FBI Seizes Server Providing Anonymous Remailer Service 355
sunbird writes "At 16:00 ET on April 18, federal agents seized a server located in a New York colocation facility shared by May First / People Link and Riseup.net. The server was operated by the European Counter Network ("ECN"), the oldest independent internet service provider in Europe. The server was seized as a part of the investigation into bomb threats sent via the Mixmaster anonymous remailer received by the University of Pittsburgh that were previously discussed on Slashdot. As a result of the seizure, hundreds of unrelated people and organizations have been disrupted."
What does this help? (Score:5, Interesting)
Unless the server was keeping logs, and I presume that it wasn't, how could seizing it possibly help the investigation?
Re:What does this help? (Score:4, Funny)
Unless the server was keeping logs, and I presume that it wasn't, how could seizing it possibly help the investigation?
The files are in the computer [imdb.com].
Re:What does this help? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Especially if the RAM is cooled sufficiently, cold boot attacks [wikipedia.org] can be effective for information retrieval from "volatile" memory.
Re:What does this help? (Score:5, Insightful)
or they are technically illiterate.
From a technical point of view, their action is completely pointless. But from the social point of view, it works. They're sending a loud and clear message: if you try to stand up to your rights, you WILL be trampled.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
You are not in the 90s anymore where a scriptkiddy could brute-force FBI passwords without being noticed. You now should assume competence in the people charged with these affairs.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
As a long-time follower of Groklaw.net, I've read of this happening before. Lawyers trying to seize the wind by asking for a machine's RAM. Not the contents, the RAM itself. Little green sticks. Lovely, no?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:What does this help? (Score:4, Insightful)
The legal and forensic arguments from which this action stem are a part of American policy which can, in fact apply to any jurisdiction. Taken pretty strictly as it is defined, the policy can be expressed: "Look, We're the FBI. That means your fucked, no matter what you do."
Who will FBI the FBI ? (Score:5, Insightful)
"Look, We're the FBI. That means your fucked, no matter what you do."
The question that is begging to be asked is ---
Who will FBI the FBI ?
Re:Who will FBI the FBI ? (Score:4, Funny)
"Look, We're the FBI. That means your fucked, no matter what you do."
The question that is begging to be asked is ---
Who will FBI the FBI ?
The FBFBII ?
Re:What does this help? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's a clear signal to people that if you run a business and your server is in the US, the US can kill your business stone dead in a raid which may have nothing to do with you other than being co-hosted at a server farm. And people wonder why less business is going to the US.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
My hosting is up for renewal next month and I am already looking to move out of the US for security even though I do not think that I am doing anything of interest to them, I do not know what else is being done at my provider. It is not just bad guys that get taken down, everyone using that service suffered. I do not want to suffer when the jackboots arrive. I want somewhere safe and stable like Switzerland. I am sure that someone will post a reply quoting a bad incident in Switzerland but we could fill
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I'm sure some hardware register was stuck with all bits set; power cycling fixed it.
Re: (Score:3)
You know, we took an outage in our dev lab yesterday when a PDU blew, and took out some fiber that was running next to it. Shit happens...maybe not often, but it does. Any individual server can go, for any number of reasons, some of which are totally outside the server.
If we are talking about unimportant services, sure... leave it up to a single server. If your business depends on it though? Well then I guess if your business isn't worth keeping up in an outage...then enjoy but... I would consider that impo
Re:What does this help? (Score:4, Interesting)
You know, we took an outage in our dev lab yesterday when a PDU blew, and took out some fiber that was running next to it. Shit happens...maybe not often, but it does.
Dual PSUs fed from two independent PDUs fed by two independent power sources. We would just shrug and replace the PDU if that happened.
Its a question of how fast you can recover WHEN it happens.
Much faster from a blown PDU than from having your server confiscated by the Feds because some other user may have broken the law.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Offtopic^2 (Score:3, Informative)
This is not a Rush Limbaugh forum, and your retarded post has nothing to do with the topic. If you watch the BBC documentary Madagascar, Lemurs and Spies [bbc.co.uk], you'll see that Gibson looks guilty as hell. A researcher working with an endangered group of Lemurs sees illegal logging in protected wilderness, and they get a hidden camera lawyer posing as an American wood buyer to go deep inside the logging operation, documenting the mass harvesting and lumber mills there producing pallets of fingerboard blanks with
Re: (Score:3)
and I presume that it wasn't
Don't presume, verify.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe instead of solving the crime, it simply stops more threats from being mailed out. Until a new anon-service is found. And in the meantime the person might mess up and reveal themselves.
