"...they were just interacting with a web service in the way it is supposed to be interacted with - by sending it http requests"
That line of reasoning sounds a lot like the Andre 'Weev' Auernheimer case [0], where he gathered AT&T customers' email addresses by interacting with a server simply by 'sending it HTTP requests.' The FBI made its position clear on that case, prosecuting Weev for "conspiracy to gain unauthorized access to computers" and ultimately getting the guy sentenced to three years in prison.
The overarching circumstances are clearly different but undeniably parallel. It seems curious to me that the FBI could use these some sort of apparently 'criminal' tactics (by their own precedent) as legal grounds in their case against DPR.
The slight difference is the FBI is investigating the source of the Silk Road (not illegal), vs. trying to obtain private information of folks from ATT (illegal).
There is no difference if they did not have a warrant. The FBI has the ability to break into your house, but if they do that without having a warrant they can't use anything they found against you.
I think you're probably right, but the argument up-thread was that the justice system is hypocritical regarding the permissibility of actions taken by the government compared to individual people.
Yeah, I think the key here is that Silk Road's IP address is public information, especially since they were able to connect to it directly, whereas AT&T users' private information is private.
"Are you also surprised that the FBI can shoot people dead, while most people would get prosecuted for that?"
Hopefully the FBI won't be shooting people dead as a means of preparing a legal case—-that would be a pretty frightening 'ends justify the means' mindset. The crux of the matter is due process [0].
Granted, I'm not a lawyer nor am I well versed in legal processes: from a purely lay perspective, I just am seeing the FBI call tactic A a crime right before employing the same tactic A to indict someone else, and it smells like hypocrisy to me (honestly, more likely mistreatment of Weev than of DPR.)
Congratulations! You have been nominated for worst pun on HN 2014. An awards dinner in Anchorage is scheduled for December and Jon Stewart will be compering!
That line of reasoning sounds a lot like the Andre 'Weev' Auernheimer case [0], where he gathered AT&T customers' email addresses by interacting with a server simply by 'sending it HTTP requests.' The FBI made its position clear on that case, prosecuting Weev for "conspiracy to gain unauthorized access to computers" and ultimately getting the guy sentenced to three years in prison.
The overarching circumstances are clearly different but undeniably parallel. It seems curious to me that the FBI could use these some sort of apparently 'criminal' tactics (by their own precedent) as legal grounds in their case against DPR.
[0] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/18/andrew-weev-auernhe...