So I made an appointment and talked to the investigator. He told me someone placed an order at a web shop, then hacked the iDeal transaction, the electronic payment system in the Netherlands. My home IP address showed up in the logging. I asked him what the IP address was and I confirmed it was indeed my IP address. For the investigator, this was a sure sign I was the hacker, because who on earth knows his IP address by heart unless you're a hacker? Yeah, I know, not a very smart move.
I told him why my IP address had shown up: the scraper had visited the store to update prices. And I told him if I was able to hack iDeal transactions I wouldn't have bothered to make a transaction for a few hundred Euro's. In the end it turned out someone had just placed an order, had it delivered, but didn't pay the invoice afterwards.
After a couple of months I received a letter stating I was no longer a suspect, and that seemed the end of end. But not quite: whenever I buy some form of insurance, one of the questions is if I have ever been suspected of fraud. Answer yes and there's a good chance the insurer will refuse. Answer no, and I'm actually committing fraud and the insurance may not be valid. It's also inconvenient as the same question comes up during screening (I'm a security officer now).
Lesson learned: my home router now routes all traffic through Mullvad. Just in case.
This seems like a negative consequence
Never talk to the police without an attorney!
His book should be easy to find at retailers or cough other ebook sites.
1. The police are almost never trying to railroad anyone, but mistaken evidence, mistaken witnesses, or unfortunate consequences of telling the police things can make you look guilty.
2. You have no idea what the police are investigating. They can and will lie to you about this. They can and will lie to you about anything they want. See point 4.
3. There are tons of laws, especially federal laws, that are BS, and you're playing with fire thinking you can answer questions about what the investigators claim they're investigating without implicating yourself in some other crime.
4. Interrogators are trained to put an enormous amount of psychological pressure on you to help them, even if you realistically can't help, so you'll end up talking about anything and everything until (hopefully) the police realize you're actually not a good suspect, or until you've gotten tripped up and either admitted guilt or said something that makes you look guilty even if you're not.
5. Simply asserting the 5th, your right to remain silent, might now be able to be used against you if you don't do it perfectly and the cops/prosecutors think you're guilty and are willing to twist your invocation of the 5th against you.
6. Asserting the 5th isn't likely to stop interrogations immediately. Asking for a lawyer probably will.
7. Talking through a lawyer shields what you say from being used against you. Prof. Duane doesn't make this point explicitly in his talks, but Randy Barnett does in the second half of the above cato book talk.
8. If cops say they're going to arrest you, remember they're only arresting you if they have probable cause (or worse, they already have an arrest warrant). You need a virtually unassailable alibi that can be immediately verified (and hope the cop will verify it immediately) in order to be likely to talk your way out of being arrested. That almost never happens. A witness who will vouch for you is not the greatest alibi; cops may not believe them, especially if the witness is your friend or family, or the witness may not tell the cops what you hoped. If there's any doubt about your alibi, the cops are going to arrest you and book you anyway and sort things out later. And meanwhile what did you tell them for the 5 minutes or 30 minutes you were trying to talk your way out of it?
And as Prof Duane notes, the advice he gives and that's in his book doesn't really apply to routine traffic stops. However, if it escalates to "can I search your car" or "step out of the vehicle"...
- You can ask the police if you are allowed to speak to an attorney. They can say no, since in some DUI stops you're not entitled to an attorney, but you can ask them to explain why, ask them if you're being arrested, and then ask if you're entitled to an attorney later, then claim in court you were "confused" about your rights. Look up Confusion Doctrine+DUI.
- You can piss them off, and get them to say or do something stupid (Hopefully not shooting you). The cop ends up saying something like "You know I can arrest you for anything I feel like, right?". If you record everything, you might have a chance. I had an interaction like this that was dismissed in trial; the officer requested to dismiss it in the interest of justice, IMHO because what he did was embarrassing.
- You can ask the cops "why" they stopped you or "why" they are questioning you. If they answer the question differently or two officers claim different things, it can raise reasonable doubt. If they neglect to answer you can use exactly the same tactics on them they'd use on a suspect. Tell them you want to help but you need to hear their side of the story.
- You can ask "Am I being arrested?" or "Am I a suspect?" if a cop starts pushing too hard. You can ask them "Why do you think that?" etc. Again, it gives him an opportunity to do something stupid.