Can we get a little streisand effect? (Score:3)
Take your hacked router, your raspberry pi, your beagle board and fire up a remailer service off of some public wifi or other, run it off solar, coil leech, thermal gradient sucker, piezo traffic leech or whatever power you can get.
Didn't someone do a patch to mixmaster so it could do hold and forward like fidonet?
Did they at least manage to figure out what server (Score:5, Interesting)
Or did they just kick over all the racks and rip everything out like they seem to do on a regular basis?
Re:Did they at least manage to figure out what ser (Score:5, Funny)
Correction (Score:5, Funny)
Grateful American people throw candy and flowers at heroic agents.
Re: (Score:2)
The Soviets were good reliable opponents. Both they and the US had limitations on their aggressiveness towards each country other because they both had 1000's of nukes aimed at one another. Blowing up airplanes and office buildings would have led to WW3 which would have lasted about an hour from start to finish. Today's terrorist organizations are unpredictable and under no such constraints and take the chance to kill as many people as possible with each attack.
Re: (Score:3)
So we should give the terrorists lots of nukes and a command and control system?
Sounds perfectly reasonable.
Re: (Score:3)
All the major nuclear states have proven they are responsible in the handling of nuclear weapons. They also have high levels of security to prevent these weapons from being compromised and provided to 3rd parties. The current Iranian issue is not really about them actually using a nuke if they had one. This is about them being able to provide the weapons to one of the 3rd party organizations they support. That's their standard method of projecting military power while being able to maintain plausible deniab
What did you expect? (Score:2)
When their reply was basically "If we dont let them send bomb threats, we're undermining free speech and the Internet"
Re:What did you expect? (Score:5, Insightful)
To which I reply "They need to find a different way to discourage or stop them from sending bomb threats. Inflicting me with collateral damage in the quest for better law enforcement is unacceptable, and so is removing my ability to speak with anonymity."
Given the choice, I think I'd rather deal with the occasional bomb threat than not be able to speak anonymously.
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
[grammarnazi] I don't think you can do those two things in that order....[/grammarnazi]
Re: (Score:2)
Re:What did you expect? (Score:5, Insightful)
To which I reply "They need to find a different way to discourage or stop them from sending bomb threats. Inflicting me with collateral damage in the quest for better law enforcement is unacceptable, and so is removing my ability to speak with anonymity."
Given the choice, I think I'd rather deal with the occasional bomb threat than not be able to speak anonymously.
Or, to totally mangle a famous quote:
"First they came for the anonymous, but I was not anonymous, so I did nothing." That's probably true to life for most people actually....
Re: (Score:2)
Your inconvenience in having to find yourself another anonymous remailer is outweighed by someone else's jeopardy to life and limb.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The inconvenience you suffer by not being able to ride on planes without getting molested by the TSA is outweighed by someone else's jeopardy to life and limb.
Re:What did you expect? (Score:5, Interesting)
FYI, we're not dealing with "the occasional bomb threat" here.
The University of Pittsburgh (which is down the street from where I work) has gotten multiple bomb threats per day every day for weeks now.
Many students have been driven out of their dorms, to live off campus, because the evacuations were too disruptive. The campus police are no doubt way over budget. Classes are disrupted to the point where folks on academic probation were told this semester "doesn't count".
At this moment, as I type this, two buildings have evacuation notices. Earlier today, eleven buildings had to be evacuated.
And today was not exceptional.
If you want to follow this yourselves, evacuation notices go out over the @PittTweet twitter account.
Now, I'm not trying to say "knocking every anonymous remailer off the internet is justified". Please don't assume I think that. I'm just pointing out that this very much isn't a case of "the occasional bomb threat". It's basically a full-on ongoing multi-day denial-of-service attack on the Pitt police, Pittsburgh police, and a bunch of the university, happening in meatspace.
