Drug Case In Ireland Has Fingerprints of Carnegie Mellon's Attack On Tor 72
blottsie writes: Newly released evidence shows that Irish detectives who worked the case of two convicted drug dealers may have also used data obtained through CMU's Software Engineering Institute's methods. Mannion and O'Connor were arrested on Nov. 5, 2014, according to a database of Dark Net arrests created by independent researcher Gwern Branwen. That's the same day that the owner of Silk Road 2.0, the replacement for the infamous drug marketplace Silk Road, was arrested. The IP addresses of Silk Road 2.0 were provided to the FBI by a "source of information," according to a search warrant in another case impacted by the attack on Tor, which court documents later confirmed was a university-based research institute.
Re: (Score:1)
What university promotes libertarian thought in any way shape or form? Seriously, I'd love to know.
Re: (Score:1)
What university promotes libertarian thought in any way shape or form? Seriously, I'd love to know.
Seriously, hook us up OP.
OP pls
You just have to love the AC that posts three separate times to appear is if he is three different people. Heads up: everyone can tell.
Re: (Score:2)
No, mods can't tell who ACs are. I would assume you are the same person as it is a common thing being done by ACs.
It you want to differentiate yourself, make an account, otherwise you are the amorphous blob called AC.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
It's true. Secular institutions like universities don't generally promote faith-based philosophies like libertarianism.
Re: (Score:2)
Libertarianism doesn't require faith in that. The mix of people actually enjoying acting out of altruism and the situations where people acting for their own good inherently results in the good of the commons (competition, efficiency improvements) is enough for a lot of things and is quite demonstrable without any faith needed.
Re: Good for CMU. (Score:4, Interesting)
Libertarianism always starts with "if only". As in, "If only people were different, people would be different."
The part that's demonstrable is that those that act only for their own good will inevitably take advantage of those who work in the good of the commons, and eventually will poison the well. There is a reason greed has been considered a human failing, at least until the relatively recent development of libertarianism. Let's be honest: libertarianism only exists to provide a moral/social/political framework to give cover to sociopaths. Not that all libertarians are sociopaths. I don't believe that at all. But all libertarians are useful to the sociopaths.
Re: (Score:1)
You don't actually know any Libertarians, do you? *sighs* I am not typing this out again Pope. You know better. At least read the Wikipedia article (even just the first four paragraphs) before I have to type all this shit out all over again. I seriously need to start cutting and pasting.
*I* am a Libertarian and have been for some 40 years or so. I am further to the left of any elected official (probably even Bernie) and the difference is that I used logic and reason to come to my conclusions. Randians aren'
Re: (Score:2)
I see the confusion. There is a world of difference between big "L" libertarians and small "l" libertarians.
One is a political faction (or party). The other is a socio-economic fantasy. My earlier comment was in reference to the latter.
Re: (Score:1)
LOL It's okay. I was just feeling like ranting for a while. I generally assume you're joking when you're posting wiseass remarks. I even found it funny but I wanted a good excuse to rant and there it was. ;-)
I think it only fair that I point out that it is nearly 70 outside here in PCB. The downside is, of course, I'm in Florida. Err... So take that!
But yeah, we do have a bunch of idiots in our party. It would be a bit antithetical to silence them or kick them out. I think the vast majority of people who se
Faith [Re: Good for CMU.] (Score:2)
Secular institutions like universities don't generally promote faith-based philosophies like libertarianism.
I know you're trolling, but I can't resist: How does a libertarian philosophy require faith? What must be believed without evidence?
Libertarianism doesn't require faith in that. The mix of people actually enjoying acting out of altruism and the situations where people acting for their own good inherently results ...
There you go. That word "inherently" is the faith part.
Re: (Score:2)
Not really, no. Those assumptions don't really bear close examination. If not for your faith, you'd see that.
Re: (Score:1)
Libertarianism doesn't require faith in that. The mix of people actually enjoying acting out of altruism and the situations where people acting for their own good inherently results in the good of the commons (competition, efficiency improvements) is enough for a lot of things and is quite demonstrable without any faith needed.
Uh, OK, if you say so.
By the way, if you are looking for an investment there is some land in Chile you may be interested in:
http://gawker.com/ayn-rands-capitalist-paradise-is-now-a-greedy-land-grab-1627574870 [gawker.com]
Re: (Score:2)
All Philosophy requires faith, other wise it would be called Science.
Re: (Score:1)
And what of a Philosopher of Mathematics then, hmm? The highest order of science, indeed. ;-)
Re: (Score:2)
Kids need to be taught that spying on each other is normal and good long before university.
(cough)
Re: (Score:2)
Spying on the enemy *is* normal, and has been since, oh... the beginning of humanity.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think your tin foil hat might be a little tight.
Re: (Score:3)
Remember kids - your so-called "friends" may be your enemy! They may be secretly communists/capitalists/muslims/jews/infidels (underline where necessary), therefore you need to secretly check their phones etc and report any unauthorized content to local authorities.
Re: (Score:3)
The problem is that nowadays the tools needed to spy on other countries end up being used against us, either by those other countries or by our own traitors.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah but it is much funnier to spy on friends.
Re: (Score:3)
What isn't normal is the little twist you are trying top slip in under the radar. It isn't normal to consider each other to be the enemy. That is something encouraged by the government, but shunned by intelligent and educated people, as well as plenty who don't have those opportunities.
Re: (Score:2)
And human history is a grim testament to the bloody results. Perhaps it's time to just admit this "enemy" thing isn't working and try something else?
Re:Good for CMU. (Score:5, Insightful)
There is absolutely no way that catching a few druggies could possibly be worth tainting the reputation of a respected security research institution with the suspicion of being just another malware vendor for the feds. Are there scary bad people who use software? Sure. Do all the rest of us use mostly the same software, almost all of it terrifyingly full of holes and in dire need of any and all assistance available? Also yes.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Maybe it played out for CMU like this:
Re: (Score:2)
CMU is a high-profile institution, their reputation won't be negatively impacted in any way.
