FBI Harassment
blog.patternsinthevoid.net
blog.patternsinthevoid.net
And then, decades later, it was revealed that the FBI actually was constantly watching him, following him, and tapping his phones and communications. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/02/opinion/02hotchner.html
Citation? A quick google search is split between "Isis uses Tor" and "Isis is waging war on Tor", with nothing specific to the above claim.
EDIT - never mind, didn't spot that the author's name is Isis. That makes more sense :)
So I cannot agree with you.
What if the Dudes Against Vermont Equality start blowing up bombs all over Vermont?
Silly examples aside, giving up a part of yourself and your life because of terrorism only serves to demonstrate the effectiveness of terrorism, which then serves to encourage more of it.
About politeness, well, it's up to you to get offended. If the hat fits, and all...
> Isis is a contributor to Tor
A 'political' entity making contributions to a project like Tor suggests they're making changes to benefit them. What changes would ISIS supposedly like from Tor?
Isis here is the name of the author of the blog post, not the terrorist organisation.
I'd always liked the name Isis, and would have named a daughter that (if that ever happens), but the name is now ruined for probably a century or more (much like the name Adolf, I'd imagine, though I wasn't around before that name was ruined).
> What changes would ISIS supposedly like from Tor?
I wonder if there are examples of criminal/terrorist organizations supporting projects that could benefit them? (I know about Le Roux/TrueCrypt, but others?)
I would kindly advise some rest.
Doesn't sound particularly polite. Sounds borderline threatening.
"You should pay us protection money. If you don't, you might wish you had." isn't far removed from the above.
What exactly would it take to cross your threshold for paranoia?
[1]: https://www.aclu.org/news/aclu-releases-report-fbi-crusade-a...
[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Edgar_Hoover
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/11/fbis-suicide-letter-dr...
With stuff like this going on, people who work on controversial (but important software like Tor) need support from the larger tech community
Isis is wise to stick with a lawyer but the 'approach her in public without a lawyer' smacks of using this 'lying to the FBI' tactic to get her charged as the first step if the FBI is targeting her for some reason.
See this from Popehat (Ken White)
https://popehat.com/2013/05/01/shut-up-i-explained-mostly-po...
https://crypto.stanford.edu/flashproxy/
> There is an options page[1] (the same page you get by clicking on the badge) with which users can choose whether they want to be a proxy. By default, if a user has not made a choice, they will be a proxy. If you want only people who have explicitly clicked "yes" to be a proxy, add the cookierequired parameter. If a user has selected "no," they will never be a proxy, regardless of the presence of cookierequired.
In either case, your ire is better directed at your browser.
It's like going to a kitchen remodeling store and hosting a dinner party there. Yes, they invited you in, but the scope of that invitation was looking at new counters, not hosting a party. That's trespassing. In the computer realm, it may well be a CFAA violation.
No such expectation exists for exploit packs and proxies like this.
Really, really obnoxious. I now have a serious grudge against this person.
They call and ask to speak with her, and suddenly she's talking about flight records and backdooring software... admittedly the stuff about having teams in multiple cities looking for her was a little disconcerting, but if they wanted to arrest her or coerce her into something shady they'd have done it, and probably quickly and not very politely.
I'd have just assumed they were investigating a case that was tor related and either 1. Didn't know enough to understand that she wasn't involved just because she contributed to the software or 2. (less likely) Wanted her opinion on some of the tech specifics of how Tor works.
Maybe just show up to meet them, with an attorney (of course!) and if they start asking anything serious the attorney tells you to shut up and you leave.
It sounds to me like the agents were doing their jobs in their normal, properly secretive if a bit ham-fisted way, and this person totally freaked out.
I've been following her on Twitter for a couple of months now, and from me "getting to know her" from social media and her blog, I don't see a possible legal reason to ask her a few questions that could not be shared with her lawyer. After all, like she stated, her work is very transparent, so everything she's working on is available to the public.
That said, this seems pretty unacceptable. Regarding her attorney:
>Five minutes later, Burnett called back and said, “I don’t believe you actually represent her.” Burnett stated additionally that a phone call from me might suffice, but that the FBI preferred to meet with me in person. After a pause he said, “But… if we happen to run into her on the street, we’re gonna be asking her some questions without you present.”
One possible explanation: because "Don't Talk to the Police".