Re: (Score:3)
"Stand back... I'm going to try LOGIC..."
FYI, we're not dealing with "the occasional bomb threat" here.
The University of Pittsburgh (which is down the street from where I work) has gotten multiple bomb threats per day every day for weeks now.
Many students have been driven out of their dorms, to live off campus, because the evacuations were too disruptive.
...
I agree that this situation stinks, and that obviously constantly evacuating buildings is very disruptive. However at the same time, can't the University of Pittsburgh and the Pittsburg police stop doing that and ignore the bomb threats, knowing that their leg is being pulled? I realize that there may be some legal precident why they can't... but at some point logic and common sense, along with the knowlege of "The boy who cried wolf" should also come into play.
Re:What did you expect? (Score:5, Insightful)
However at the same time, can't the University of Pittsburgh and the Pittsburg police stop doing that and ignore the bomb threats, knowing that their leg is being pulled?
No. The next time it might not be a joke.
Universities are being sued for not doing enough to stop violence on campus when it happens, as rare as it is, and as much as they do. It's never enough for the lawyers and "grieving heirs".
It's a large "corporation" to start with, and state schools have the combined pockets of the taxpayer to pick. You can't sue a school for being too careful, only if something happens and you can convince a judge that they might not have done enough. Why make it a slam-dunk victory for millions by ignoring the last, valid threat?
This is the same reason that cops have to go check out 911 hangup calls. Most likely, it was someone who dialed by accident and then said "oh shit" and hung up. If they try to dodge the problem by turning their cell phone off, or not answering, the cops will show up to see if everything is ok. If the cops just ignored the call, they'd be sued by everyone involved when it turns out that the caller was forced to hang up, or the wire was ripped out of the wall, by her violent husband or vice versa, and someone wound up dead.
Re: (Score:3)
continual random searches of people and places
That sounds about as awful of a solution as the TSA. If the solution violates people's privacy, I don't want it. I'd rather them evacuate the building for the 50th time.
Re:What did you expect? (Score:5, Insightful)
can't the University of Pittsburgh and the Pittsburg police stop doing that and ignore the bomb threats, knowing that their leg is being pulled? [...] "The boy who cried wolf" should also come into play
There are two morals to the story of "The boy who cried wolf":
Don't consistently lie or you'll get eaten (the moral for children)
Sometimes, children's lies end up being the truth, so pay attention every time or they'll get eaten (the moral for adults)
If you want to discourage lying, punish the liars when they're caught, but don't ignore what seems like a lie because it might be the truth.
Re: (Score:2)
Only a terrorist or child molester needs anonymity. What are you hiding?
nonsense (Score:5, Interesting)
More importantly: Unless the server operator was a total dofus, this brings them exactly zero steps towards resolving their problem, because this is exactly the kind of attack that Mixmasters was designed to withstand.
Idiots. Is nobody teaching these fools basics about the stuff they encounter?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I hate to defend them, but look at it from the FBI's point of view. Maybe the server operator was a total - or even a partial - doofus. The Feds would be even bigger doofuses (as in, negligent in their) to assum
Re:nonsense (Score:5, Insightful)
So, they really need a whole big stinkin' server? If you're a professional, you'd switch the server to single user mode, dump the drive contents to a portable drive, reboot the server, and be on your merry way. If they have proper forensic data analysis tools, they should be able to deal with all popular raid arrays out there, so given those you shut the server down, use a portable disk imager to copy the drives, you then replace the drives, power the server back up, and are on your merry way. I just don't get what they need the server itself for. They are after the data, not the hardware.
Re:nonsense (Score:5, Interesting)
Have you ever done data forensics? The first thing you learn is that it's not the same data if it's not on the original storage medium.
Of course, what they SHOULD be able to do is shut the server down, clone the drive, pull the drive that has the warrant, and drop in the cloned drive. Of course, this requires cooperation with the victim, which obviously wasn't available in this case.
To put it another way: they weren't after the hardware OR the data, they were after the incriminating evidence. Data by itself is hearsay (no way to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that it was preserved in the same state and context).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
If that were correct then backups would not be admissible evidence. They are.
Welcome to Criminal Justice 101.
