Seattle Police Raid Tor-Using Privacy Activists (thestranger.com) 306
Frosty Piss writes: Seattle police raided the home of two outspoken privacy activists early on March 30th. Jan Bultmann and David Robinson, a married couple and co-founders of the Seattle Privacy Coalition, were awakened at 6:15 a.m. by a team of six detectives from the Seattle Police Department who had a search warrant to examine their equipment. They claimed to be looking for child pornography, however Bultmann and Robinson believe the raid is because they run a Tor exit node out of their home. They said they operated the node as a service to dissidents in repressive countries, knowing full well that criminals might use it as well, much like any other communication tool. The Seattle Police Department acknowledged that no child porn was found, no assets were seized, and no arrests were made.
Seattle's blog The Stranger notes that the FBI has conducted many other Tor raids across the country, and Friday quoted a tweet from the co-founder of Seattle's Center for Open Policing addressing the police. "You knew about the Tor node, but didn't mention it in warrant application. Y'all pulled a fast one on the judge... you knew the uploader could have been literally anyone in the world."
Standard tactics (Score:5, Insightful)
This is pretty much standard operating procedure. They can't outlaw anonymizing services, but they can make running them so much hassle that very, VERY few people want to get involved.
Re:Standard tactics (Score:5, Insightful)
That's why organizations such as EFF need to be actively involved in promoting the technology and we need to be actively supporting them. They have also lobbying power to some degree, which is of course helpful for the cause.
Re: Standard tactics (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Standard tactics (Score:5, Insightful)
This is pretty much standard operating procedure. They can't outlaw anonymizing services, but they can make running them so much hassle that very, VERY few people want to get involved.
Things that backfire include pissing off judges. If they knew about the Tor exit node then they almost certainly lacked probable cause. Probable cause requires considering all of the facts, not *just* the ones favoring guilt. If, in fact, they knew about the exit node but failed to include it in the warrant application, they are going to have (1) pissed off a judge who finds out about it, and (2) they have probably opened up their department to a lawsuit for violating the constitutional rights of the people whose home they invaded. While they obtained a warrant, they did it by withholding information they knew to be relevant to the PC determination.
If they did not know, of course, that analysis changes.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
How? I mean it doesn't matter if you run TOR or your neighbors use your WiFi, it is not a get out of jail free card so you can run something sleazy. Suppose they were the source of the kiddie porn ? Does the fact they run TOR mean that the cops cannot investigate?
No, this was handled properly. Suspected illegal activity was investigated and they were quickly found to not be part of it with minimal inconvenience. I'm not sure why this is even a story. Guess what, if you are around a store that gets robbed or
Re: Standard tactics (Score:2, Insightful)
It's not about search by warrant that is the issue. It's the reasoning behind it and leaving out key information for the judge in deciding the warrant.
Imagine a warrant for a place that drugs passed through. Fine... Until you find out that it was true 6 years ago. Changes the thought process for the judge.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
What would be fundamentally different if the judge knew about the TOR node? I simply don't see it. You go to a judge and say we have evidence that this illegal post came from this ip address and tracked it to this physical address. We need to search for evidence of the illegal posting. So what does knowing of the TOR node change about that other than there is a valid reason evidence may not exist at the physical address? The fundamentals are still the same. The only difference is that they don't take the s
Re: Standard tactics (Score:5, Insightful)
Evidence tending to show a lack of probable cause must be included in making a determination of whether PC exists. It's a "totality of the circumstances" test. The TOR exit node tends to show a lack of PC--it is much less likely that there will be evidence there of any kind.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
There is no evidence of a lack of probable cause though. The problem is that there was still an illegal post made from that ip address which was assigned to a physical address and specific people. You still have probable cause to look for evidence that it was made from a computer at the physical address or through the TOR node. Nothing about the node changes that other than possibly clearing the person when the evidence doesn't exist.
No evidence (Score:5, Interesting)
There is no evidence of a lack of probable cause though. The problem is that there was still an illegal post made from that ip address which was assigned to a physical address and specific people. You still have probable cause to look for evidence that it was made from a computer at the physical address or through the TOR node. Nothing about the node changes that other than possibly clearing the person when the evidence doesn't exist.
The Node highly changes the likelihood that there is evidence of the crime there. Tor exit nodes are designed not to know anything about the sender. This was about posts made from that node. While it is hypothetically possible for a research institution or government agency to modify an exit node, add sniffers, etc..., there is no reason to expect a civilian running an exit node to be doing that. While it is also possible for someone who owns a machine at that address to be the guilty party, the fact that an exit node is present makes it much, much, much less likely. It has a direct impact on the totality-of-the-circumstances analysis someone should use in determining whether PC exists.
