Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

US Government Seizes Email of WikiLeaks Volunteer

Soulskill posted about 3 years ago | from the advertisement-for-the-usps dept.

The Internet 217

bs0d3 writes "The U.S. Department of Justice has forced Gmail and Sonic.net to hand over the personal information of Jacob Appelbaum, a WikiLeaks volunteer. Sonic says they fought to keep the DoJ out of Appelbaum's records, which was very expensive but 'the right thing to do.' Google said, 'we comply with the law,' although 'Both Google and Sonic pressed for the right to inform Mr. Appelbaum of the secret court orders, according to people familiar with the investigation.' The collected information and the nature of the investigation remain classified. Applebaum's Gmail correspondence seized by the DoJ dates back to November 1, 2009, which is believed to be the month that WikiLeaks contributor and Army Private Bradley Manning allegedly began communication with Julian Assange. Last year, federal prosecutors used a similar subpoena to obtain information pertaining to Applebaum's Twitter account."

cancel ×

217 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

The three basics of sensitive e-mails (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37672120)

1. Encryption

2. Encryption

3. Encryption

Re:The three basics of sensitive e-mails (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37672162)

Stop aiding the terrorists!

Re:The three basics of sensitive e-mails (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37672192)

US government using terror tactics. Who is the terrorist?

Re:The three basics of sensitive e-mails (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37672326)

From: AC
To: AC
Subject: Calendar Email Reminder
Message:
1:00 Appointment for sarcasm detector repair

Re:The three basics of sensitive e-mails (2)

networkBoy (774728) | about 3 years ago | (#37672168)

1. No Free E-mail
2. No Free E-mail
3. No Free e_mail

However, applause to Sonic.net (and to a lesser extent google) for fighting the DoJ (and at least fighting to inform the user).
-nB

Re:The three basics of sensitive e-mails (2)

superdave80 (1226592) | about 3 years ago | (#37672466)

I use Sonic.net as my ISP, and this is one of the reasons. They actually give a shit about their customers. I could probably get AT&T DSL for less, but I'm going to continue to support this company.

Re:The three basics of sensitive e-mails (1)

Ossifer (703813) | about 3 years ago | (#37672894)

If you can get Sonic's Fusion product, AT&T can't compete with that.

Disclaimer: I am a very happy Sonic Fusion customer.

Re:The three basics of sensitive e-mails (1)

superdave80 (1226592) | about 3 years ago | (#37673046)

Too far out on the edge of town to get it (yet) :-(

Re:The three basics of sensitive e-mails (4, Insightful)

Hatta (162192) | about 3 years ago | (#37672382)

Even non-sensitive emails may have some value to a government on a witch hunt. It only takes six lines written by the hand of the most honest man...

Re:The three basics of sensitive e-mails (2)

ackthpt (218170) | about 3 years ago | (#37672650)

Even non-sensitive emails may have some value to a government on a witch hunt. It only takes six lines written by the hand of the most honest man...

You're missing a few lines, please elaborate! :o)

Re:The three basics of sensitive e-mails (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37673152)

If you are unaware of the quote, Cardinal Richelieu states in the late 19th century:

"If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him."

Re:The three basics of sensitive e-mails (1)

__Paul__ (1570) | about 3 years ago | (#37672860)

...furthermore: don't leave your email on the server, use an ISP in a country that isn't hung up on trifling matters such as these and preferably an ISP that isn't organised enough to keep a copy of every email that goes in or out; use a VM, they're unlikely to archive the entire TCP stream going in and out of it.

Re:The three basics of sensitive e-mails (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37673088)

Encrypting the content of the email does not mask your IP address from the connection logs.

Re:The three basics of sensitive e-mails (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37673188)

It took you longer to type that post than it would take the NSA to break any encryption this guy could have applied...they've been able to decrypt things like this in real time for over a decade now.

Using encryption to hide information from the US government is pointless if the information is important enough that the government will allocate the necessary resources to break it.

Re:The three basics of sensitive e-mails (2)

Intrepid imaginaut (1970940) | about 3 years ago | (#37673586)

Sure, that will stop the government: http://xkcd.com/538/ [xkcd.com]

This is a problem that can only be fixed by fixing the government, no technological solution exists.