Your first homework assignment is to read this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Best_evidence_rule [wikipedia.org]
Spoiler alert: Doing it is possible, but only in certain circumstances and it raises questions that you'd rather avoid as a prosecution. So they don't do it if they don't have to.
(If it sounds snarky, I didn't mean to be. Trying to be funny but also informative...)
Re: (Score:3)
I suspect they wanted the drives themselves for analysis - makes it possible to look for deleted or over-written information that might not exist on a duplicated disk.
Re:nonsense (Score:5, Informative)
makes it possible to look for deleted or over-written information that might not exist on a duplicated disk.
Deleted stuff is never erased, just marked as "free space" by the OS.
Overwritten data, these days, is unrecoverable, even if only overwritten once. There has not been a single criminal case that I can remember where data was overwritten and then recovered on modern drives. The standard of multiple overwrites for true erasure is from the days when disks were physically huge, and the recorded area was huge, and head alignment wasn't always the greatest thing in the world.
Go read the epilogue to Peter Gutmann's paper
http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/secure_del.html [auckland.ac.nz]
A simple dd of the original drives would have given investigators all the information that was available, including deleted files.
--
BMO
Re: (Score:3)
Forensic investigation of a computer includes a capture of the machine's memory, not just the drive contents.
Re: (Score:3)
Forensic investigation of a computer includes a capture of the machine's memory,
But that doesn't mean you need to walk away with the whole machine. Unplugging it and carrying it out the door does nothing for preservation of data in DRAM, which needs power to refresh memory. You can yank the RAM out and put it in dry ice to keep things from discharging too quickly, but you are under a pretty strict clock to get the RAM unplugged and into the analysis machine on the crash cart. If you physically unplug the
Re: (Score:3)
It overwrites the file multiple times if necessary before optionally deleting it. As far as I know, shred is part of standard Linux so you should have it too.
There is another tool you might like, and that's bcwipe.
It does shred, but it also wipes free space on currently mounted drives.
Jetico's bcwipe is open source and cost-free for *nix if you compile it yourself (it's *not* GPL or Free/Libre).
I like it. I use it often.
--
BMO
Re: (Score:3)
There is no such thing and hasn't been for more than a decade. It's a legend that was once true: in times of MFM and RLL drives, and early PRML drives. Nobody offers such analysis, feel free to prove me wrong by providing someone who would quote it for any hard drive that was shipped in the last decade. The quote would be for data recovery after the drive was overwritten precisely once with zeroes.
Re:nonsense (Score:4, Informative)
You misunderstood what the cited article was saying. First of all, the article was essentially hearsay - a story of what Johnson said, retold by someone who didn't have much clue. Yet, obviously, nowhere did they say that they used magnetic force microscopy to recover data from the platters, as that would be the only technology that would have a chance (except, these days, it doesn't [wikipedia.org]). All they did was a regular read from the drive and found some sectors that the zero-fill didn't overwrite. What happened, most likely, was that the zero-fill was only attempted on areas declared unallocated by the filesystem. Such areas are necessarily declared conservatively -- you should never trust a free-space erase on a mounted filesystem, and that's what seems to have happened here.
Nowhere does the article disagree with what I'm saying, because, again, the legend of recovering the data from a zeroed-out hard drive is at this time nothing more. If you're lucky as in winning the lotto jackpot, and you're looking for very small amounts of data (say cryptographic keys), you may be able to recover useful error-correctable data from sectors that got reallocated because they started to fail. This doesn't require opening up the drive, merely gaining access to it via the factory/manufacturer mechanisms (there are software tools for that), so that you can read any sector, whether mapped into the space accessible via regular ATA data access calls or not. That's a slim chance, but if you're after a key or other short blurb, it's a low-hanging fruit -- and yes, in that case you need original drive, not an image.
The deal with the drive you cite was as follows: it never got fully overwritten with zeroes. Was that the case, you'd never read about any large (more than dozens or hundreds randomly scattered sectors worth) data coming off of it, because, again, it's not possible anymore. If you want to overwrite a drive, you boot a DBAN CD/dongle and do it. One set of zeroes is enough. If you really worry about the few tens of nanometers worth of possibly relevant domains left over "between" the tracks, you can always overwrite it a couple times; I'd think thrice with random data plus once with zeroes is enough. You don't muck around with free-space overwriting, OS reinstallation, or anything of that sort.
