Comment by sixtypoundhound | Hacker News Reader

Comment by sixtypoundhound | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

sixtypoundhound

This line shocked me: “We made it—we made it specifically for this [drug trafficking] too,” Ramos told undercover agents, according to a transcript included in the complaint.

Rule #1 for managing products with grey-market applications: never acknowledge the existence of the illegal market (or any activity that opens you to up to material civil suits).

That instantly exposes you to all kinds of criminal and civil liability; the fact an individual said it vs. "the company" likely makes you personally liable as well, the corporate veil won't help you much here.

You're not making cheap guns for gang members to kill people with, you're developing affordable security options for lower income citizens who are exercising their 2nd amendment rights.

You're not creating tools that help criminals hide their past, you're helping good people clear their record from legitimate mistakes and errors... or evade privacy invading snoops... etc.

Always talk about the white hat applications, never the sinister ones...

The fact that the most damning evidence they could come up with was this line with the inserted "[drug trafficking]" is telling. Reading the full complaint they do not include the supporting context for that insertion which makes me highly suspicious whether it is justified.

Another sign of the flimsy evidence is the mention that some customers used gangsta email address. Please, them and every 12 y/o I know.

This has entrapment written all over it. It's impossible for a service provider to ascertain if his customer is really breaking the law from his email handle or from such conversations. He might simply be making an analogy or reductio ad absurdum. What now, I'm supposed to say, "no, my security product can't resist an attack from law enforcement" although all crypto and math experts say it should? It's like coercing a gun dealer to say his product can't possibly kill cops in any circumstance.

The prosecution will have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the providers were privy to the nature of their customer's business and conspired with them to hide illegal activities from law enforcement.

You may have missed this part:

>Phantom can also remotely wipe devices in the event they are seized by authorities.

>The RCMP also pretended that authorities had arrested an associate with incriminating evidence on the phone, and needed Phantom to wipe the device.

That seems to be actively participating in trafficking from the company, as well as potentially destroying evidence.

Basing an indictment on what a salesperson says while trying to sell a product is fundamentally ridiculous.

Obviously a salesperson is going to be as positive as possible and respond affirmatively to everything the person they are selling to says.

Even if the guy said: "we designed these phones specifically for international drug traffickers" that still does not prove anything because it is just a hypothetical to illustrate that the technology is robust in adversarial environments.

The whole thing is really very embarrassing for the FBI. They can't make any real cases and so they come up with this as an excuse.

Meanwhile, impact on real world crime is zero (or worse) because this just shows criminals, once again, that they cannot trust any centralized service or device and to either stay off electronics entirely or build your own in house.

Well, he didn't actually say "[drug trafficking]", and since we don't have the context, we have to take the undercover agent's word for it. He could have been referring to something else with "this", or at least, he could claim that.

Undercover: "Mr ramos, we're drug dealers and we need to send secrets messages. Can these devices do that?"

Mr. Ramos: "Yes, they can. They were designed specifically to do that"

Undercover: "Take em away boys."

In this dialogue, "to do that" might mean "to send secret messages" or "to send secret messages for drug trafficking". I presume there's a bit of similar ambiguity in the actual conversation. It's also possible that as a sales pitch, the defendant may have intentionally meant the former while subtly implying the latter, where the former is almost certainly true and the defendant might know the latter to not be true.

Though, I imagine for a variety of reasons it's unwise to play phrasing ambiguity sales games with drug cartels. His first mistake was of course getting into a situation where it was possible to play these games with presumed cartel members.

Is this dialog from the indictment, or did you just made it up? What was the actual context? That's pretty important.

Nope, page 15 of 24. https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/4406486/Vincent-R...

The context is redacted from the quote on page 15 under the note [conversation continues].

Pharmaceutical exporters who are bad at paperwork.

Out of curiosity - how do people who employ these marketing tactics reconcile this? do they drink their own Kool-Aid or do they willfully turn a blind eye to the grey/blackhat clients because they don't want to think about it?

You could, basically, say the same about guns. Guns kill 10s of 1000s of people in the US each year. Any manufacturer who makes, for example, semi-automatics and other military style weapons knows that it's for killing people, not deer. But they still make them. Why? Ostensibly, due to the 2nd Amendment.

So why doesn't the same apply to these phones vis-a-vis the 1st Amendement? Sure, you could use the phone for drug transactions; but that's not what it was designed to do; just like you could use a car to carry drugs, but that's not what it was designed for.

I don’t think that’s a valid argument. The vast majority of guns, ‘tactical’ or not, sold in the US are never used to kill anybody and are used for hobby purposes only. It’s one thing to knowingly sell tools to criminals for criminal purposes, and quite another to sell tools, some of which you know may fall into the hands of criminals.