The problem is the law (4, Insightful)

einhverfr (238914) | about 3 years ago | (#37672166)

As I understand it, the 4th Amendment is generally extended to cover contents of communications, meaning a warrant is supposed to be required for such contents. However, as I understand it, the current laws make a difference between recent communications and less recent ones, meaning that old emails can be obtained at a lower burden (and via a subpoena) while newer emails may require a warrant.

Note that all that is required for a subpeona is for the DoJ to say they think there is content in the emails which probably relates to an on-going criminal investigation..... So historical data is up for grabs just because someone thinks it might be relevant.......

Note that these apply only to communications hosted on third parties. It seems to me prudent to actually download all your communictions and stop relying on either IMAP or webmail interfaces, so that the contents can no longer be subject to subpeona.

Re:The problem is the law (1)

networkBoy (774728) | about 3 years ago | (#37672290)

You are making the assumption that even if you don't use webmail or IMAP that there will not be old copies of your mail floating around. As we all know google does everything fast, except deleting data.
If you really want to be secure I would suggest using your own mailserver, but this is not realistic for 99+% of the population.
Heck, I don't even own my mailserver (though it is private, on a virtual host on another ISPs machine).
-nB

Re:The problem is the law (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37672480)

Really the best solution is to obey the law and then you have nothing to fear, citizen 4356465446.

Re:The problem is the law (2)

einhverfr (238914) | about 3 years ago | (#37672554)

If you delete your emails, at least, then I would think that there might be stronger 4th Amendment grounds to challenge government possession of said emails via a subpoena. IANAL though.

Re:The problem is the law (1)

KaoticEvil (91813) | about 3 years ago | (#37672312)

As I understand it, the 4th Amendment is generally extended to cover contents of communications, meaning a warrant is supposed to be required for such contents.

The problem is that the Patriot Act (thanks again, Dubya.) allows the DoJ and FBI or any other law enforcement agency to pretty much do whatever they want if they claim you are a "terrorist" or "aiding terrorist actions"..

Re:The problem is the law (5, Insightful)

superdave80 (1226592) | about 3 years ago | (#37672538)

...thanks again, Dubya...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA_PATRIOT_Act#Details [wikipedia.org]

The Act was passed in the House by 357 to 66 (of 435) and in the Senate by 98 to 1 and was supported by members of both the Republican and Democratic parties.

Both parties started this, and both parties have continued to support this act. (You'll notice that the Dems didn't repeal this when they had full control of the House, Senate, and Presidency). The sooner you stop thinking there is an 'us' and 'them' when it comes to the two parties, the better off you will be.

Re:The problem is the law (3, Insightful)

KaoticEvil (91813) | about 3 years ago | (#37672764)

It's not so much an "us and them" when it comes to the parties, it seems more and more that it's an "us and them" between the government and the people.

Re:The problem is the law (1)

ColdWetDog (752185) | about 3 years ago | (#37672768)

The sooner you stop thinking there is an 'us' and 'them' when it comes to the two parties, the better off you will be.

Nah. He's screwed either way. Give him his little delusion, won't hurt.

Re:The problem is the law (1)

Stormthirst (66538) | about 3 years ago | (#37673888)

It doesn't help when they don't want to appear weak on terrorism. This kind of thing happens in England too. It's stupid, and just shows how many idiots there are. Of course all this will be resolved when I become the benevolent dictator

Re:The problem is the law (1)

einhverfr (238914) | about 3 years ago | (#37672574)

The PATRIOT act doesn't supercede the bill of rights.

Besides the problem here is not the USAPATRIOT act, but rather the Stored Communications Act.

Re:The problem is the law (5, Insightful)

Grishnakh (216268) | about 3 years ago | (#37672586)

The problem is that the Patriot Act (thanks again, Dubya.)

You mean "thanks again, Dubya and Obama". Obama signed an extension earlier this year.

Re:The problem is the law (2)

afabbro (33948) | about 3 years ago | (#37674008)

...and voted for the original.

Re:The problem is the law (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37672398)

and when the search features of windows itself start calling home on you what then? since vista and 7 the search is as tightly integrated as the failed google desktop search...
if you are going to do something the government wants to stop i suggest you not rely on computers, at all.

Re:The problem is the law (4, Insightful)

Hatta (162192) | about 3 years ago | (#37672438)

As I understand it, the 4th Amendment is generally extended to cover contents of communications, meaning a warrant is supposed to be required for such contents.

There's no "supposed to be" about it. Warrants are required for legal access to personal communications.