I think I posted something about it once somewhere where I argued that "obviously it's possible duh duh" -- I used to believe it until I looked at a honest-to-goodness drive platters with a magnetic force microscope. Even at a highest magnification, where a single pixel is a few nanometers across, you can't see anything but random hash "between" the tracks. At such magnification, the individual bits are huge, and any remnants would be quite obvious. They were very obvious in times of early PRML drives and before that. That time is long gone. Thus, an obvious tip: don't store sensitive data on old hard drives (say early IDE drives).
Re: (Score:3)
>>>I just don't get what they need the server itself for. They are after the data, not the hardware.
Likewise the Russian government doesn't need to grab servers in order to investigate claims of "illegally-copied software", but they do it anyway in order to shut down groups that are critical of government. The FBI is simply employing the same tactic to silence human rights groups (many of which are critical of the Congress) under the cover of an "investigation". Two birds killed with one warrant.
Re: (Score:2)
If you're a professional, you'd switch the server to single user mode, dump the drive contents to a portable drive, reboot the server, and be on your merry way.
If you're a professional, you don't assume that the system isn't rigged to destroy evidence in the event of an attempted seizure.
"On site" and "controlled environment" are mutually exclusive.
Re: (Score:2)
If you're a professional, you don't assume that the system isn't rigged to destroy evidence in the event of an attempted seizure.
That can happen at a physical layer too. The chassis can be altered so that if an entry procedure is not followed, a data-destruct occurs if there is a chassis intrusion or if the chassis is moved.
This can be done by installing an interposer circuit in between disk drives and the drive controller with an independent power supply.
If a "destruct" event occurs; the indep
Re: (Score:2)
And if you were really a professional, you'd get a search warrant for a complete wiretap on the server, and track all packets coming in and out. You might also compromise the machine so you could obtain all of the unecrypted traffic entering and exiting the machine. But the FBI apparently isn't that smart.
Re: (Score:2)
To parrot another response, there's also data on RAM that could have valuable info if they didn't shut down the machines.
Perhaps if they ever come to prosecute someone, the defense can show how the investigative agents willfully destroyed evidence required for the defense by powering off the server and left it powered off for hours, resulting in data being permanently lost from RAM.
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed. A number of forensic power supplies exist, ranging from full-PC units to ones that just manage the hard drive, and can be engaged without interrupting power.
Re:nonsense (Score:5, Funny)
the FBI have equipment that can clone disks without needing to even apply power to the drive.
Then they're in the wrong business. They need to start producing and selling these ultra-efficient disks that don't require power for read operations. Imagine the battery life on your laptop running one of THOSE!
Damn you George Bush! (Score:4, Funny)
I can't wait for the elections to come!
Re: (Score:2)
Damn you Mitt Romney!
(I come from the future.)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Damn you George Bush! (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Damn you George Bush! (Score:5, Funny)
I simply don't get this comment....If Obama was the god of freedom that Leftists claim, he would have overturned the over-extending post-911 policies of the Bush Administration such as the Patriot Act instead of reveling in them and expanding them like many non-liberals warned that he would.
And you said you didn't get the joke...
Not New (Score:3)
Whenever they take servers "down" it's like a ogre killing a spider with a tree trunk. They smash the table, furniture, and destroy the house along with the poor spider.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
don't worry the spider will not be harmed it will walk out between the debris and find a new place to hide...
Re:Not New (Score:4, Insightful)
You're assuming the message was for the spider and not for everyone who has a spider in their house. And the message is that if you carry a service we don't like, we'll make sure to inflict as much damage as possible when we come for it. You get a pretty good self-censoring effect out of it. Same reason TOR doesn't scale very well, you'd have to be mildly insane to run an exit node as a private person.
Re: (Score:2)
But the disgusting spider is dead !
Most of the time it's all that they need to know.
So someone sends some bomb threats .. (Score:5, Interesting)
..and the FBI seizes the server they used?
Anyone else think this is more believable as a denial of service attack, or as a pretext for taking down a troublesome server they couldn't legally seize by any other means, than as an actual threat?