That's one of the worst things one can do and really bad advice.
>Of course, she can terminate the conversation by invoking her miranda rights at any time.
That's already too late. Everything she already inadvertently said up to that point can be used against her.
Talking to law enforcement is the job of your lawyer. If law enforcement refuses to talk to your lawyer, is it really that far-fetched to think they may want to do other things outside the bounds of the usual legal process?
See this from a cop and a law professor https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc
They're using bully tactics. Did they have to show up on her family's doorstep? No. Did they really have people watching out for her in five cities? No. Was there any reason they couldn't communicate through her lawyer? No. Did they have to speak to her in person? No. Do they have the right to circumvent her legal counsel (or make threats to do so)? No.
They're just playing mind games, like they're trained to do. Spooks gonna spook.
There is a huge whiff of shadiness about how the agents were behaving. Maybe they had a good reason and just wanted her help, but everything screams watch the fuck out or end up like Aaron Swartz.
I don't think she's being overly paranoid in the slightest.
Cooperation is for people who did something and want to create a reason for the government to go easy. The proper course of action here is to politely state that they can deliver a subpoena to your lawyer.
> It sounds to me like the agents were doing their jobs in their normal, properly secretive if a bit ham-fisted way, and this person totally freaked out.
Telling someone's lawyer that you'll interview their client without them by picking her up on the street is more than "ham-fisted."
Conducting a background investigation on someone else applying for a security clearance is arguably a "good" (or at least, not-bad) reason for the FBI to pay you a visit. (Also, criminal investigations in which you are not a target may also be not-bad, depending on the exact circumstances.)
As far as I can tell the only details revealed by the FBI in this case is that they had some "documents" (without giving any context) for the author to review and answer questions about, and refused to share any details with her lawyer.
I'm not discounting that there are FBI agents who behave properly and politely without pushing the limits of legality, but I also believe there's plenty of evidence to suggest that there are plenty of agents who share none of those qualities (note that I'm not speculating on what fraction of agents are in each bucket, just that both are non-zero).
https://www.opm.gov/investigations/background-investigations...
If it's an ongoing investigation, having the lawyer there is a GOOD THING, because it becomes the lawyer's job to keep his client aware of the repercussions of doing anything to sabotage the investigation.
Small stuff that doesn't seem important can fall under this and then they have leverage against you.
Something like asking you what the closing stock price for GOOG was yesterday. If you said "I think it was 500" but say it was 505, boom insta-crime.
There's been quite a few examples of the FBI then using the threat of prosecuting the above "crime" in order to get leverage so people will comply with things they may not have usually done.
* The statement is about your belief, not the facts. If you actually believed that, it's not a false statement.
* Even if the statement is a statement of fact and not belief (e.g. "The closing stock price for GOOG was 500 yesterday."), the statement has to be materially false. 500 vs 505? Close enough.
* Even if the statement is materially false or fraudulent, (e.g. the stock price was really 50,000), the falsehood has to be given "knowingly and willfully."
It sounds to me more like old fashioned FBI "bumper lock". This is when they attempt to provoke some sort of action on the part of a person under investigation. This very publicly backfired for them in the anthrax investigation, when one target killed himself under the stress and the other got super pissed off and met them head on with press conferences.
It's not my fault if someone from any country in the world decides to use the project I helped with in an illegal way.
That sure sounds like intended harassment to me.
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Edgar_Hoover [2]https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/11/fbis-suicide-letter-dr...
They were probably testing to see if the attorney would invoke the right to remain silent.
edit: Really her attorney did a terrible job. If the attorney knew the client didn't want to talk to FBI, she should have handled it way differently.
edit2: Man even if the attorney didn't know the client wanted to stay silent, if you hear "we uh… need her to clear up her involvement or… uh… potential involvement in a matter" you assert the 5th and wait for the subpoena--and then fight it.
Refusing to talk to a person's lawyer, then saying "we will be attempting to talk to this person without a lawyer present", is absolutely harassment.
> I mean, is there precedent?
For what? FBI agents harassing people? Just look at my comment about Hemingway.
> Refusing to talk to a person's lawyer, then saying "we will be attempting to talk to this person without a lawyer present"
IANAL, but it seems like it's OK for an FBI agent to say they'd prefer to talk to someone in person without a lawyer. It's not OK for them to coerce someone into talking without a lawyer, but it doesn't seem like that has happened here. I understand the author's fears, but the real issue seems to be the largely unchecked potential of the FBI to inflict harm upon specific citizens for any reason, not their actual behavior in this case.