However, as I understand it, the current unconstitutional laws make a difference between recent communications and less recent ones

FTFY.

Re:The problem is the law (1)

martin-boundary (547041) | about 3 years ago | (#37672872)

Do you have the option of not abiding by unconstitutional laws with impunity?

Re:The problem is the law (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37673096)

Google is currently facing antitrust pressure and will obey all US laws.

Re:The problem is the law (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37673352)

only if you have more firepower than the person(s) breaking the law

Re:The problem is the law (1)

KaoticEvil (91813) | about 3 years ago | (#37672840)

And to all who note that the Dems didn't repeal it and the Obama signed the extension.. This I know, however, it was Dubya that *started* it.. That was my point..

Re:The problem is the law (1)

anagama (611277) | about 3 years ago | (#37673112)

Quit worrying about pesky things like amendments in the Bill of Rights. That so 1787.

Rule 1: (1)

arthurpaliden (939626) | about 3 years ago | (#37672200)

Run your own mail server.

Re:Rule 1: (1)

Bucky24 (1943328) | about 3 years ago | (#37672236)

It would still be the same situation, they'd just come after you (probably break down your door even) to take it. A larger provider has the resources to fight a court battle.

Re:Rule 1: (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37672284)

cat a bit of /dev/random over the drive beforehand and they can bust the door down all they want. Cant do that gmail!

Re:Rule 1: (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37672612)

Better yet:

If you're going to do stuff like this... Keep your mail server's mail database in RAM with swap turned off. Have it auto-purge emails older than X days, and periodically reboot it. You could even run the entire thing in a chroot jail on a RAM disk.

I've never done this, so I don't know exactly how it would be done, but I've seen plenty of in-RAM databases used in production environments to speed up data access, and RAM disks are old hat.

Re:Rule 1: (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37672972)

cat a bit of /dev/random over the drive beforehand and they can bust the door down all they want. Cant do that gmail!

Yeah! And while we're off in fantasyland where every tiny email server admin with sensitive emails to hide is a secret badass who can either psychically sense when the authorities are coming to his door and start a professional-grade, data forensics-proof erasing procedure in time OR can overpower, break away from, and delay a squad of SWAT troops long enough to do any unrecoverable damage to the data, maybe we can also dream up a moat full of sharks around the server! Sharks and dragons! And and and shark-dragons! Yeah! And we'll have a million bazillion guns operated by magic elves who never get tired and kill everything you tell them to! And then you'll call on your billion orbital lasers and kill everything to smithereens! Just like in the movies!

Or, in the real world, your door would prove an insufficient delay and teh sp00kz would pull your bony/blubbery arms away from the keyboard before you could even get a terminal open thanks to a combination of all the energy drinks you chug and the sudden unexpected jolt of adrenaline from the whole situation making your fingers so jittery that you can't even find the home row without excessive concentration. Then the power cables get ripped out of your UPS directly, stopping your auto-shred scripts from running on the first power outage, they haul your ass into a grey concrete box, they pull out the pipe wrench, and soon you're crying out every password you've ever used in your life, right down to each porn site you've ever visited, in a desperate attempt to get them to stop.

Oh, and before you ask, no, they have both better AND more guns than you do, and you'd magically transform from a human being to a leaky sack of flesh and bones before all your l33t firing range training could even get through the body armor of the first guy who barged into your room.

Re:Rule 1: (1)

Stormthirst (66538) | about 3 years ago | (#37673912)

Better yet encrypt the drives and then plead the 5th when they ask for the boot password.

Re:Rule 1: (2)

Glendale2x (210533) | about 3 years ago | (#37672436)

Colocate a server that's using whole disk encryption? Although they would probably just compel you to give up the key, although I seem to recall the EFF was arguing that should be covered under the 5th amendment.

Re:Rule 1: (1)

Bucky24 (1943328) | about 3 years ago | (#37672884)

I imagine it would be a lot harder to get to a colocated server, because first they'd have to get past the colocation facility to get the actual server, then they'd have to get the encryption key from you. But as you say, they'd probably just "compel" you to give up the key....

You COULD always plead the 5th to avoid giving them the key but in this day and age I imagine they'd probably throw you in jail or something worse.

Re:Rule 1: (2)

Stormthirst (66538) | about 3 years ago | (#37673920)

In England they've already got that covered with the RIPA - which IIRC requires you to give up passwords, and denies you any whistle blowing.