Unless the person sending them was stupid enough to think that a remailer would protect them from ever being caught, and didn't care that it was going to mean taking down the whole service for everyone else using it..
Re: (Score:2)
Unless the person sending them was stupid enough to think that a remailer would protect them from ever being caught, and didn't care that it was going to mean taking down the whole service for everyone else using it..
And you've just answered your own question! Don't worry, though, as I'm sure that this remailer was only the first of his Seven Proxies.
New to the internet much? People are stupid.
Besides, you're assuming that the perpetrator is both smart enough to be using this as a sideways method of getting the servers taken down and yet stupid enough to do it by way of a major felony that will practically land your ass in Gitmo if it goes wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
Whoever it was didn't care that they were disrupting people's lives by having their classes cancelled over and over (and over, and over, and over. It was a continuous and practically psychotic series of threats), so of course they didn't care about getting a remailer taken down. I've spoken with people who live on campus there and the person sending the threats is clearly unstable at best.
Can You Say False Flag Opp? (Score:5, Interesting)
Someone bosts a gazillion bomb threats, and computers associated with OWS and other protests get seized.
Awfully convenient.
Any guess as to whether the bomb threats can be traced back th Langley or Ft. Meade?
Re: (Score:2)
Someone bosts a gazillion bomb threats, and computers associated with OWS and other protests get seized.
Awfully convenient.
Any guess as to whether the bomb threats can be traced back th Langley or Ft. Meade?
Put down your tinfoil hat. This person has more or less paralyzed a major university campus for an entire semester and the FBI barely has anything to go on. They already subpoenaed/questioned/arrested everyone they can find that's had a major quarrel with the school in recent memory (and one nutjob from the 80s). They're grasping at straws with the remailer services they know were used because they don't have any other leads and finals week is coming up.
While we're at it, TFA is pretty vague on the facts.
Re: (Score:2)
If you're a conspiracy-minded crackpot who uses "follow the money" reasoning, then another obvious possibility is Verizon or AT&T.
Why?
Every time one of these bomb-threat incidents happens -- and they've been happening multiple times a day every day for quite a while now -- Pitt uses their emergency notification infrastructure to coordinate communication about them. And that means text messages to thousands of students.
(Because of the whole "in loco parentis" thing Universities have to deal with, and be
pre-emptive visibility (Score:2)
Could you develop a service for allowing anonymous communication that you gave the FBI pre-emptive visibility into without compromising the anonymity of the system?
Allow the FBI to snapshot the whole hard drive and peruse it at their leisure any time they requested.
Perhaps the FBI wouldn't trust you and your fancy transparency, but maybe you could make it plausibly accurate enough such that a server confiscation would be equal to an unwarranted attack from a legal standpoint.
Anonymous vs anonymous (Score:3)
They had a warrant. (Score:5, Interesting)
They followed proper constitutional procedure (for a change). So blame the judge not the fbi.
Re: (Score:2)
I blame the FBI for seeking a moronic warrant in the first place.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Why seize a server for more than clone time? (Score:2)
Why should a server EVER be seized as "evidence"?
Why not just have an FBI team come in, temporarily shut down the server, clone all the data, and then leave, and the server comes back up?
--PM
Re: (Score:2)
Collateral damage (Score:2)
Hey, we are in a war with something or other.. a little collateral damage is expected.
Suck it up or get put on a dissident watched-list.
Anonymous communication, a right? (Score:2)
I'm not stating an opinion one way or the other, I'm honestly asking, what do we really gain from truly anonymous communication? The things we lose (i.e. accountability for things you say) are clear, so I'm just asking, what are the benefits to society?
Isn't free speech enough? If we truly had the right to free speech, why would anonymity even be necessary?
Re: (Score:2)
In the Pitt case, one person is broadcasting
FBI = DOS? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
And not only that, it is one that other mail servers have every right to refuse data or connections from if they want only communications which are fully traceable. Think about what objective exists by the FBI seizing a computer that was used (let's assume for sake of argument that this really was used in that way) to transmit these threats, but has no record of what was sent or where it came from. All it's doing is interrupting the ability to send anonymous mail. But specifically it interrupts the abili
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)