To believe their reputation would suffer you should believe that the general public would view their activities negatively. It shouldn't matter at all what your own personal opinion of their actions are. If you dislike what they do, that doesn't mean the public does, or that they should be concerned the impression would be negative.
I think most people would view this as them doing one of the tasks that security resea
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is their reputation with people who don't directly work for them; but have historically worked with them: if they are respected as a group that coordinates security improvements, that is one thing. If they are seen as feeding exploits to the feds rather than fixing things; why work with them when you could sell to one of the outfit
Re: (Score:2)
So, are you proposing that security researchers who won't take money from the government for white-hat work is the majority, or even a significant faction?
I would propose instead that even the ones who don't really like this will very carefully limit any complaints to hair-splitting details. They certainly won't refer to the government as The Feds, or call service work of identifying online parties based on existing (unrelated) research to be an "exploit." For one thing, calling it an exploit would cause th
Re: (Score:2)
There is absolutely no way that catching a few druggies could possibly be worth tainting the reputation of a respected security research institution with the suspicion of being just another malware vendor for the feds.
CMU is a high-profile institution, their reputation won't be negatively impacted in any way.
Their reputation may be harmed in some segment of the tech population, but do keep in mind that it will be enhanced in other segments. You may not believe it, but the response "Good! At least one institution is actively working to unmask terrorists, pedophiles, and drug pushers" is going to be exactly the way some people will view it.
You many not like it, but not everybody thinks the same.
Re: (Score:2)
There is absolutely no way that catching a few druggies could possibly be worth tainting the reputation of a respected security research institution with the suspicion of being just another malware vendor for the feds.
No, but like many things it probably started with the feds saying 'you have to help us catch those evil child abusers hiding on Tor and posting their sick images'. Because who can oppose that? There's also 'Without these powers, the terrorists will attack again!' Because nobody wants to stop the government from getting terrorists. But pretty soon it's 'well, we've got power, why shouldn't we also use it against those evil drug traffickers?' and suddenly, much like PATRIOT act powers, drug cases become the p
Re:Silk Road? (Score:5, Insightful)
You seem off topic.
First, I agree with you about Ulbright, DPR.
Second, this seems to be about silk road 2.
Third, this isn't even about jackasses acting with jackassery- this is about attacks on TOR.
Re: (Score:1)
"Attacks on TOR" or the unmasking of criminals abusing a free speech platform by building a black market inside it?
I don't approve of the drug war, but I'm not convinced that black is white whenever a drug dealer gets arrested. How is it an attack on the tool they were abusing? If they were using TOR to engage in anonymous speech about how awful drug prohibition is and discussing their efforts to get the law changed, and they were arrested for the content of their speech, then that would clearly be an attac
Re: (Score:2)
Spare the moralizing. "Attacks" aren't bad from the perspective of the attacker, and the attacker could well be doing something like busting up bad guys. That doesn't make the technical discussion less valid, or warrant some new fucking word to avoid offending someone. More importantly, the TOR project isn't there to give back doors to good guys but not to bad guys.
Re: (Score:2)
Attacks are attacks from the perspective of the attacker, or else they really suck at it. And you might find causing of harm to be part of the meaning of attack.
You're so busy moralizing and accusing others of it so that you can be on the other side than them that you failed to consider that somebody might simply find value in the correct meaning of words and in communicating honestly from an objective basis instead of just spewing subjectivity from opinion.
And yes, the TOR project is there to give "back do
Weed... (Score:1, Offtopic)
By the way, in Washington (where I live), Colorado, and very soon Oregon, you can buy weed in regulated stores in shopping malls and downtown hipster hangouts, take it home and toke to your heart's content, and answer the door to a cop who will tell you to turn your music down and then go away.
Re: (Score:1)
The politicians see the handwriting on the wall as these law changes steamroller throug the country. Good luck.
Re: (Score:2)
If you believe that Federal law applies all the time, you're crazy. Read more, spew less.
Federal law doesn't even come up unless I cross a state line with it, or at least conspire to.
The funny part is, the Federal Government agrees with me. Check their legal filings regarding the challenges to the Colorado law. I recommend SCOTUSblog for a high-level review. They have even adjusted the federal policy about marijuana marketing to make clear that small quantities legal under state law can be locally marketed.
Re: (Score:2)
Not by a local or State cop you can't. Even if it were technically legal to do that, the local Judge(s) would spank the arresting officer so hard his children wouldn't be able to sit down.
Re: (Score:2)
That's the crux of the matter. Federal authorities depend on state authorities' cooperation to get most of their work done. They do not want to risk a state defaulting to no cooperation over this.
Re: (Score:2)
> you can still be arrested for it at any time
You won't be, though. Downtown Denver is full of weed shops. There aren't federal agents trying to randomly fuck with people, and if they were, they'd probably start with the weed shops. These store are recreational marijuana dispensaries, just sitting there with giant glowing green cannabis leaves as their logos and stuff. Also it hasn't happened yet.
Re: (Score:2)
The feds do NOT want to go to war with the states over this. They have been careful not to step on too many toes in states that have legalized marijuana.
On the plus side! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
This story would be much better if it was a Scottish narcotics trafficking site, as this undercover video of a Scottish drug gang demonstrates.
https://youtu.be/29-LRuuqFT0 [youtu.be]
Re: (Score:2)
> stuff like OpenBSD which must have a smaller user base than TAILS does
Can you PROVE how big the TAILS userbase is? If you can, I have some harsh things to say about TAILS...
So, where to now? (Score:5, Interesting)