Re:Rule 1: (1)

einhverfr (238914) | about 3 years ago | (#37672858)

They'd still need a warrant, which means a lot more than telling a judge they think there is probable evidence that is somehow relevant to a case in order to get a subpoena.

Re:Rule 1: (1)

arthurpaliden (939626) | about 3 years ago | (#37672980)

Your server your retention rules.

Re:Rule 1: (1)

ackthpt (218170) | about 3 years ago | (#37672674)

Run your own mail server.

Download it all to your own client and choose a good client.

An investigation != Conviction (1)

Synerg1y (2169962) | about 3 years ago | (#37672242)

It's unfortunate that the DOJ can now seize emails whenever they feel like it without providing a reason, but I'd imagine there was a lot more pressure with this one than there is typically since this is a federal investigation. What next though? Jacob Appelbaum gets to disappear w a black bag? What exactly does the DOJ do nowadays?

And then there's statements like this...

"that raising the standard for obtaining information under ECPA may substantially slow criminal and national security investigations."

And that's a federal DA speaking, like I get he convicts pedos and murders and stuff, but have you ever heard of justice and ethics dude? Your DA score card isn't worth 1/1000 of a human life.

And here's what makes me shake my head...

Doing anything controversial on the internet... rule 101, don't tie personal information to your accounts. The technology available nowadays makes it mostly possible.

Re:An investigation != Conviction (1)

catmistake (814204) | about 3 years ago | (#37672812)

And that's a federal DA speaking, like I get he convicts pedos and murders and stuff, but have you ever heard of justice and ethics dude? Your DA score card isn't worth 1/1000 of a human life.

The way I see it, prosecutors forget the reason why they are immune from prosecution. Our Founding Fathers intentionally stacked the deck against the government to reduce the possibility of the innocent being convicted. But they gave prosecutors this ultimate power, this reminder, their immunity, which is intended so that they can afford to be just without external influence like politics, bribery, extortion, or prosecution. Most prosecutors at all levels seem to regard their immunity as though they were a Chicago Untouchable... above the law. They might get caught doing stuff wrong, using improper tactics or what have you, but they never ever are held accountable for it, so there's nothing stopping them from continuing certain practices because more often than not, they get away with it, whatever it is, and win their cases.

curious.. (2)

wierd_w (1375923) | about 3 years ago | (#37672250)

Isn't one of the requirements for legal action the notification of what specific charges one has filed against him, for the purposes of a speedy and competent defence?

Since when does the government have the authority to conduct secret searches, siezures, and investigations of private citizens without disclosure of an offical charge?

Re:curious.. (1)

networkBoy (774728) | about 3 years ago | (#37672308)

I think the thinking goes that you are not required to be notified that you are a person of interest. If they do not charge or detain you, I don't think you are legally entitled to be notified (*should* be notified, yes, required? I don't think so). IANAL, if there is AL here I would appreciate it if they could confirm this.

Re:curious.. (1)

wierd_w (1375923) | about 3 years ago | (#37672686)

Is this not in direct contravention of the 4th amendment?

Was not the spirit of the 4th amendment to prevent abuses of government against private citizens?

Are there not constitutional provisions preventing legal and judicial reprisals against witness testimonies?

From what rational and legal, as defined by the terms granted by the constitution, does the federal government assert authority to demand such information and papers without first lodging a formal charge, and issuance of a proper subpoena via a lawful warrant? (No, "interstate commerce" does not apply in this circumstance, since nothing was bought or sold, but was instead reported legally under the terms of the second amendment.)

As far as I can tell, the goverment is employing a dodgy legal corpus that was produced using a nonsanctioned method, as proscribed by the rules and practices outlined by the constitution, and is therefor not worth the paper it is printed on...

Can you validate that determination?

Re:curious.. (1)

uvajed_ekil (914487) | about 3 years ago | (#37674102)

Is this not in direct contravention of the 4th amendment?

The 4th Amendment doesn't always apply anymore, especially in high-profile cases (this relates to Wikileaks, i.e. front page news), or much at all in California, where the courts and Governor agree that your phone (think about what a smartphone does) can be searched without a warrant. If this doesn't scare you, it should. This exemplifies a recent and major swing in the balance of power, in favor of those in office or who already have the power. Most of us will still be okay most of the time, but if we piss someone off or want to unseat the powers that be, well...