I think it's reasonable for them to contact her and ask her questions, but they should go through the lawyer if she wants them to.
I find it reasonable for someone to assume that their participation in a currently legal (but controversial) project would be a potential reason that the FBI wanted to question you.
Refusing to talk to someone's laywer is bad enough, but saying they're going to pounce on her uninvited out of nowhere is completely over the top.
If the require some documentation that someone is representing someone else, maybe they should also accept mailed and/or faxed documents for proof.
So, exactly like Soviet Union then? I guess you can't learn anything from history if you haven't actually lived through it.
If you read the news, you should be afraid of this, even if you have never broken a law in your life.
How many have been shot by FBI? The Puppycide documentary kickstarter guessed at one dog death every 98 minutes, which makes about 5300 a year.
That's too many, but it's not something that pet owners should be worrying about.
EDIT: (Compared to the say 1.2 million road traffic deaths of pet dogs each year in the US.)
Personally, cops make me nervous. Whenever I'm on the subway and a pair of cops end up in the same car I'm in, my odds of catching a stray bullet go up. Before the cops got on the train there were (very likely) 0 guns in the car with me, after they got on, there are (at least) 2.
You can't get shot if there aren't any guns within range. Call it irrational, but the only place where I can be reasonably comfortable with guns is at a well managed shooting range.
But even in the incredibly violent US, with poorly trained gun happy police, only 5,500 dogs are killed each year. That's way too many, but parent said "you should be afraid of this" - no, you really shouldn't. If you own a dog you should be far more worried about the risk of the dog being run over; or of the dog being over-fed (half of American dogs are overweight or obese) or of all the other far more common stuff that kills dogs.
(All these numbers are estimates, so who knows how good they are).
1) The FBI are monumentally stupid. In a technical sense, and in a practice-of-law-enforcement sense. They're beat cops without the experience and too much power over red tape. Generally expect them to treat you like a rookie detective who read a manual about tricks to coerce consent from perps.
2) Neither warrant canaries, nor giving the FBI information on how to track your work, is not going to help you. They don't care if you do cooperate, they only care if you give them something.
3) If they really wanted to abuse you and your family, they would just do it. There is no point in thinking up these scenarios and putting yourself through hell. You have to move on with your life. If you think the gov't might be interested in you, sure be prepared, but unless you're going to spend your time working connections and getting government influence to have leverage in a future confrontation: let it go.
mirror: https://github.com/isislovecruft/patternsinthevoid/blob/mast...
The canary is from Feb 22...
That said, I don't understand why, once she was in Germany, she didn't call the FBI at that time to find out what the heck was going on. Since she's not on US soil she doesn't have to worry about the FBI physically tracking her down, and if the FBI asks questions she doesn't want to answer she can hang up. Worst case I can think of is the FBI asks a question with at least one potential answer that would incriminate her, she feels uncomfortable answering for whatever reason, and the FBI then interprets her ending the call there as suspicious (I don't believe the right against self-incrimination applies in this particular circumstance).
Edit: As mentioned in another reply (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11631827), I'm not suggesting that she should give information to the FBI or otherwise cooperate. I'm suggesting she should seek information from them, with the proviso that she will not be answering questions (and therefore her refusal to answer after being asked a question will not be suspicious). Heck, since the FBI indicated they don't necessarily believe her lawyer represents her, she could just call them and say "Please talk to my lawyer <insert name here>, he represents me in this matter" and hang up.
Also, they're not going to say anything over the phone that they aren't willing to say to the lawyer.. so no real point in calling.
In any case, the point isn't to cooperate with the police. The point is to just find out what the heck the FBI actually wants. Finding out what they want doesn't mean actually giving them what it is they want. She could say upfront that she's not answering any questions and just wants to know what they want from her. If they won't tell her under those conditions, well, she's no worse off than she is today.
In general, don't take health or legal advice from HN. There are other places for that, and there is money to spent well.
Presumably her lawyer advised her against doing this. If you'd bothered to retain a lawyer in a situation like this, don't you think you'd defer to his expertise on how to deal with law enforcement?