Lastly, remember, the police are probably a lot better at all of the above than you, since they do this often. Hence why no attorney is going to give this advice. But it IS possible to pull the same tricks on them that they pull on the people they pull over every day, it just takes a lot of cunning and experience.
Cops have more power than you, the average joe. I do not recommend doing the above.
> “I’d love to cooperate and talk with you, and I need a lawyer to do that”
And the cop says
> “why do you need a lawyer so bad?”
What is one supposed to say?
"On advice of every defense lawyer I've ever heard, and even former prosecutors now in a position to give unbiased advice, unlike you, so I'm following their advice."
The real answer to "why" is that "Asking for a lawyer is a ritual incantation that drives cops away like holy water does for vampires."
You can't say that, so blame advice you've been given instead, or just keep repeating "I want a lawyer [in order to be able to talk to you]" like it's a mantra. You don't have to explain yourself. Cops are not interested in "why". They know perfectly well why. They know you don't want a lawyer, you just want to end the cop's interview and fishing expedition. They don't like that, so they're going to make you feel guilty about asking for a lawyer when you know and they know you really don't want one, and they're going to try to make you say something dumb as a result.
Play the circles game with them, all day. And do it with a smile and the happiest attitude in the world.
A) This is a weird thing to tell the cops. "I wasn't using a VPN cause I wasn't doing anything illegal, I only use VPNs when I do illegal things!" Uh... you don't want to tell the cops you do illegal things and have opsec procedures for when you do illegal things! No wonder they were skeptical!
B) This story is literally the explanation of why "If I'm not breaking any laws, why would I worry about my privacy from the police?" is the wrong attitude. You don't have to have known you did something wrong/illegal, you don't even actually have to had done something wrong/illegal -- for the police to really inconvenience you. It could have been a lot worse than this. Even people who never knowingly/intentionally break laws have an interest in keeping their activities from police notice. As this story demonstrates. "If you have done nothing worng you have nothing to hide, why do you mind police surveillance" -- nope nope nope.
The fact that you can be imprisoned (borderline indefinitely it seems at times) as well has basically need a lawyer even though your issue is straight up black and white really shows the failures of a police state. Whats the point in having rights in a surveillance state? The government will just make stuff up against you anyway.
Most of the traffic stops have been for speeding (and I was speeding). It's been about 50/50 on whether I get a ticket or a warning.
I had one traffic stop in Chicago, south of the Loop on State Street, where I was pulled over by CHA (Chicago Housing Authority) for failing to signal while changing lanes (he lied; I always signal, kind of a pet peeve of mine, though I admittedly speed all the time). The same officer illegally ran a red light in front of me w/o his police lights on. What proceeded during that stop was an outright interrogation. Who am I, where was I employed, what I am doing here, etc. I told him that was none of his business and not relevant to the traffic stop. Told him I wasn't answering anymore questions without a lawyer. He threatened to arrest me. Didn't utter another word, just kept both my hands on the steering wheel at 12 o'clock. While he wrote the ticket, the other 2 officers that were with him apologized on his behalf, yet did nothing to prevent the ticket from being written. Guess I just found a dick of an officer on the wrong day. Also think I was profiled a bit. White kid, out of state plates driving through the projects. Pretty sure he thought I was trying to score some drugs, when in reality I was just going to college to take a final. The kicker is, they confiscated my license as bail. I was supposed to fly home for Christmas vacation a few days later, and my license was my only valid ID to fly at the time. I had to get a state ID that cost only $4, but I was in college and broke. I had to pay that $4 in dimes from my change jar because that was literally all I had.
I've also been pulled over by a sheriff's deputy in Montana before. I was visiting my parents around Christmas and I got pulled over for "an aggressive pass". I accelerated rapidly and passed on the right someone that was driving 10 under the limit in the left lane (illegal in MT, btw, slow traffic in the left lane must pull over tot the right). It was somewhat comical because the deputy turned on his lights at me, and I went to pull over, but it was in an area with next to no shoulder. I literally had to drive about 4 miles further, with my signal on as the deputy kept calling at me over his loud speaker to keep going until there was a proper shoulder. The deputy gave me a warning, despite my bloodshot eyes and breath smelling of whiskey (I had been up since 4am CPT, had been travelling all day and it was now 7pm MPT and I'd had a single drink with an old high school friend and I was still wearing contacts at the time).