If the trend of the accelerating erosion of our civil rights continues, bad times are ahead for the common man, and a new age of corruption and blackmail will be upon us. I for one welcome our new Soviet-esque overlords!!!

Re:curious.. (2)

flaming error (1041742) | about 3 years ago | (#37672310)

Since when does the government have the authority to...

Since the moment they decided to assume that authority, and nobody stopped them.

Re:curious.. (1)

MichaelKristopeit420 (2018880) | about 3 years ago | (#37672322)

you can't both invoke the law, and then deny the authority of those implicitly in charge of creating, interpreting and enforcing it.

government = authority.

you're an idiot.

Re:curious.. (1)

wierd_w (1375923) | about 3 years ago | (#37672428)

This particular law is codified into the foundational fabric of the document which gives any power whatsoever to said government. Said document explicitly states that any and all powers and authorities not explicitly granted to it by that document or by legal bodies produced through the procscribed proecess therein, are reserved to the individual states and citizens respectively.

The government has therefor already denied itself such authority, and granted authority to the states and private citizens to enforce that restriction.

And you, mr kristopeit, are an ignorant fool. I doubt anyone else on \. would assert anything to the contrary on that statement. As such, you needn't reply.

Re:curious.. (1)

MichaelKristopeit501 (2018074) | about 3 years ago | (#37672636)

said idiot is an idiot.

ur mum's face are an ignorant fool

even the constitution has been amended. even the amendments to the constitution have been revoked.

does your law permit the application of martial law under any circumstance?

you're an ignorant hypocrite.

cower in my shadow some more behind your non-standard based pseudonym while claiming to speak on behalf of others, feeb.

you're completely pathetic.

Re:curious.. (1)

wierd_w (1375923) | about 3 years ago | (#37672850)

1) I am not interested in, nor did I solicit your opinion, weak minded, repititious, and disturbed troll.

2) this sentence does not make sense. My mother has only one face, and while old and wrinkled, is certainly not that of a fool, as she holds 3 degrees in hard sciences. This clearly illustrates my prior assertion about your competency to conduct a civilized and informed discussion, so no further evidence on your behalf is needed, thank you.

3) yes, the constitution can and has been amended in the past. However, that particular part of the constitution has yet to be amended via the proscribed 2/3 majority vote required to do so, and I have never seen a footnote beneath the 2nd and 4th amendments limiting or abolishing them as seen beneath the prohibition amendments. What exactly were you trying to say here? That you are an ignorant ass? Yes, I agree.

4) no, the power and authority to recreate the government comes into play only when said government engages in willfully tyrranical and oppressive behaviors. Such as in this instance.

5) says the man making unfounded and unsupported assertions that are without merit.

6) I shall cower behind nothing, and shall enjoy the freedoms of my anonymity whilst laughing at your pathetically predictable trolling.

Re:curious.. (1)

MichaelKristopeit501 (2018074) | about 3 years ago | (#37673644)

again... you're an ignorant hypocrite. no one is interested in ur mum's face. you posted comments in a public forum. you solicited a response from anyone and everyone. you're an idiot.

your ignorant hypocrisy is what keeps you from understanding your hypocrisy... you'll never understand, again, because you're an idiot.

cower in my shadow some more behind your chosen non-standard based pseudonym, feeb.

make another list. number it.

you're completely pathetic.

Re:curious.. (1)

wierd_w (1375923) | about 3 years ago | (#37674092)

*gigglesnort*

Re:curious.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37673930)

In the future, if the username starts with MichaelKristopeit, don't bother responding.

Re:curious.. (2)

sangreal66 (740295) | about 3 years ago | (#37672348)

Since 1986 (It is all explained in the article). Further, he hasn't had any charges filed against him.

Re:curious.. (1)

Glendale2x (210533) | about 3 years ago | (#37672452)

Three words: National Security Letter

Re:curious.. (1)

jonwil (467024) | about 3 years ago | (#37672838)

Since the US government used a terrorist attack to pass all kinds of new laws (most of which would not have helped stop 9/11)

Damn you George Bush!!!! (5, Funny)

Vinegar Joe (998110) | about 3 years ago | (#37672258)

I will be soooo glad when that fascist George Bush is out of the White House! Shit like this will not happen when Obama is finally inaugurated! Change is coming!

