I so choose. On the other, I want to know that the tech I'm using for said secure communication is being tested. While the intent behind this does smack of the nanny state, their actions will undoubtedly result in a more secure TOR. So I don't know... Fuck it? Meh, fuck it...

    • (Score: 4, Interesting) by takyon on Friday November 13 2015, @11:42AM

      by takyon (881) <{takyon} {at} {soylentnews.org}> on Friday November 13 2015, @11:42AM (#262596) Journal

      From the blog:

      Such action is a violation of our trust and basic guidelines for ethical research. We strongly support independent research on our software and network, but this attack crosses the crucial line between research and endangering innocent users.

      This attack also sets a troubling precedent: Civil liberties are under attack if law enforcement believes it can circumvent the rules of evidence by outsourcing police work to universities. If academia uses "research" as a stalking horse for privacy invasion, the entire enterprise of security research will fall into disrepute. Legitimate privacy researchers study many online systems, including social networks — If this kind of FBI attack by university proxy is accepted, no one will have meaningful 4th Amendment protections online and everyone is at risk.

      --
      [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 14 2015, @11:02AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 14 2015, @11:02AM (#263170)

        Common criminals or government abuse, same result. Regardless of the ethics/legality, a vulnerability or weakness was found and now the TOR devs will respond and future versions will be more secure. The TFA doesn't change that fact. While I agree that this is unethical, that is a separate issue.