There are plenty of compelling, imperative moral arguments I could make for meaningful gun control, but this isn’t really one of them and if anything it waters down the case.

Plenty of hunting rifles are semi automatic. By "military style" do you mean "black guns"? Because you can hunt with black rifles as well. And lots of people simply like guns and have fun taking them out to the shooting range. And they have absolutely zero intention or desire to shoot another human. And by "lots" I mean the huge majority, most likely.

I'm an avid hunter and have never known, seen, heard of, or even imagined using an AR15 (for example) for hunting. Although I’m sure some people will claim they do. The modern AR15 a semi-automatic "retail" version of a gun designed to be optimally efficient at killing multiple humans in combat scenarios.

And absolutely you're 100% correct. The vast majority of owners are law-abiding and just enthusiasts who like customizing and shooting their semi-neutered human killing tool at the range. Hey, I agree, the AR-15 is cool looking and fun to shoot in "safe" environments.

However, humans are unpredictable, unreliable bags of irrational emotions. The future is going to be marked by a steady removal of humans from things they are unreliable and unsafe at doing (ie. driving, etc). If you think 100 years from now Bob is going to be driving himself to the range to go shoot whatever absurdly powerful handheld-railgun-type-instrument-of-death exists in the future I'd say you're comedically on the wrong side of history.

You probably hunt big game then. AR-15s are very popular and fun for "varmint" hunting. It is open season on wild hogs in several southern states right now due to their invasion and subsequent overpopulation. And you really need a semi-auto if you are going to take down several of them quickly when they run in packs.

>humans are unpredictable, unreliable bags of irrational emotions

Ya, but not really. Death by mass shooting is so rare, like winning a big jackpot in the lottery rare. There are so many opportunities for humans to make mischief and commit violent acts day in and day out, yet they don't. The only reason mass shootings get so much attention is because it is so rare. Guns in America aren't going to go away anytime soon. 100 years in the future, maybe, but with the advent of cheap 3d printers that can create firearms, and the fact that there are simply so many firearms in the US already that will essentially last forever with minimum upkeep, the future may be just as full of guns as ever.

Not to mention there will likely always be a community of enthusiasts. Just like 100 years ago, some people predicted no one would ever need to use horses in the future, but today, millions of people have horses. As noted in another HN article, today, there are more available models of fountain pen and ink than ever before, even though fountain pens were obsoleted many years ago.

So yes, I think it is very likely that some people will drive themselves to a shooting range with their vintage non-self driving car and shoot off some rounds.

Not to mention the connection between mass shootings and AR-15's completely falls apart unless you're looking exclusively as white kids in school and factor in just how popular they are across the entire country. Including among police.

> I'm an avid hunter and have never known, seen, heard of, or even imagined using an AR15 (for example) for hunting. Although I’m sure some people will claim they do. The modern AR15 a semi-automatic "retail" version of a gun designed to be optimally efficient at killing multiple humans in combat scenarios.

Does your state have a hog problem?

> to go shoot whatever absurdly powerful handheld-railgun-type-instrument-of-death exists in the future I'd say you're comedically on the wrong side of history.

Let me get this straight, some hypothetical extremely dangerous future weapon might exist and so not allowing ownership of that is like banning the most popular rifle in the United States because it's marginally more 'dangerous' than your hunting rifle?

Nothing after the ‘and so’, or anything remotely like it or construable from it, is present in the post you’re replying to.

He mentions rail guns (aka "hypothetical extremely dangerous future weapon") as well as paraphrased a very popular argument against owning AR-15s (aka the most popular rifle in the US): it is not popularly used for hunting in it's particular manifestation (not the particular attributes of the gun... but merely is aesthetics).

... and therefore much like the future weapon which lacks a very obvious practical use case, beyond sport shooting/fun, then expecting it not to get banned .

If the OP didn't intend to communicate such a position then he chose a very poor way of stating it.

Because you can hunt with black rifles as well.

Well you used to be able to buy cocaine at the corner store, too, but cooler heads eventually prevailed.

And lots of people simply like guns and have fun taking them out to the shooting range.

Ibid.

It depends on your opinion of the laws in question.

Do you feel the individual's right to privacy should prevail over the public interest in monitoring for illegal activity? Then you'll have no issue building strong crypto products.

Drugs should be legalized and people should be allowed to grow their own supply? A entire family of products...

And yes, some people really do believe that cheap guns save lives and protect individual freedoms...

Who knows? That would depend on the person and the situation.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com