Re: No evidence (Score:2)
Odd that they would feel compelled to leave it out, then...
The fact that you two can even have this argument is reason enough to *let the judge decide*... Which, of course, is only possible if he has the evidence.
Re:No evidence (Score:5, Insightful)
So if evidence points to the public wifi at the local McDonalds, does the police go do a raid there as well?
Re: (Score:2)
If by raid you mean get a warrant and go on site looking for evidence of a crime without confiscating computers or equipment when it becomes apparent that another user other than the user the ip was assigned to - yes they should. Nothing about a public hotspot or a TOR exit node precludes a local and identifiable user from being the culprit.
Re: (Score:2)
My understanding is that the officer getting the warrant wasn't aware of the TOR node or it's capabilities until after applying for the warrant. I don't think compelled had anything to do with it. Most likely incompetence or ignorance was the driver behind not listing it.
And no, that still doesn't change anything fundamental about the legitimacy of the warrant. The IP address was still used privately by the residents.
Re: No evidence (Score:2)
Bullshit. It changes everything and you know it. If the officer applying for the warrant was unaware that publicly proclaimed privacy advocates are running an exit node (totally detectable because the list of nodes is public) then that officer is incompetent. It is more likely that the police chose to omit material facts from the warrant application, which is beyond wrong.
This isn't about that particular kind of content, it's about harassing anti surveillance people.
Re: Standard tactics (Score:4, Informative)
There is no evidence of a lack of probable cause though.
Do you understand the difference between "probable" and "might possibly be"? It seems like you don't, but "probable" means "more than 50%". If you know it's a TOR exit node, what are the odds? Ultimately, it's the judge's call, but being a TOR exit node dramatically changes those odds.
Re: (Score:2)
If the ip address in question was used exclusively as a TOR exit node you would have a point. However it was not so your point is basically saying the cops couldn't follow the evidence in front of them because it might lead to a dead end. Sounds silly if you ask me.
Re: (Score:3)
Are you seriously proposing that someone operating a TOR exit node would then go on to do something sketchy without using TOR?
Re: Standard tactics (Score:4, Insightful)
We need to stop thinking that an IP address is a useful identifier in the real world. Actions like this create a chilling effect on people running open Wifi and TOR nodes.
Re: (Score:2)
If the judiciary was honked off as you put it, we would be reading about it rather than a bunch of anonymous internet lawyers complaining about the possibility of it happening.
Nothing is fundamentally different with or without the information.
Re:Standard tactics (Score:5, Insightful)
No, this was handled properly. Suspected illegal activity was investigated and they were quickly found to not be part of it with minimal inconvenience. I'm not sure why this is even a story
Because to obtain a warrant, you need probable cause, not possible cause.
This difference is quite important to many of us who want to feel protected from our country turning into a police state.
Re: (Score:3)
Again, that's probability concerning there being evidence. Do not confuse a search warrant with an arrest warrant. Is there probable cause to believe that they'll be able to collect evidence that helps them determine guilt or innocence, find the guilty party, etc... An arrest warrant and a search warrant are entirely separate things. Was there a probability that they'd discover evidence there? The answer is yes. In fact, they did discover evidence. They discovered it was someone using TOR. I know it sounds
Re: (Score:2)
Computer using this IP address assigned to this physical address leased by this couple posted kiddie porn at this time. That is probable cause. Running an exit node doesn't remove suspicion, any more than does your 40 being in a paper bag. What it does give is reasonable doubt to the jury. Very different.
Maybe. But that's a call for a judge. (And before that, a call for an officer to decide whether it makes sense to spend the resources on this, or whether he just wants to knock on the door.)
Re:Standard tactics (Score:5, Insightful)
Exactly, how would they know there was a TOR exit node there? From a local radio report I heard one of the cops was a geek that knew what TOR was. That's why it was handled quickly. All the cops had was an IP and got the address from WaveG in a legal manor. The next thing was to get a warrant and go talk to the guy, that's what they did. The brought along a geek cop too to translate, so to speak. They had the warrant because it could have been a pedo. They brought the geek cop because it could have been an open WiFi and he could help them secure it, and then setup up a honeypot WiFi to catch the pedo which would have been near. Come to find out it's an exit node. Sorry to wake you, I hope you understand. The cops don't like TOR because it causes false hits like this and costs time and money.
