
Silk Road trial closes - tptacek
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/02/silk-road-trial-closes-its-a-hacker-its-a-virus-its-ludicrous/
======
tptacek
Poison oak! I can't get over the fact that the prosecution had evidence of the
DPR, _in character_ , complaining about poison oak at the same time as
Ulbricht complained to his ex-girlfriend about poison oak.

~~~
rayiner
If the evidence was manufactured, say by some hacker with access to Ulbricht's
accounts, it _would_ contain little tidbits like that one. Not that I think it
was. But there are some meaty issues here about the reliability of evidence in
the digital age, and I'm disappointed that this is such a lousy case for
airing them out.

~~~
pdabbadabba
Please forgive an ignorant question from someone who has not been following
this very closely: is there any substantial evidence that the prosecution's
evidence _was_ manufactured (either by the prosecution itself, or a third
party seeking to frame Ulbricht)?

It's entirely possible for virtually any evidence to be manufactured (granted,
it's often easier with digital evidence), but in most cases we take it at face
value simply because there is no reason to think it's been faked.

[Edited to clarify that I'm not just asking about evidence allegedly
manufactured by the prosecution.]

~~~
bradleyjg
There's no indication than any of the substantive evidence (i.e. the evidence
that tends to indicate Ulbricht is guilty) was manufactured. There is a strong
argument to be made that the government's testimony as to how it came to
obtain that evidence is fraudulent or at the very least incomplete* (which is
not relevant to guilt, but would have been relevant to a suppression motion
under the fourth amendment except the defense inexplicably procedurally
defaulted on that question+.)

* See [http://blog.erratasec.com/2014/10/reading-silk-road-configur...](http://blog.erratasec.com/2014/10/reading-silk-road-configuration.html) and [http://krebsonsecurity.com/2014/10/silk-road-lawyers-poke-ho...](http://krebsonsecurity.com/2014/10/silk-road-lawyers-poke-holes-in-fbis-story/)

\+
[http://ia700603.us.archive.org/21/items/gov.uscourts.nysd.42...](http://ia700603.us.archive.org/21/items/gov.uscourts.nysd.422824/gov.uscourts.nysd.422824.89.0.pdf)
(starting on page 6)

~~~
tptacek
The issue here is that the FBI discovered the SR server in Iceland and didn't
credibly reveal how they did it, and the rest of the evidence is traceable
back to the server imaging that Iceland did.

Against that is the assertion that they had Ulbricht's name prior to the
server seizure, and that virtually all of the most important evidence in the
case came from the laptop, which was searched with a warrant and incident to
his lawful arrest. There's also the notion of inevitable discovery to contend
with.

~~~
dmix
A IRS special agent apparently found Ross "first" using Google:

[http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/01/the-incredibly-
si...](http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/01/the-incredibly-simple-story-
of-how-the-govt-googled-ross-ulbricht/)

------
josu
>Ulbricht’s computer may have been infiltrated—perhaps via the BitTorrent
client that was downloading the previous day’s Colbert Report when he was
arrested.

Is he saying that he was downloading torrent files to the same computer that
he was using to run SR? This guy had enough money to use a seedbox, even if he
wasn't running the SR why wouldn't he use one? But specially, if he were
running the SR, why would he start opening ports like crazy?

Are there any evidence showing that Ulbricht was careful and paranoid about
his online activity. Because it is also possible that he thought that he was
invincible and started disregarding basic things like those.

~~~
mahyarm
I think anyone who has the competency to avoid doing bad operational stuff
like this probably realizes the horrifying possible consequences of starting
something like silk road or even a bitcoin exchange and doesn't start one.

~~~
runjake
Well said.

Smart people tend to avoid getting into a "I have to be lucky every day, they
just have to get lucky once" situation -- especially when it involves their
life or freedom.

------
davidgerard
What not to do in a Bitcoin-related drug and money-laundering trial: annoy the
judge.
[http://ia600603.us.archive.org/21/items/gov.uscourts.nysd.42...](http://ia600603.us.archive.org/21/items/gov.uscourts.nysd.422824/gov.uscourts.nysd.422824.173.0.pdf)

~~~
probably_wrong
Apparently, the prosecution was not less annoying. From this[1] Forbes report:

> She was annoyed. The defense was annoyed. The press gallery was annoyed. By
> the time the lunch break rolled around, Judge Forrest struggled to hold back
> her irritation. “I’m not suggesting the government doesn’t have a right to
> object,” she said. But, “I think that there are objections which are
> objections that you really need to make, and then there are objections where
> there certainly may be a legal basis for it, but the better part of valor is
> to stand down.”

> But the rapid-fire objections continued throughout the day.

[1] [http://www.forbes.com/sites/sarahjeong/2015/02/03/the-
silk-r...](http://www.forbes.com/sites/sarahjeong/2015/02/03/the-silk-road-
trial-that-wasnt/)

~~~
snake_plissken
Re the Forbes article, I have never completely understood how hearsay rules
work. The sworn affidavit from Der-Yeghiayan can be entered as evidence but
then certain parts of it can be labeled as hearsay and then the jury the can
be told to disregard those specific parts as well as his testimony relating to
the contents of the affidavit? How does this not bring in to question the
accuracy and integrity of the entire affidavit?

~~~
jnks
Roughly, "hearsay" means that the person testifying to a fact was not a
witness to it themselves or does not have direct knowledge over it. So it's
entirely possible that some parts of the affidavit are hearsay while others
are acceptable testimony.

------
rootlocus
"The Internet permits—and thrives, to a certain extent—on deception and
misdirection". That's exactly why DPR and Ulbricht shouldn't be compared the
way the defense does. "Would DPR do that?" is a pathetic argument in this
context.

------
moyix
Assuming Ulbricht is found guilty and then appeals, will he get a second
chance to challenge the FBI's account of how they found the server in the
first place? Nicholas Weaver [1] seems to think they could have admitted to
owning the servers (and thus having standing to contest the FBI's story about
how they found it) without harming their case:

> Such a declaration is not an admission of guilt: it can only be used by the
> prosecution if the defendant testifies.

But I don't know if that door will be closed to them on appeal...

[1] [http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/02/op-ed-ross-
ulbric...](http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/02/op-ed-ross-ulbricht-got-
a-fair-trial-but-not-a-fair-investigation/)

------
rilita
Best part of that; they arrested him while his encrypted computer was on, with
him sitting there logged in as DPR. Why do computer criminals not have a big
red button to smash that self destructs their computer; or at the very least
shuts it off instantaneously?

~~~
quux
The FBI agents grabbed his hands and pulled them away from the computer before
he knew what was happening. Even with a BRB he wouldn't have been able to
secure his computer.

~~~
rilita
Token in your pocket that auto locks the computer the instant you are pulled
away from it? Google "proximity lock"; they cost like $20.