If there was any kind of criminal suspicion involved, they would absolutely do that. That's why talking to law enforcement is something you have a lawyer do.
Too bad. That's their problem, not hers.
If the FBI actually wanted anything to get done instead of just harassing her, they should have talked to her lawyer.
There is an extradition treaty between the US and Germany.
> I started having panic attacks, thinking that I’d need to get myself and literally every object, including electronics, that I cared about accross the border
> Every device I owned could be compromised, I’d lose all my data, my pictures of family and loved ones, fiction I’d wrote as a teenager, and Lisp I’d wrote as a child
> I’ll admit I actually cried, not knowing when I’d hug my mom again
> I didn’t talk to anyone who wasn’t already in regular contact with me, fearing I might endanger them
> I didn’t talk to anyone who wasn’t already in regular contact with me, fearing I might endanger them — some thug might show up at their mom’s door or make some threats to their lawyers — and I didn’t want to risk harming people I care about. It hurt to not tell my friends what was happening. I felt gagged and frightened.
> I wanted to read the number theory papers I’d just downloaded and play with a new pairing-based cryptography library I’d just been given the source to, but I couldn’t do those things either, simply because I was too stressed out to think straight.
None of this is the reaction of a healthy person. Panic attacks? Not talking to people for fear of endangering them? Crying herself to sleep? Not knowing when she'd hug her mom again???
It's also worth noting that the quotations of the FBI agents include all of their tics and stutters. This is often done in an effort to discredit the person being quoted.
This is not harassment.
That sure sounds like intended harassment to me.
The law enforcement in question would already know this, so pursuing it anyway is harassment, regardless of it being legal.
Especially ones who are foreign citizens.
Edit: To elaborate,
Threat - A declaring of one's intention to cause harm or loss to another's person or property or to limit one's freedom to act in a lawful voluntary manner (a threat to kidnap).
Harm to a person or property is not inherently present when talking to someone on the street.
This does not imply "a pleasant conversation of a few minutes on the street". This implies, given the past and present behavior of law enforcement at all levels of government, "ending up in an interrogation room for several hours during repeated questioning attempts, before being dumped on the street somewhere random after refusing to answer questions without a lawyer present".
Why do you feel like you can confidently say that? First of all, they never say they intend on detaining her. Secondly, there is zero precedent for what you're claiming is implied here. Thirdly, "happen to run into her on the street" does imply an ad-hoc conversation and not a formal interrogation.
You're drawing conclusions without evidence, why do you think that's an okay thing to do?
To extend your analogy, this would be like a person losing a quart of blood over a pinprick.
Also, I don't know where you got "in the head" from.
I'm pointing out that everything has risk, and if your response is to have panic attacks, you are not reacting the way a healthy person reacts.
"We are going to try and question you without your lawyer" is absolutely an implicit threat.
A person is not healthy if they're responding to an event by having panic attacks.
Before we go any further, do you believe a person can have an unhealthy thought, and if so, do you believe part of having unhealthy thoughts is drawing conclusions based on little/no evidence?
[1] http://www.dsm5.org/Research/Documents/Craske_PD%20Review.pd...
From page 7: "Although PAs themselves are not considered a disorder or a condition that necessarily requires treatment, they often present in the context of various anxiety and nonanxiety disorders."
So, again, it doesn't seem to me like panic attacks are a sign of previous unhealthiness, any more than bleeding in response to being shot is a sign of previous unhealthiness. It is definitely true that having a bleeding gunshot wound is a medical emergency, which is more than can be said of panic attacks! But it's not a sign that you were previously unhealthy.
> Before we go any further, do you believe a person can have an unhealthy thought, and if so, do you believe part of having unhealthy thoughts is drawing conclusions based on little/no evidence?
I don't know what you mean by "an unhealthy thought".
Furthermore, your own quote goes on to indicate that PAs are indicative of unhealthiness, which is what I'm pointing out.
Below I've provided you with some reading so you can understand what an "unhealthy thought" is. Let me know when you've established a working understanding so we can continue (or don't, up to you).
