Documents temporarily removed; doing redactions

The material in the affidavits is just too vile to expose to easy public access. I will turn the post back on when I’ve redacted the relevant portions.

This is not a pleasant task.

If you, ICAC, the Seattle Police Department, the judicial system, and the rest actually want to fight the horrors described in these documents, maybe you should try educating yourselves. You pointlessly spent time and money hassling a Tor operator when things like this are going on. You had one job, and you botched it.

UPDATE¬† (4/11/2016, 12:34 A.M.) — Documents redacted, post back up. (See below.)

4 Replies to “Documents temporarily removed; doing redactions”

  1. Actually, it does bother me that the material was distributed using our equipment. I wonder why you would assume it doesn’t?

    I don’t want child abusers using our hardware. It makes me very unhappy, in fact, physically ill. I personally insisted on the redaction of the child porn video description personally because in my opinion every time that description is read, that child is violated again. I want no part of it. Yes, I am making distribution of it possible. No, it’s not an easy position to maintain. But I can’t support someone in China being able to read the New York Times without also making that use of our equipment possible. But I think child porn and drug dealing will exist with or without the Tor network, but that dissidents could very well be silenced and isolated if it’s closed down. That’s my rationale. It’s not comfortable, and I don’t *think* it’s self-righteous (could be wrong about that), but I stand by it.

    1. It does amaze me that people appear to think that shutting down Tor would stop crime. I guess it’s because they remember how back before computers, there weren’t any drug dealers, terrorists, or vicious child abusers. I guess I was born too late. I wish I could have lived back in that time.

  2. Aren’t you self-righteous? Even the description in the search warrant is too vile for you to repost; you censor it. Yet the actual material itself was posted through your computer, in your house, using an anonymization gateway you advertised to the public, and which was reported to the police. That doesn’t bother you at all.

    You’re complaining about the legal system doing their job and a very professional police response, while you don’t even want people to see what it is they were responding to, which was a graphic video of child abuse distributed from your home. You seem to confuse running a Tor exit node with a “get out of jail free” card.

    Yes if the police were aware you were running a Tor exit node at the time of the warrant application it should have been disclosed to the judge. Yes that check should probably be part of a forensic investigation. But I don’t think they have any legal obligation to check, nor does it really undermine the warrant application either way. If you had been running a Tor exit node in a more appropriate hosting environment, the police would still either search under warrant or gather evidence under subpoena.

    I understand and sympathize with the rationale of the Tor network. I don’t understand the notion that law enforcement should throw up its hands and just assume cryptoimpunity at the first glimpse of crypto opsec countermeasures.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.