[freenet-support] Question regarding legal case
Thoughts from a lurker: I believe that it is important for all of us to resist the use of flawed statistics, whether it's used to prosecute the innocent or the guilty.I believe that it matters how we gather and use evidence.I believe that it is important for the means to justify the end result--the ends cannot be used to justify the means. I know this runs the risk of allowing a guilty person to go free. But our justice system is built on the principle that it is better to presume innocence, rather than guilt. And there is no guilty person in the world who can perfectly and completely cover their tracks. Invariably, one can build up enough evidence in other ways to make a case, if one exists. All of that said... I do not believe that we are obligated to help. Obligation is a strong word. Some of us here have the knowledge to try and assist. Some of us do not (and I'm in the latter category). There are no employees; nobody is being paid; everybody is a volunteer. That means any sense of obligation must be left to an individual's sense of morality or code of ethics. Which, yes, means that sometimes an invalid warrant may pass unquestioned, if only because nobody with the knowledge is available to question it. That's life in a volunteer organization. If I had the knowledge, I would step up. Unfortunately, I do not. I will support those who do step up, and I will not condemn those who do not.  -Lance On Monday, July 25, 2016 12:03 PM, Steve Dougherty wrote: Hi Hayley, To make sure it's clear, this is a publicly visible mailing list. I assume you've seen the news post about flawed surveillance techniques? https://freenetproject.org/news.html#20160526-htl18attack It goes over our understanding of attacks used by law enforcement and why they appear to be heavily fundamentally flawed. If we can help elaborate on parts of it please let us know. The attacks we are aware of included information about how far away the request probably originated; (Hops To Live - HTL) you didn't mention that, and without it the attack is even less accurate than the effectively entirely inaccurate thing it already is. As a non-profit organization running an open source project, we don't currently have employees, hence the lack of a phone number. You may be able to find someone in the community willing to participate; if this is the case I think it is we've been following it with interest for a while now. Could you please elaborate on what is involved in reviewing the search warrant, reviewing the police report, or being an expert witness? Would this be an attempt to invalidate the search and suppress evidence acquired with it? Now addressing others on the list: I note an ethical dilemma here. It may well be that the accused is guilty of the things they are accused of, and invalidating this presumably-mistaken search warrant would allow them to go free. That said, do we want to resist the application of flawed statistics in prosecuting Freenet users? I'm leaning toward probably. Selectively assisting in fighting search warrants that seem invalid also seems unethical. Are we obligated to help? - Steve On Mon, Jul 25, 2016, 2:33 PM Hayley Rosenblum wrote: Hello, I am a law intern at Rosenblum, Schwartz, Rogers, & Glass, P.C. in St. Louis, MO. As a criminal defense firm, we have recently been hired for a Possession of Child Pornography case. According to the police report , a special investigator began running copies of Freenet that had been modified for law enforcement to log the IP address, key, and date, and time of requests that were sent to these law enforcement Freenet nodes which were then compared to keys of known child pornography. The special investigator observed an IP address routing/and or requesting suspected child pornography file blocks. The special investigation noted that the number and timing of the request was significant enough to indicate that the IP address was the apparent original requester of the file. We have doubts about the legitimacy of this based off some brief research we have done on Freeness and how it works. Is there anyone I could contact to discuss having a Freenet employee/specialist to review the search warrant and police report and/or potentially hire as an expert witness. If so, how much would you charge for that? Any information or further contacts would be great. I didnât see a phone number on the website, so I figured iâd start with an email! Thank you, Hayley Rosenblum Law Intern Rosenblum, Schwartz, Rogers, & Glass P.C. rsrglaw.com hrosenb1 at slu.edu office: 314-862-4332___ Support mailing list Support at freenetproject.org http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.support Unsubscribe at http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support Or mailto:support-request at freenetproject.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Support
[freenet-support] Question regarding legal case
