https://blog.patternsinthevoid.net/fbi-harassment.html
Previous discussion:
Magic pieces of paper like that really shouldn't be a part of our legal system.
I believe they rather want information which they cannot legally force her to divulge (otherwise see above), so they're trying their luck at intimidation.
Jail time does seem appropriate for non-compliance with a legally binding judicial order (I'm not endorsing or condemning the existence of these laws, btw)
To make things more difficult, the very contents of the letter itself are considered a national secret. Typical methods for serving papers would needlessly jeopardize the confidentiality of such papers. So one would presume that these methods simply aren't in the cards.
Government can only compel you to hand over information for third party which you possess. They can't compel you to DO something, as demonstrated by FBI v Apple recently.
Hackers are bad at thinking "oh, I'll just not not not not do the thing, and it will all be okay, I'm so clever." They imagine they are Captain Kirk talking a computer to death. No one has ever been as smart as them!
We wouldn't let a CEO route around insider trading laws with a "I don't say this is a good time to buy my stock" canary. We wouldn't let a prosecutor under orders not to discuss a case with the public get away with it by selectively deleting a series of canaries.
So you don't leave a canary in place, it just expires and you don't put up a new one.
Still, canaries are a bit complex. You obviously can't prove why one was taken down, because you can't speak about it.
People floated the idea of using long "canary lists" of different things ("haven't received more than one request for user data", "haven't received more than two requests", etc), but there's suspicion that it wouldn't be legal because it would count as revealing specific facts (and you could perhaps be compelled to remove all of them at once). As is, they don't seem to have been rejected or broken, but they have to take the form of one-and-done notices that something happened.
The notion that an NSL would be sent over internet postcard is laughable, whether or not it's true.
When the FBI served me with a subpoena they were waiting in the tube when I walked out of a plane. I'm sure they'd be capable of going even further to serve someone with a NSL.
But seriously, this really stinks. If talking to the FBI wasn't going to have negative consequences for her then why would they choose to approach her like that?
The whole attitude by law enforcement that "anyone who doesn't 100% cooperate with us on our terms is an enemy and should be treated as such" really doesn't foster cooperation but it does foster fear and resentment. I think the whole Apple/iPhone debacle demonstrates that perfectly. It's gotten to the point that businesses are finding that they're in a better position if they lock themselves out of their own data and tell law enforcement to fk off because their hands are tied. It's ironic because this non-cooperative behavior is a direct result of the abusive and hostile tactics law enforcement use against everyone.
The whole thing reads like its either an agency involved in something unethical, or an agency so far removed from decent behavior that they no longer notice when they're menacing innocents.
Sure, they can do that, but the repercussions are something they certainly don't want to deal with.
No government has the right to withhold information beyond a clear and reasonable timeframe. 3 months seems reasonable. 1 year is out of the question.
The last discussion thread on this topic had more than a few people complaining that Isis (the given name of the developer in the article) is overreacting and paranoid, which is a saddening response to see. It exposes the privileges and unfortunate circumstances citizens find themselves in because these agencies refuse to prosecute their anti-terror investigations in well-thought out ways, instead pursuing facile leads without regard to the external effects they cause.
We've even seen evidence that these agencies deliberately manipulate otherwise innocent people into behavior that implicates them in their "terror suspect" criteria, so it's hard to believe that anyone in this situation could be somehow too cautious.
Terrorism is successful when our society becomes more of an authoritarian police state.
That is exactly what is happening.
That's the tactics they use (don't ask how I know that). Be strong and welcome to Germany!
There is a german word for it - 'Zersetzung'. It was used by Stasi in former divided Germany and for sure has been used in recent years against other folks of the Tor community.
Examples?
Edit: Not really sure why asking for examples gets downvotes. Google news search definitely didn't turn up anything but this story.
And yes, that could be the legal system working normally, but there have been cases where the government already knows about the exit node, but doesn't reveal that information to the judge while obtaining a warrant.
Impressive for a LEO to state out loud he doesn't care about rights and due process. Like maybe he thinks he's above the law.
Get the person thinking they're not safe anywhere, so they stop going out, stop being mobile and stick to a more confined area. Once they've determined where she is, it makes it a lot easier to get in contact with her.
If she's smart, she start moving more frequently, and travel in states where they don't have field offices, avoid air travel and create a constantly moving target for the FBI officers trying to nail her down.
I don't think that's practical. It would cause her a lot of stress (not to mention cost quite some money) and sooner or later wear her out.
It also means that the FBI has reached their goal of intimidating her, since she is changing her behavior because of them (assuming that is their goal of course).
Regular citizens not charged with any crime having to keep moving to hide from LEO.
"the ends justify the means" at that point
I would like to see an activist attempt to challenge such an order, or even refuse to cooperate in an NSL where the FBI is acting outside of its legislative and Constitutional authority. However, the overwhelming incentive in any such situation is to cooperate. And from what I have read, even if the FBI is acting illegally, the subject of the investigation aided by the NSL may still be a fairly loathsome criminal -- so, you have to be quite a principled activist to risk prison time to make a civil rights statement, when this is directly going to benefit a badguy in the specific instance.
I'm not an American, you can speak with Police freely here in Slovenia, so maybe I understand things wrong?
Also, no you cannot "speak with police freely" in the US. Anything you say to an officer of the law can be, and it should be assumed that it will be, used to incriminate you. To make matters worse, you can be forced to give up your right to self-incrimination by being legally compelled to divulge information which incriminates you.
In general one should never speak to police in the US. Not even as the whiteness to a crime. For a great overview of the seriousness of why one should never talk to US police, view this lecture by a professor and former criminal defense attorney: http://youtu.be/6wXkI4t7nuc
Incidentially, the American Civil Liberties Union of attorneys (ACLU) has created a series of mobile apps to record police encounters because of their tendency to be problematic for citizens. For example, https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=org.aclu.mobil...
Given the behavior of bad apple cops and agents, she is right to feel threatened. If these are agents with good intentions, they have no reason to be afraid of a lawyer. If they are going to circumvent her legal protections, harassment is the minimum best outcome for her.
As soon as they continued after the very first 'no' it becomes harassment. Imagine this was a work setting, the FBI was a coworker of this individual, and they asked for a date. After the very first "no, please don't bring it up again" it becomes harassment.
Untrue, legally, at least in the UK where at least two incidents that cause you distress are required to have been committed by the same person/group. And then it's up to a judge to decide if the 'distressing' behaviour would be considered distressing by any reasonable person.
Upon reviewing my previous response, I don't even see where I made mention of gender even to the extent of a pronoun.
2) Imagine this power in the hands of a President with fascistic tendancies.
Going around a lawyer is a good way to lose a case against her, so maybe they weren't trying to make a case against her.
Maybe they actually had some real questions that involved her expertise or knowledge she might have had.