[1] http://www.specialtybehavioralhealth.com/wp-content/Common%20Unhealthy%20Thought%20Patterns.pdf
[2] http://www.cognitivetherapyguide.org/negative-thinking-patterns.htm
[3] http://www.allaboutdepression.com/workshops/CBT_Workshop/CBT_09.html
[4] http://www.thechangeblog.com/unhealthy-thoughts/
[5] http://www.kamajensen.com/six-of-most-common-unhealthy-thinking/
[6] http://flowingfree.org/change-your-mind-%E2%80%93-how-to-get-rid-of-unhealthy-thought-patterns-and-feel-better-about-yourself/
[7] http://www.heretohelp.bc.ca/wellness-module/wellness-module-8-healthy-thinkingOK, I've read those posts and I understand what you mean by "unhealthy thoughts". To make sure that I'm understanding your terminology, is this what you have been meaning by "unhealthy" / is a person with "unhealthy thoughts" themselves "unhealthy"? There are a few posts that say that everyone has some "unhealthy thoughts" from time to time, so if the sense of "unhealthy" that you're using is that everyone is unhealthy to some extent, I have been misunderstanding.
I created a throwaway account for this, but:
I developed panic attacks after spending a few years living with somebody who had severe depression peppered with episodes of psychosis (my wife). I didn't know the things that would send them into a psychotic episode[1], and the stress of it eventually caused me to be diagnosed with generalized anxiety disorder.
This person is now on the proper medications, and no longer has psychotic episodes, but my panic attacks remain.
It isn't a stretch to think that constant harassment by the FBI could cause something similar. It's pretty well established that this is what killed Aaron Swartz.
[1] An interesting observation I've made regarding this: part of my life involves a job that deals with people who are having a psychologically challenging reaction to psychedelic drugs. The people having the worst acid trips are identical to the types of psychosis that my wife used to have. Like there is something that they really need to tell me, but can't get me to understand. My inability to understand what they need to tell me causes a tremendous amount of anguish.
Furthermore, this is not "constant harassment", or anywhere near the level of what the FBI did to Aaron Swartz. In addition, Aaron Swartz was absolutely not a healthy human being.
Choking to death because of an allergy isn't a healthy response to peanuts, but like panic attacks, is involuntary. The legal system has already addressed the thrust of your argument with the Eggshell skull doctrine [0].
According to you, the FBI should have known she was unwell and treated her as such, which I can understand. Having never actually talked to her or even been aware that she was having panic attacks or other mental issues as a result of their inquiries, I fail to see how you would expect the FBI agents to do that, however.
As I said in another post, the FBI is well aware of the stress induced - to the point that they have given it a name when turned to their advantage: "bumper lock". If any of that comes as a surprise to you, and you'd like to know more, look into the interview techniques that LEOs employ. I've got formal training in Wicklander (which is very popular with law enforcement), inducing stress is a big part of the process. So they can't really claim ignorance, and even if they could it would not be defense (again, eggshell skull).
This isn't "bumper lock", she's never seen an FBI agent, no FBI agent has contacted her directly, no FBI agent has spoken with her or seen her, according to her own account.
This would be bumper lock if the FBI had actually contacted Isis at all, directly or indirectly. They haven't. What the hell do you want them to do if they need to talk to someone?
> What the hell do you want them to do if they need to talk to someone?
A formal letter would be nice, bonus points for including information that would allow one to prepare supporting documents. Civil interaction with legal representation would be an improvement. Basically any amount of effort to inform beyond what has been described.
If you have a few business cards and an entire afternoon, you can nuke entire projects (?) Something is not right here!
If you hurt your leg, you go to a doctor and he fixes you up. There is no shame in going to a doctor. If a postcard and a phone call can ruin your life, you can ALSO go to a doctor, and guess what, he will fix you up in that case as well! Try it. Go for one session with an open mind and (unless you have a really horrible doctor) it will help tremendously.
cryptopals.com
What conclusion should I draw from this??
It could've been fit in a single tweet "FBI TRYING TO CONTACT ME. DO NOT KNOW WHY. IM FEELING VERY EMOTIONAL"
The FBI wants to talk to the author, and she has avoided them. That doesn't mean the FBI is harassing her, they haven't even taken any active measures against her.
I remember elementary OS wanting to name their 0.3 version Isis. Unfortunately, they had to change it because that was the time when ISIS was all over the news. All of their releases so far got named after ancient god: Jupiter, Luna, Isis (that got renamed to Freya) and the next edition is going to be named Loki.
I got really sad when they announced the change of the name because elementary OS is my primary operating system and I really liked the name Isis before all of this happened.