Hello, I am a law intern at Rosenblum, Schwartz, Rogers, & Glass, P.C. in St. Louis, MO. As a criminal defense firm, we have recently been hired for a Possession of Child Pornography case. According to the police report , a special investigator began running copies of Freenet that had been modified for law enforcement to log the IP address, key, and date, and time of requests that were sent to these law enforcement Freenet nodes which were then compared to keys of known child pornography. The special investigator observed an IP address routing/and or requesting suspected child pornography file blocks. The special investigation noted that the number and timing of the request was significant enough to indicate that the IP address was the apparent original requester of the file. We have doubts about the legitimacy of this based off some brief research we have done on Freeness and how it works. Is there anyone I could contact to discuss having a Freenet employee/specialist to review the search warrant and police report and/or potentially hire as an expert witness. If so, how much would you charge for that? Any information or further contacts would be great. I didn’t see a phone number on the website, so I figured i’d start with an email! Thank you, Hayley Rosenblum Law Intern Rosenblum, Schwartz, Rogers, & Glass P.C. rsrglaw.com hrose...@slu.edu office: 314-862-4332 ___ Support mailing list Support@freenetproject.org http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.support Unsubscribe at http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support Or mailto:support-requ...@freenetproject.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [freenet-support] Question regarding legal case
Hi Hayley, To make sure it's clear, this is a publicly visible mailing list. I assume you've seen the news post about flawed surveillance techniques? https://freenetproject.org/news.html#20160526-htl18attack It goes over our understanding of attacks used by law enforcement and why they appear to be heavily fundamentally flawed. If we can help elaborate on parts of it please let us know. The attacks we are aware of included information about how far away the request probably originated; (Hops To Live - HTL) you didn't mention that, and without it the attack is even less accurate than the effectively entirely inaccurate thing it already is. As a non-profit organization running an open source project, we don't currently have employees, hence the lack of a phone number. You may be able to find someone in the community willing to participate; if this is the case I think it is we've been following it with interest for a while now. Could you please elaborate on what is involved in reviewing the search warrant, reviewing the police report, or being an expert witness? Would this be an attempt to invalidate the search and suppress evidence acquired with it? Now addressing others on the list: I note an ethical dilemma here. It may well be that the accused is guilty of the things they are accused of, and invalidating this presumably-mistaken search warrant would allow them to go free. That said, do we want to resist the application of flawed statistics in prosecuting Freenet users? I'm leaning toward probably. Selectively assisting in fighting search warrants that seem invalid also seems unethical. Are we obligated to help? - Steve On Mon, Jul 25, 2016, 2:33 PM Hayley Rosenblum wrote: > Hello, > I am a law intern at Rosenblum, Schwartz, Rogers, & Glass, P.C. in St. > Louis, MO. As a criminal defense firm, we have recently been hired for a > Possession of Child Pornography case. According to the police report , a > special investigator began running copies of Freenet that had been modified > for law enforcement to log the IP address, key, and date, and time of > requests that were sent to these law enforcement Freenet nodes which were > then compared to keys of known child pornography. The special investigator > observed an IP address routing/and or requesting suspected child > pornography file blocks. The special investigation noted that the number > and timing of the request was significant enough to indicate that the IP > address was the apparent original requester of the file. > > We have doubts about the legitimacy of this based off some brief research > we have done on Freeness and how it works. Is there anyone I could contact > to discuss having a Freenet employee/specialist to review the search > warrant and police report and/or potentially hire as an expert witness. If > so, how much would you charge for that? > > Any information or further contacts would be great. I didn’t see a phone > number on the website, so I figured i’d start with an email! > > Thank you, > > Hayley Rosenblum > Law Intern > Rosenblum, Schwartz, Rogers, & Glass P.C. > rsrglaw.com > hrose...@slu.edu > office: 314-862-4332 > ___ > Support mailing list > Support@freenetproject.org > http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.support > Unsubscribe at > http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support > Or mailto:support-requ...@freenetproject.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Support mailing list Support@freenetproject.org http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.support Unsubscribe at http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support Or mailto:support-requ...@freenetproject.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [freenet-support] Question regarding legal case