Given the case, this went down just like it should. Sure it was early, but cops do that so they can talk to you before you get your coffee and your mind about you. That's standard.
They knocked, waited for him to come to the door. No pets were shot.
Given the description in the warrant there's some sick fuckers out there twiddlin' kids. Yes we want the cops to try to find them. Read the warrant (if you have the stomach) and see how much time has been put into the investigation. Of course they were unhappy that an exit node caused a dead end. But they did NOT take the computer or anything. They were professional about it.
Re: (Score:2)
>Sure it was early, but cops do that so they can talk to you before you get your coffee and your mind about you. That's standard.
It's still a dick move of the highest order.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
No pets were shot.
Probably because the guy didn't have any...
Re: (Score:2)
No pets were shot.
Probably because the guy didn't have any...
Or because the police execute hundreds of search warrants every day but if you only ever get your opinions from the media you would think that fatal incidents are involved every damn time.
Re: (Score:3)
The police department itself answered some of your questions before you posted them here. From one of the links in the summary (emphasis mine):
[Seattle Police Department] spokesperson Sean Whitcomb said the department understands how Tor works and that before executing the search, officers knew that Bultmann and Robinson operated the Tor node out of their apartment.
As you said, they had done a thorough investigation in advance, which turned up the fact that the couple was running a TOR exit node. So, the question "how would they know there was a TOR exit node there?" is rather moot, given that the police did know the exit node was there (aside: TOR exit nodes are public info, easily searched online [torproject.org]). As for the justification th
Minimal Inconvenience (Score:4, Insightful)
No, this was handled properly. Suspected illegal activity was investigated and they were quickly found to not be part of it with minimal inconvenience. I'm not sure why this is even a story. Guess what, if you are around a store that gets robbed or some other crimes the cops will investigate also.
Also, "Minimal Inconvenience" compared to what? The guy had six cops show up at his home at 6:15, barge in, intimidate him, watch as he got dressed, etc...
Yes, it's a minimal inconvenience compared to them arresting him or sending him to federal prison. And it's GREAT that somebody on-scene had the good sense to say they don't even have to seize any assets. But it's still a MASSIVE intrusion into his life, one that the Constitution exists to protect him from.
Most cops are trying to go a good job, so when an officer and a judge sign off on this kind of intrusion without better cause, it makes them all look bad, because it means they wind up hurting the community, hurting the trust between the community and the police, and wasting resources that could be spent going after actual criminals.
Re: (Score:2)
They don't need better cause just probable cause. They had plenty of probable cause as the totality of the evidence to that point correctly shows the post in question came from that address. They followed the trail from the message board to the provider to the people who provisioned it. The presence of tor changes nothing until after they check the person who provisioned the ip.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That is a valid concern but I fail to see how it is reason to not investigate illegal activity within your country.
Could you imagine if someone hacked your computer, stole your financial information then drained your bank account and charged up all your credit cards and the cops say we tracked it back to this person but aren't going to check because they run a tor exist node and it might cause strife for dissidents in other countries?
Those other countries could run the exit nodes themselves and cause more
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What in the hell are you talking about? No one ever said encrypted anonymous communication was the reason for suspicion. The message board gave the an IP, they followed the IP until they couldn't follow it any more. It is that simple.
Re: (Score:2)
This is pretty much standard operating procedure. They can't outlaw anonymizing services, but they can make running them so much hassle that very, VERY few people want to get involved.
Things that backfire include pissing off judges. If they knew about the Tor exit node then they almost certainly lacked probable cause.
And what was the probable cause for the kiddie porn?
Re: (Score:2)
And what was the probable cause for the kiddie porn?
From the warrant, some pretty disgusting stuff posted on 4chan. Which is totally a legit basis for a warrant, standing on its own.
The only question is whether the cops knew about the TOR exit node and decided that raiding the house still made sense (which would be a very strange judgment call), or failed to disclose it to the judge (which would be really stupid and could open them up to a lawsuit).
Re: (Score:2)
Pissed off judge or sympathetic judge? (Score:2)
(1) pissed off a judge who finds out about it,
I don't know about the state level courts in Washington, but close to half of Federal judges are former prosecutors.
I'm not sure how "pissed off" these judges would be if their origin is anything like Federal court. More likely, as former prosecutors, they are sympathetic to the police and are willing to accept whatever reasoning the police have for probable cause.
Plus the warrant was handled with kid gloves by police standards -- no flashbangs, nothing taken a
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Depends on the spin (Score:5, Insightful)
we give them the benefit of the doubt that they were not simply trying to harass.
