cops appear to be pushing it: http://www.numerama.com/tech/144720-un-lyceen-risque-la-prison-pour-un-outil-de-communication-chiffre.html
although my French not really up to it.
French police have arrested the operator of a log-free Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP) service allegedly used by a hacking gang responsible for making dozens of fake bomb threats to schools around the world. Les Gendarmes say they've cuffed Vincent Lauton, 18, allegedly operator of runs darkness.su which …
If he's not actually logging anything useful, then why refuse to hand over the keys ?
If you witness a crime and have firsthand information on it, then refuse to tell the police when asked, you are bloody well complicit.
He has information that can help the police in bomb threats. I'm all for anonymity, but when lives are threatened fuck anonymity. I want the bastards caught and removed from civilization.
He hands over the keys to prove his innocence. When the kerfluffle is over, he changes keys.
You operate a site promising to look the other way, you takes your chances. He took them and it blew up in his face. Now he must face the consequences.
If he's not actually logging anything useful, then why refuse to hand over the keys ?
Are you sure he was asked for the keys to the server?
El Reg says "decryption keys for his computer", which usually means his personal computer. If it were the server's keys in question, IME articles would usually describe it as "decryption keys for the server".
"In Napoleonic law, you are guilty until proven innocent. There is no 'presumption of innocence' - that is an Anglo-Saxon notion..."
I'd never heard that before, so I looked it up, and - guess what? - it is Not True! You will find a) that the Napoleonic Code (which even then isn't accurate - it is the "Code Civil") applies only to civil cases. Criminal matters are dealt with by the "Code Pénal" and the "Code de Procédure Pénale". b) Under the French Bill of Rights, the French justice system works under the rules established in the "Déclaration des Droits de l'Homme et du Citoyen", which states in the ninth article that:
"As all persons are held innocent until they shall have been declared guilty, if arrest shall be deemed indispensable, all harshness not essential to the securing of the prisoner's person shall be severely repressed by law."(Wikipedia's translation)
There is a nice explanation at http://message.snopes.com/showthread.php?t=82288, but logic would show that the ECHR would make such a system illegal - the accuser must always have the onus of proving that someone did something, not the other way around. The French prisons would be stuffed to rafters if your assertion was correct.
"If he's not actually logging anything useful, then why refuse to hand over the keys"
Principle?
"If you witness a crime and have firsthand information on it, then refuse to tell the police when asked, you are bloody well complicit"
Not in any sane jurisdiction you're not. You're not in the UK unless the crime is terrorism for example.
darkness.su which positions itself firmly a service for those seeking high anonymity.
That's all very well. I totally support people's right to anonymity on the net, but this particular service seems to lack a little something in the altruism department.
So do I, but the problem is that some people equate anonymity with being unaccountable, and that's not on IMHO.
If someone can be held accountable, then they can be identified. If someone can be identified, they are not anonymous. So logically, you actually do not support anonymity on the net.
Glad they caught the little sh*ts.
They didn't. They caught a middle-man, who may or may not be directly involved.
If someone can be held accountable, then they can be identified. If someone can be identified, they are not anonymous. So logically, you actually do not support anonymity on the net.
Nope. You're adding to the confusion by mixing up "identifiable" with "accountable" :). As any website owner knows, you may be able to identify who is running scripts against your website, but that doesn't mean you stand a chance getting the idiot strung up by his nuts for it because there is no legal way to get to these people. In general, people in allegedly "developed" nations are accountable because there are laws and, if there is a juicy press story associated with it or if you've annoyed someone with influence, even police forces that may get off their rear end and find you.
Any anon that you appear to consider as The One True Form™ has to access the Net from somewhere, which means there is always a point where anonymous is not, and a person may become identifiable. In a nation with law enforcement that hasn't quite fallen asleep, such can lead to being held to account.
Nope. You're adding to the confusion by mixing up "identifiable" with "accountable" :)
Nope, there was no mix-up on my part. I'm merely saying that "identifiable" is a logical pre-requisite to "accountable". If one wishes actual anonymity to be possible, one must accept that accountability cannot be absolute.
The practical limits of anonymity on the Internet is another discussion entirely!
If the guy is going to host any kind of anonymising service he should be fully prepped to deal with the consequences, including getting legal advice over decryption keys for his personal laptop.
Yes the cops are probably over reaching going after his personal stuff, but I suspect the law (rightly or wrongly) is on their side. It would be in the UK.
Personally in his situation I'd be running something vanilla and innocuous and unencrypted on my personal laptop, with Tails on a microsd card up my butt* on a piece of string for anything iffy.
*other hiding places are available.
Speaking personally - since my daughters school was one of those affected, (plod stationed outside it all day afterwards) I hope he cooperates at his fullest with helping catch the morons who did this.