Re:Damn you George Bush!!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37672298)

We know this isn't a matter of Republican/Democrat. This post brings nothing useful to the conversation. Piss off.

Re:Damn you George Bush!!!! (0)

Vinegar Joe (998110) | about 3 years ago | (#37672338)

Last night in bed your mama told me you voted for Obama too.

Re:Damn you George Bush!!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37672544)

That's Ok, your papa told me the same thing about you when I was doing him.

Re:Damn you George Bush!!!! (3)

Grishnakh (216268) | about 3 years ago | (#37672618)

Actually, it does bring something useful to the conversation, because most anti-Bush people do believe this is somehow all Bush's fault, and that Obama is blameless, and Vinegar Joe is doing his part to help bring the Obama supporters to reality.

Obama supporter, 2005: "the TSA's actions are violations of privacy."
Bush supporter, 2005: "we need to put aside concerns of privacy so we can be safe from terrorists."
Obama supporter, 2011: "we need to put aside concerns of privacy so we can be safe from terrorists."

Re:Damn you George Bush!!!! (1)

threat_or_menace (746325) | about 3 years ago | (#37672626)

I think it is well worth reminding people what Obama promised and what Obama delivered, on surveillance and on whistleblowing.

The poster you're pulling the long face over did not mention parties, he mentioned two personalities. The latter personality is
doing everything he can to demonstrate the importance of contintuity over all else in US politics.

Your choice to muddy the waters by bringing up political parties brings NUTTTC. PO.

Re:Damn you George Bush!!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37672668)

The only difference is that now it is done "Chicago Style" rather than Cowboy

Re:Damn you George Bush!!!! (1)

Lead Butthead (321013) | about 3 years ago | (#37672948)

you mean like... deep dish?

Re:Damn you George Bush!!!! (1)

einhverfr (238914) | about 3 years ago | (#37672870)

Umm.... the law in question was signed by none other than Ronald Reagan. It's the Stored Communications Act, signed in 1986.....

Volunteer? (0)

lucm (889690) | about 3 years ago | (#37672336)

> WikiLeaks volunteer

Does this imply that some people involved with Wikileaks were paid? (Besides lawyers and besides the Australian rapist in chief, although he apparently managed to screw his book deal after he found out that the book was not going to be "one of the unifying documents of our generation" after all).

Good! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37672370)

Break the law, you get what you get.

Encrypt everything (4, Insightful)

Junior J. Junior III (192702) | about 3 years ago | (#37672378)

This is why if you're going to be doing stuff that you want to keep private, you encrypt it. If he was conducting wikileaks business over gmail using unencrypted email, that's very sad for Mr. Applebaum.

Re:Encrypt everything (1)

gknoy (899301) | about 3 years ago | (#37673034)

Encryption does very little when they wanted to know info in the (unencrypted) headers: who he was talking to, and where/when.

Re:Encrypt everything (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37673870)

If you note, the government didn't ask for the contents, they asked for the correspondent email addreses.

Encryption won't help you when they go after the other nodes.

well... (1)

Charliemopps (1157495) | about 3 years ago | (#37672402)

At least they didn't just have a drone fire a hellfire missile into his apartment.

Re:well... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37672886)

I think the current position is that it's only legal to blow up Americans while they're on vacation.

Re:well... (1)

Arancaytar (966377) | about 3 years ago | (#37673924)

That might be one reason why they're so reluctant to let him back in the country whenever he returns from a conference.

@ioerror Every single time I re-enter the US, I am denied information about why I have been selected, detained, and so forth. It's clearly not random

Re:well... (1)

NewtonsLaw (409638) | about 3 years ago | (#37673906)

At least they didn't just have a drone fire a hellfire missile into his apartment.

No, Lulzsec are doing that, now that they have control of the drone craft by way of their carefully crafted virus ;-)

Secret subpoenas (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37672462)

Just pretend not to understand secret law...if that fails... "well excuuuuuuuuuuse me!"

And yet people use webmail (3, Insightful)

Josh Triplett (874994) | about 3 years ago | (#37672566)

Why would *anyone* involved in something as sensitive as WikiLeaks trust a webmail provider of any kind, or any third-party email storage? Run your own mail server, download your mails immediately, and store all emails locally on an encrypted drive. That won't protect new emails in transit (that's what GPG is for), but it'll protect existing emails. I can understand people using webmail when they don't really care. But in this case, it seems ridiculous.