There's your mistake. You are giving the police the benefit of the doubt. Never do that. Cops lie. Cops are trained to lie. Cops are encouraged to lie. When judges catch them lying, they sometimes scold them, but it's rare that anything serious happens. The next time, the cops will just go to a different judge. One who is more flexible in his thinking when it comes to rights.
Re: (Score:2)
Do distributors of child pornography become immune to prosecution by simply hosting a tor node on one of their computers?
No, but defense attorneys raise issues like these sorts of details being left out of warrant paperwork and judges typically don't like being left in the dark and manipulated. Even if the judge's decision would have been the same either way, they tend to get pissed and find in favor of the defense when they feel LE and prosecution are manipulating them, and rightly so; how else are they trying to manipulate? And that's how criminals go free.
More Information (Score:5, Informative)
More about it here... [seattleprivacy.org]
Not the first time in seattle for Police Spying (Score:5, Informative)
This is not the first time the Seattle Police have made forays into spying on the citizenry [thestranger.com].
Surprised (Score:2)
I'm rather shocked and surprised equipment wasn't seized. Isn't that pretty much standard operating procedure when it comes to computer crime? Seize the equipment and examine it elsewhere. Something isn't right here. Are police sophisticated enough to do in-home examination of computer equipment to see if it contains 'contraband' data?
Something doesn't add up here, if you asked me. There is no way a 'higher up' would trust goons in the field to make an exhaustive search of the equipment for 'contraband
Re: (Score:2)
I'm rather shocked and surprised equipment wasn't seized. Isn't that pretty much standard operating procedure when it comes to computer crime? Seize the equipment and examine it elsewhere. Something isn't right here. Are police sophisticated enough to do in-home examination of computer equipment to see if it contains 'contraband' data? Something doesn't add up here, if you asked me.
Exactly. This is why the privacy guys shit-canned the servers and brought in new equipment.
Re: (Score:2)
I hate to be the one... (Score:5, Insightful)
I hate to be the one defending the cops, but it really sounds like they did things the right way here. They raided a little early, but not in the middle of the night. They knocked on the door instead of ramming it down, they didn't throw flashbangs, they didn't shoot any dogs or anything else for that matter. The cops didn't steal a bunch of unrelated stuff and there were no bullshit charges leveled against the couple.
The real test will be seeing what they do next. If they learned from this raid and generally leave them alone, I have no complaints. If they do this every other week when someone else uses their Tor node for child porn, then and only then is it harassment.
Re:I hate to be the one... (Score:5, Interesting)
I hate to be the one defending the cops, but it really sounds like they did things the right way here. They raided a little early, but not in the middle of the night. They knocked on the door instead of ramming it down, they didn't throw flashbangs, they didn't shoot any dogs or anything else for that matter. The cops didn't steal a bunch of unrelated stuff and there were no bullshit charges leveled against the couple.
That's a really low standard for "did the right thing."
Re:I hate to be the one... (Score:5, Insightful)
"Good for the police for not shooting any one."
We really have lowered the bar, haven't we.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Did you read the article? They knew it was a TOR exit mode when they applied for the warrant.
Re: (Score:2)
they didn't shoot any dogs
. Maybe because there weren't any?
Re: (Score:2)
common logic = troll
slashdot = stagnated
Burma-Shave?
Could be, they just don't understand how TOR works (Score:5, Interesting)
I read the warrant affidavit (https://www.seattleprivacy.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/154-AFFIDAVITCONDOINTERENTWAVEG401PARKPLACECEN.pdf) and they were not just "searching for child porn" but searching for the uploader of a specific file to a specific post on 4chan.
This specificity makes me think that they sincerely thought they could find the uploader of the child porn clip in question, but didn't understand how TOR works, or how exit nodes work, at least.
If you run an exit node, there's the chance that some pedo is going to use it and their actions are going to be stamped with your IP address.
Given the level of technical knowledge required to understand the technologies involved, I can't even chalk this up to incompetence on the part of the law enforcement officers.