Op 25 jul. 2016 22:03 schreef "Steve Dougherty" : > Now addressing others on the list: I note an ethical dilemma here. It may well be that the accused is guilty of the things they are accused of, and invalidating this presumably-mistaken search warrant would allow them to go free. That said, do we want to resist the application of flawed statistics in prosecuting Freenet users? I'm leaning toward probably. Selectively assisting in fighting search warrants that seem invalid also seems unethical. Are we obligated to help? > I do think that at least morally, we are obligated to help in reviewing the technical legitimacy of relevant evidence against a user of Freenet. For myself I'd rather ignore what the bigger picture is in this case, but focus on the technicalities instead (such as possibly a case of a law enforcement agency misusing statistics on Freenet against one of the software's users). >From what I read from Hayley's message, this is exactly what has been requested so far. I am willing to assist any other volunteer in reviewing said technicalities, but I would not feel comfortable doing that on my own (for I am just another volunteer who does not necessarily know about every single aspect of Freenet). > > On Mon, Jul 25, 2016, 2:33 PM Hayley Rosenblum wrote: >> We have doubts about the legitimacy of this based off some brief research we have done on Freeness and how it works. Is there anyone I could contact to discuss having a Freenet employee/specialist to review the search warrant and police report and/or potentially hire as an expert witness. If so, how much would you charge for that? ___ Support mailing list Support@freenetproject.org http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.support Unsubscribe at http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support Or mailto:support-requ...@freenetproject.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [freenet-support] Question regarding legal case
On Mon, Jul 25, 2016, at 03:03 PM, Steve Dougherty wrote: > > Now addressing others on the list: I note an ethical dilemma here. It > may well be that the accused is guilty of the things they are accused > of, and invalidating this presumably-mistaken search warrant would > allow them to go free. That said, do we want to resist the application > of flawed statistics in prosecuting Freenet users? I'm leaning toward > probably. Selectively assisting in fighting search warrants that seem > invalid also seems unethical. Are we obligated to help? > This is a great ethical question and it's been answered a million times in courts. There is a reason you hear about bad guys going free on "technicalities" and it's not that the system is broken or corrupt. The system is designed with an important safeguard: It's better for a HUNDRED guilty people to go free than for ONE innocent person to go to jail. If the prosecutors are using flawed statistics or a misunderstanding of Freenet to send GUILTY people to jail, then there is going to come a time when they use those same flaws to send an INNOCENT person to jail. If you provide testimony that truthfully describes how Freenet works and that sets a guilty person free, that is not your fault. (Likewise, if cops were using Tarot cards or a Magic 8-ball to "prove" people were guilty, and someone provided the truth about Tarot cards and Magic 8- ball's, and that causes a guilty person to go free, consider it a good thing that the system has been FIXED and good innocent people aren't wrongly going to jail.) Those "technicalities" that the cops in TV shows seem to hate so much are carefully designed protections to make sure that the system errs on the side of protecting the innocent. You will sleep better at night knowing that you told the truth. Consider the alternative: If you are ONLY going to provide testimony in cases where the defendant is innocent, then you're going to have to determine who's guilty and innocent. [And if you can do that, we don't really need courts anymore, we can all just Ask Steve.] If you withhold testimony because the guy is a scumbag and he goes to jail on flawed statistics, and then you find out years later that he was innocent, you are going to feel a lot worse than if you found out that a guilty guy went free. Just tell the truth about how your software works. Whatever happens after that is at least done with everyone's eyes open instead of closed. But fucking charge for it. $300 an hour seems fair. FOSS authors have a right to get paid for their time, knowledge, and expertise. If a court needs to understand how your software works, you already did the world a favor by WRITING the software, you're not obligated to ALSO teach everyone how to use it, teach them how to read code or to teach them statistics that they should have learned in high school. Be sure you get WELL paid for your time. The EFF will back me up on everything I'm saying. This isn't about twisting my mustache with an evil laugh because I've figured out how to get away with being a bad guy. This is about freedom to use software to be anonymous - the crypto community has been trying for decades to get people to understand that good and bad people EACH have uses for tools like encryption, hammers, guns, and Freenet. Encryption and Anonymity doesn't mean your probably guilty. The Federalist Papers, for example, were published anonymously and provided the ideas that eventually grew into the US Constitution. You are on solid ethical and moral ground - and in good company - by telling the truth about how your software works. - Eric ___ Support mailing list Support@freenetproject.org http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.support Unsubscribe at http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support Or mailto:support-requ...@freenetproject.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [freenet-support] Question regarding legal case