Email to use (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37672604)

for privacy use Hushmail.com

Ditto (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37672656)

I'm frankly amazed that PGP / GnuPG hasn't caught on by now. I mean, it's almost 2012 for pete's sake - why are we still sending emails in the clear? Maybe events like this will make people rethink the importance of privacy in communication...

Contributor to the tor project (1)

stox (131684) | about 3 years ago | (#37672700)

Jacob is a contributor to the tor project, I am sure he is extremely aware of the privacy issues of using an email provider.

Re:Contributor to the tor project (1)

Glendale2x (210533) | about 3 years ago | (#37672792)

Jacob is a contributor to the tor project, I am sure he is extremely aware of the privacy issues of using an email provider.

You'd think so, but then why would he be anywhere near gmail?

Re:Contributor to the tor project (1)

Arancaytar (966377) | about 3 years ago | (#37673894)

If he used that address for anything security or privacy relevant, it's surely encrypted.

This isn't scary for the threat to Jacob Applebaum's secrets so much as for the precedent and principle. We can't all afford, effort-wise, to be as security-conscious as tor developers are. Yet if our email records can be forced from us without charges filed, then we need to be in order to keep our privacy.

Re:Contributor to the tor project (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37673882)

Didn't Wikileaks get its start by sniffing Tor exit nodes for sensitive information?

Open source clouds? (1)

MindPhlux (304416) | about 3 years ago | (#37672852)

Forgive me for being a bit undereducated on this front, but what exactly are examples of developers building open source 'cloud infrastructure'? Are there projects feasible to implement on a home server? I'd love to have a web accessible 'private cloud' to phase out my old VPN...

Re:Open source clouds? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37673174)

cloud = server. same thing.

If you are running a vpn to upload data to a server at home, you are already running a "private cloud".

also, wrong thread.

Dare the authorities to squash you? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37673102)

If you stick your tongue out at the authorities it should come as no surprise when they come down on you like a ton of bricks.. no sympathy.. stupid move
 

Technical solutions don't matter! cDc and TOR! (3, Informative)

EnergyScholar (801915) | about 3 years ago | (#37673260)

I see a lot of talk about technical solutions, not using free email, et cetera. If you think things through, you will see that none of that matters at all. Firstly, it's a safe bet that someone in the US Government not hampered by even the pretense of following the law already had all Jacob's official correspondence, encrypted or not. As I've posted multiple times already (see my previous posts), AUSCANNZUKUS has had access to a production quantum computer system capable of cracking PKI for many years, running as a virtual quantum machine on a winner-take-all style recurrent topological quantum neural network based on a physical system composed of non-abelian anyons (e.g. solitons) in a two-dimensional electron gas (e.g. in a HEMT, now present in most computers). For insight into this little-known factoid, digest this [nobelprize.org] published [wikipedia.org] research [arxiv.org] . Presumably, someone tipped off DOJ that there was something in Jacob's correspondence worth looking at. For those of you not yet willing to believe that PKI was cracked long ago, it's also rather trivial to inject a key logger onto most anyone's system, which is just as good as cracking PKI and ALSO defeats synchronous shared-secret cryptography. Personally, I'm disinclined to believe in such things, but I saw indirect evidence of it and figured out (after years of monomaniacal research) exactly what it must be and how it must work. Email me for details, or wait for the book.

Second, to the silly posters who wish to teach Jacob security fundamentals, you should be aware that he MAINTAINS THE TOR PROJECT, and is a member of the cDc. He certainly knows more than you or I about security fundamentals, and I've been a CISSP for years, wrote banking software, and was a security lead for Symantec. Do you really think that the MAINTAINER OF THE TOR PROJECT does not know how to become anonymous online? Hacktivismo is a spin-off of the cDc, and Wikileaks is a Hacktivismo project. That detail still has not been in the media, as far as I can tell, but it is obvious to anyone who looks into the topic, and is certainly known to three-letter agencies. Just google for "disruptive compliance" and their mission statement floats right to the top (this is a Google hack, from the people who wrote Goolag). Consider Wikileaks, and then answer this question posed by that document in 2003 (the year the Wikileaks project began), "But what disruptively compliant, hacktivist applications shall we write?"