Re: (Score:3)
A local report I heard on the radio (KIRO or KPLU, can't find it now) says that one of the cops was enough of a geek to know what TOR was and that is why the issue was cleared up so quickly. I mean how were they going to find out it was an exit node anyway? They got an IP and an location, got a warrant and then went to talk to the guy. Should they have tapped his connection first to find out it was an exit node? How would you tell just from the exit traffic anyway? I suspect they weren't thinking TOR b
Re:Could be, they just don't understand how TOR wo (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
Yep. Cases they are working go cold. Now in a less free society the things cops may be looking for are what we call human rights, why TOR was invented. But the downside is that when cops are working valid cases trying to protect kids human rights of not getting fiddled with, it hampers the investigation. The cops spent a lot of time on the case and because it turned out to be TOR, they are unhappy. But in the US and the rest of the free world, that is the price we pay for trying to protect those that d
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Were they actually trying to protect a child being abused here? The link above to affidavit is broken, and it's an important distinction because if they were trying to save a child being actively abused by the poster that carries a lot more weight than trying to hunt down a troll re-posting illegal stuff they downloaded elsewhere to 4chan for the lulz.
Tor exit nodes could use white lists. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
next step, people using sealed envelopes (Score:5, Interesting)
Omission is lying (Score:4, Interesting)
They knew it was a tor node and knew the warrant was used for harassment only.
Seems like an easy 4th amendment lawsuit. Pre-filled form warrant, Knew it was a tor node, Expert lied to filled out the warrant.
But I guess society lets them do it, over and over and over.
Re: (Score:2)
They knew it was a tor node and knew the warrant was used for harassment only.
Seems like an easy 4th amendment lawsuit. Pre-filled form warrant, Knew it was a tor node, Expert lied to filled out the warrant.
But I guess society lets them do it, over and over and over.
We knew about Hitler, so why didn't we kill him at birth?
There's this thing called a "timeline" that needs to be put together with all the "evidence". TFA does not state that they knew about the TOR node before executing the search, that's just one random tweet by one person not involved in the process in any way. TFA also has some other wonderfully biased tidbits like quotes about a bunch of people being served a legitimate warrant signed by a judge somehow having their 4th rights violate. Cry me a fucking
Re: (Score:2)
Similar to last month's "Free Talk Live" search? (Score:3)
This sounds similar to the search of Free Talk Live [freekeene.com] in Keene, NH about 2 weeks ago. Early on a Sunday morning, the FBI served a warrant , under which FBI agents walked off with anything with a USB or SATA interface. [vice.com]
Take that, you, you Americans! (Score:3)
That will teach you believing in the U.S. Constitution or the Bill of Rights, or anything our founding fathers fought and died for.
Fair (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If they need something incriminating to justify kicking the door in, prior to administering some department-approved strikes, I suspect they have it.
Re: (Score:2)
What did they plant? (Score:2)
And what malware or monitoring software did they plant on the computer while they were "searching for child porn"? Hmmmm?
Planted evidence (Score:2)
Supposing the police were to plant evidence;
What could you even do to prove in court that the police planted evidence on your computer after it left your custody and entered theirs?
Full encryption and locking them out might work until you're forced to disclose passwords by a judge, granting them access.
Perhaps running your own "snapshot" system via backups similar to a git repository?
Maybe some sort of hardware/software checksum?
It just seems like a really simple and easy way for pretty much anyone (not jus
Typical fascist Republicans!!! (Score:2, Flamebait)
Oh wait. The Democratic Party has run Seattle since 1969. Forget this post.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
I don't know. (Score:2)
I don't trust the police. But I don't trust anyone else either.
If Bultmann or Robinson have any suspected history in terms of dealing with child porn, it seems quite possible that the police are targeting them based on the totality of evidence and not exclusively the idea of "TOR".
Re: (Score:3)
Sorry, did you have a traumatic brain injury? I really cant understand your writing...
Re:Tor exit node (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
He is a hacker. Goes by the name "Zero Cool"
A hacker wouldn't have chosen that name because "Zero Cool" is equivalent to "Not Cool".
Re: (Score:3)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
there were no hackers in that movie, only actors. it's a little something we call "fiction".
Re: (Score:3)
Maybe his real name is "Kelvin"?
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe his real name is "Kelvin"?
Didn't he used to have a stuffed tiger with whom he shared many adventures?
Re: (Score:3)
They were using acoustic couplers taped to the phones in the movie. 28.8 baud modems were too new for that. I know, I had a 300 baud acoustic modem way back when...
From:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
You must be a hacker as well, because you seem to be humor-impaired.
Re: (Score:3)
Imagine if nobody ran it from their house, and everybody used a hosting provider. Then all it would need to take over the TOR network would be to subpoena the five most popular hosting providers that control 90% of the market share (I suppose there is such a market share distribution here...).