Hayley Rosenblum: > Hello, > I am a law intern at Rosenblum, Schwartz, Rogers, & Glass, P.C. in St. > Louis, MO. As a criminal defense firm, we have recently been hired for a > Possession of Child Pornography case. According to the police report , a > special investigator began running copies of Freenet that had been modified > for law enforcement to log the IP address, key, and date, and time of > requests that were sent to these law enforcement Freenet nodes which were > then compared to keys of known child pornography. The special investigator > observed an IP address routing/and or requesting suspected child > pornography file blocks. The special investigation noted that the number > and timing of the request was significant enough to indicate that the IP > address was the apparent original requester of the file. These two files may be of assistance [0][1], and I believe the developer volunteer by the name of ArneBab on FMS has posted a correction to the math used by LEA in regards to their black ice project [2]. Maybe try contacting them. > > We have doubts about the legitimacy of this based off some brief research > we have done on Freeness and how it works. Is there anyone I could contact > to discuss having a Freenet employee/specialist to review the search > warrant and police report and/or potentially hire as an expert witness. If > so, how much would you charge for that? > Due to Freenet being volunteer run we do not have any employees currently, you can maybe contact some of the core developers and see if they will be willing to do the work required to be an expert witness. I assume most do not live near the court house so they might ask for accommodations and financial compensation for the time they use not working their normal jobs. Outside of that I assume you can always donate to the Freenet project so we can hire an employee who then can be tasked with helping you. Clearnet Tor and Freenet links [0] Clearnet https://transfer.sh/WWpvv/freenet-investigations-white-paper-black-ice-090413-.pdf [0] Tor link http://jxm5d6emw5rknovg.onion/WWpvv/freenet-investigations-white-paper-black-ice-090413-.pdf [0] Frennet http://127.0.0.1:/CHK@NNYanp2t1gz12R12bg7Yct-SYOPTYvW2PNwids4vWz4,iqKClogwL6uLAFdxB6uxQQnA2ZNeyJ3hXW2sIJmx9aE,AAMC--8/Freenet%20Investigations%20White%20Paper%20-Black%20Ice%20%20%28090413%29.pdf [1] Tor Link http://jxm5d6emw5rknovg.onion/rzP7z/freenet-investigations-ppt.pdf [1] Clearnet https://transfer.sh/rzP7z/freenet-investigations-ppt.pdf [1] Freenet http://127.0.0.1:/CHK@a~ELucMCX0l9ZsnaT65b3U4wHFnQEAMTJvtNcPBPpi0,zldlhl2CRhOgrK6dQP1dNWtwMlNrchlb6Oc-Kucpc04,AAMC--8/Freenet_Investigations_PPT.pdf [2] Clearnet http://pastie.org/private/opjj1qtbbhkbkwif5mjhq [2] Freenet http://127.0.0.1:/SSK%40%2DjtTqLLTLaRaqqNx4Jq9Kxw5ejhGDxkeCdlDN9ckH1w%2Cd9Vg7c6m3QnsidlVyEMkxJB5e4XSrx8PZ4ahzY0nwoQ%2CAQACAAE/fms%7C2016%2D04%2D13%7CMessage%2D0?type=text/plain ___ Support mailing list Support@freenetproject.org http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.support Unsubscribe at http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support Or mailto:support-requ...@freenetproject.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [freenet-support] Question regarding legal case
>These two files may be of assistance [0][1], and I believe the developer >volunteer by the name of ArneBab on FMS has posted a correction to the >math used by LEA in regards to their black ice project [2]. Maybe try >contacting them. > >[0] Clearnet >https://transfer.sh/WWpvv/freenet-investigations-white-paper-black-ice-090413-.pdf >[1] Clearnet >https://transfer.sh/rzP7z/freenet-investigations-ppt.pdf >[2] Clearnet >http://pastie.org/private/opjj1qtbbhkbkwif5mjhq Curious that the clearnet links are all inaccessable!? at least when I tried. Except [2] but that page links to a page that needs an account to logon.___ Support mailing list Support@freenetproject.org http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.support Unsubscribe at http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support Or mailto:support-requ...@freenetproject.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [freenet-support] Question regarding legal case
The files where uploaded to a temporary filehost, they should still be available on Freenet. Seems the pastie.org is still working for me. Bryce: > >>These two files may be of assistance [0][1], and I believe the developer >>volunteer by the name of ArneBab on FMS has posted a correction to the >>math used by LEA in regards to their black ice project [2]. Maybe try >>contacting them. >> >>[0] Clearnet >>https://transfer.sh/WWpvv/freenet-investigations-white-paper-black-ice-090413-.pdf > >>[1] Clearnet >>https://transfer.sh/rzP7z/freenet-investigations-ppt.pdf >>[2] Clearnet >>http://pastie.org/private/opjj1qtbbhkbkwif5mjhq > > Curious that the clearnet links are all inaccessable!? at least when I > tried. > Except [2] but that page links to a page that needs an account to logon. > > > ___ > Support mailing list > Support@freenetproject.org > http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.support > Unsubscribe at http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support > Or mailto:support-requ...@freenetproject.org?subject=unsubscribe > ___ Support mailing list Support@freenetproject.org http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.support Unsubscribe at http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support Or mailto:support-requ...@freenetproject.org?subject=unsubscribe