Third, in case this hasn't been pointed out before, Wikileaks did not break any laws. If they had, you can bet the US DOJ would have ALREADY charged someone with something, rather than trumping up a sex offense at just the right time. FYI, the Swedish attorney who charged Julian Assange with a sex offense is the SAME Swedish attorney who represented the CIA for the Extraordinary Rendition [wikipedia.org] trials, which makes him a CIA asset by definition. What Jacob Applebaum did was travel to Iceland and meet with other Wikileaks people for a few weeks. It's safe to say there was online correspondence, too. It's also safe to say, unless someone was downright stupid, that any truly sensitive communication was done anonymously. The ENTIRE POINT of Wikileaks was to set up the document submission policy to keep submitters anonymous, to make it IMPOSSIBLE to pressure the Wikileaks journalists into revealing sources (as governments have done to so many journalists recently). You can't tell what you don't know! If a source (e.g. Private Manning) is foolish enough to REVEAL THEMSELF then they are going to get in trouble. Even then, one can make a VERY STRONG argument that the documents he leaked (assuming he did it) reveal WAR CRIMES, in which case he was morally AND LEGALLY required to leak them, given that the usual chain of command was CLEARLY not going to support leaking documents that incriminate itself. This legal precedent was established during the Nuremburg trials. Anyone who has taken a sacred oath to uphold the US Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, should understand this.

Finally, readers should be aware that Jacob Applebaum acted as a Spokesperson for Wikileaks at several US events, when Julian Assange was unable to attend for (reasonable) fear of persecution by the US Government. Anyone with the gonads to publicly represent Wikileaks in the USA (c.f. Glenn Greenwald) already EXPECTS to be harassed, persecuted, investigated, and probably arrested by the US Government. It doesn't matter whether one actually commits a crime, they will find (or make up, or plant ...) something. I expect Jacob will be OK.

Re:Technical solutions don't matter! cDc and TOR! (0)

afabbro (33948) | about 3 years ago | (#37674042)

I see a lot of talk about technical solutions, not using free email, et cetera. If you think things through, you will see that none of that matters at all. Firstly, it's a safe bet that someone in the US Government not hampered by even the pretense of following the law already had all Jacob's official correspondence, encrypted or not. As I've posted multiple times already (see my previous posts), AUSCANNZUKUS has had access to a production quantum computer system capable of cracking PKI for many years, running as a virtual quantum machine on a winner-take-all style recurrent topological quantum neural network based on a physical system composed of non-abelian anyons (e.g. solitons) in a two-dimensional electron gas

Told you not to use the cheap alloys in your tin hat, but did you listen? No.

I can't be the only one (1)

future assassin (639396) | about 3 years ago | (#37673270)

to think, why would anyone doing anything anti gov or illegal use a free email server or even keep the emails on the server. Cant be that hard to download all your emails from a hosted server and store them on an encrypted usb drive. Would it have been that hard to pay $20 per year for a shared hosting/vps not on US soil?

Re:I can't be the only one (2)

Arancaytar (966377) | about 3 years ago | (#37673844)

Did you think Google deletes email you download?

There's Law for YOU and Law for THEM (3, Insightful)

rueger (210566) | about 3 years ago | (#37673680)

How cute, arguing about whether or not the government is behaving properly.

Accept the facts: the rules that apply to you do not apply to the government, especially the secret bits of it. Not because you can't find a statute to support your argument, but because they DON'T CARE and will ignore the rules when it suits them.

And they have bigger, badder guns than you do, and are able to send you off to foreign prisons if they figure it will shut you up.

In movies the Good Guys can win. This is real life though.

Surprising (1)

Arancaytar (966377) | about 3 years ago | (#37673826)

Considering the United States is already pretty much strip-searching him whenever he goes near a border, you'd think they already know far more about him than they wanted.

Apparently there's a sort of "Do Not Fly Without TSA Harassment" list.

Big Effin Deal (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37673948)

When the POTUS can literally designate you a terrorist and assassinate you at will, then you can pretty much forget any other rights you "think" you have. Americans have been compliant in handing over every right over the last decade. It's sad how low we've....hey... look! A terrorist...someone protect me! *sob*

Message to Jacob Applebum and his sister (1)

uvajed_ekil (914487) | about 3 years ago | (#37673966)

Jake, sorry to hear about you getting into trouble with the big dogs, and hopefully you get out of it. And if you talk to your sister Bonita Applebum, tell her she's gotta put me on.

Bonita, Bonita, Bonita.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?