Re:I wonder what they installed (Score:4, Insightful)
Presuming they don't have the remote access, maybe they use the opportunity to install some spy/otherware on all these nodes they are 'checking'...
Good point. Seattle Privacy Coalition [seattleprivacy.org] took their servers off-line and replaced them from the hardware up. The Tor node is still down.
Re:Yeah, so? (Score:4, Insightful)
They're not suppose to investigate? The couple running the exit node weren't aware that their equipment could be used to facilitate criminal actions?
Let me paraphrase your comment: THINK OF THE CHILDREN! AND TERRORISTS! WHAT ABOUT THE TERRORISTS!
Re: (Score:2)
Is that not what people downloading kiddie porn are doing?
Re: Yeah, so? (Score:3)
Don't feed the troll.
Re: (Score:3)
Why, who would have known that the person known pseudonymously on slashdot.org as "Frosty Piss" (id 770223 ) is PRO CHILD PORN AND A TERRORIST SUPPORTER. I mean, that is really surprising that "Frosty Piss" (id 770223 ) LIKES CHILD PORN AND A ROOTS FOR TERRORISTS.
Wow. Just wow.
Re:Yeah, so? (Score:5, Interesting)
This is a standard (for Slashdot) hit piece against a legitimate police action. Consider a few key details from TFS:
The Seattle Police Department acknowledged that no child porn was found, no assets were seized, and no arrests were made.
In other words, an officer had a reasonable suspicion that something illegal happened that required a search, and convinced a judge of such, which is the entirety of Fourth Amendment protection. The police don't have to convince the public that a search is reasonable. They only have to convince a judge. The judge (and his views on privacy and other issues) is elected in a general election.
In this case, the search ensued, and it's determined that there's no justification for further action (at this time). That's the entirety of the legal process so far. The server operators then chose to buy new hardware and build a new server, but that's their own paranoia, and the police aren't responsible for that.
"You knew about the Tor node, but didn't mention it in warrant application. Y'all pulled a fast one on the judge... you knew the uploader could have been literally anyone in the world."
According to the second (heavily biased) TFA, the detectives learned about the exit node between requesting the warrant and executing the search. Even if known, it doesn't necessarily have to be mentioned in the search warrant. It could be exculpatory, but just as there's no evidence the server operators were responsible for the crime, there's no evidence they weren't.. Are we now assuming that people running Tor exit nodes are now above suspicion? Are they the next group to be unaccountable to the law?
Despite the outrage by the privacy community, and the anti-police bias in TFAs, it looks like everything here happened exactly as it's supposed to, given the current state of the law.
Re: (Score:2)
FTA: They didn't find anything. Bultmann and Robinson, both board members of the Seattle Privacy Coalition, were released after being detained in a van, but they were left shaken and upset.
This is the electronic surveillance equivalent of being dragged off in cuffs at a sit-in.
If the aforementioned Bultmann and Robinson are unable to convert this high profile police action into activist capital, I'll have composite metal foam [slashdot.org] pancakes for breakfast.
Re: (Score:2)
In other words, an officer had a reasonable suspicion that something illegal happened that required a search, and convinced a judge of such, which is the entirety of Fourth Amendment protection. The police don't have to convince the public that a search is reasonable. They only have to convince a judge. The judge (and his views on privacy and other issues) is elected in a general election.
And it it is perfectly reasonable for six detectives to act on a warrant and conduct a search at 6:15am. That isn't harassment at all.
Re: (Score:2)
And it it is perfectly reasonable for six detectives to act on a warrant and conduct a search at 6:15am. That isn't harassment at all.
For the most part, no. Conducting a raid when your target is not expecting it is the way it's done. This issue here is that the raid itself was pure harassment for running a Tor node, not because the very well educated detectives actually thought they would find porn.
Re: (Score:2)
And it it is perfectly reasonable for six detectives to act on a warrant and conduct a search at 6:15am. That isn't harassment at all.
For the most part, no. Conducting a raid when your target is not expecting it is the way it's done. This issue here is that the raid itself was pure harassment for running a Tor node, not because the very well educated detectives actually thought they would find porn.
Why don't you prove it?
Lucius Malfoy
Re: (Score:2)
Law enforcement in this area has zero excuses these days to not know what a TOR exit node is. Seriously. Intent to ignore facts is required on their side and then lying by omission to a judge, because the judge may know...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I would run it from a non x86/64 architecture. Good luck with their USB on PA-RISC or SPARC.
Re: (Score:3)
One thing we do know for sure - nobody is going to get in any trouble whatsoever over this, except the luckless couple.