When I've had to call the police, I've generally been treated fairly well. Most often, it's been because of a traffic accident (I've been in probably 20 accidents in my lifetime, only 1 of which has been my fault). Other times, it's usually been due to noise complaints against neighbors very late at night. One wasn't terribly late, but I was reading a book quietly in my old apartment and I could hear a woman screaming bloody murder. Literally heard through the ceiling "Help! He's going to kill me!". I don't like to get involved in other peoples arguments/disagreements, but yeah, I definitely called the police on that one. Another time, same apartment, I happened to be up late watching TV at like 2am when I noticed a ton of police lights out in the drive/parking lot of my apartment complex (at least 8 cop cars with lights on) and officers wandering around with shotguns, assault rifles and pistols drawn. I live in a pretty affluent suburb of Chicago and this is pretty unheard of around here. I asked the dispatcher what was going on, and initially they wouldn't tell me anything, but later relented a bit and told me that at an adjacent building, there was a domestic dispute and the suspect had fled and they were searching for him (it happened to be snowing pretty heavily at the time, so they were following tracks in the snow).
All in all, I'd say me experience with law enforcement has been positive with one really sour experience. But, then, I'm an affluent white male. That said, I think if you're generally compliant with instructions, you probably won't have issues (this doesn't extend to answering questions - you don't and shouldn't have to without a lawyer present).
A bit of advice if you get a traffic stop: don't immediately get your license and registration out. Just pull over and leave your hands on the steering wheel, in plain site. When the officer approaches your window, explain to them exactly where each requested document is. i.e. "my license is in my wallet in the left rear of my pants and my insurance document is in the glove compartment." And make sure they acknowledge that before you make any movements to retrieve said items.
Edit: forgot the bit about them being called on me
When the police being called on me, it's always been a noise complaint and only happened once or twice.
Both times, I was drunk and didn't realize how drunk I was and how loud my music was. Turning off/down the music solved it without any issues/fines/arrests.
Generally speaking, I avoid name-calling and ad hominem attacks no matter how good they feel. Folks are doing enough trolling. We need more civility.
Yes, you'll notice they never use the singular "Democrat". They describe democrats, the Democratic party, etc. but only Republicans started using this bizarre "Democrat Party" or the "Democrat nominee" thing.
A quick google search shows a number of mentions, but it feels so odd that I could've missed this, especially since a person who isn't in the know can easily make the mistake of thinking Democrats belong to the Democrat Party.
Has it historically not been an issue enough to call out? Is this only in some circles and not universally agreed upon? It just seems so odd for me to have missed this being a thing. It is like if one day someone told you 'fish' was a loaded negative term to refer to people who went to college.
Here's a Twitter search for Trump with all the times he said "Democrat" singular, almost every occurrence is designed to be a pejorative: https://twitter.com/search?f=tweets&q=from%3A%40realDonaldTr...
Or for Matt Gaetz:
Or Jim Jordan:
Apparently it made it to Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democrat_Party_(epithet)
I do remember hearing "Republican'ts" and "rethuglicans" from dems but in my experience it's extremely rare.
It seems to be more about disputing that the party is in fact democratic. Among other things, the superdelegates make this clear. It's also the matter of the party making a name-grab for democracy itself, which is a more valuable trademark than anything associated with the republic.
Yes, I'm sure the pejorative use by Republicans of the term that Democrats use to refer to themselves is rooted in Republicans' sincere concern with the structure of the DNC's primary. That must be it.
> burfog 19 hours ago | parent | flag | favorite | on: Iran attack: US airbases in Iraq hit by ballistic ...
> Democrat voters may oppose war, but the same can not be said for democrat politicians.
Lol, come on man.
Friend = OK
Friendly = OK
He's a friendly person = OK
He's a friend person = NOT OK
He's a friend = OK
This should be something most speakers learn early, though, maybe they won't know all the rules for modification and will make up an incorrect adjective. I.e., He's a democratly person.
Someone like US Senator Josh Hawley went to Stanford, then to Yale Law, he clerked on the US Appeals Court and then for the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court. He was then elected as the Attorney General of Missouri and won the race for US Senator in 2018.
Do you honestly think he doesn't know the proper name of one of the two major parties in the USA, or the body that organizes their elections? It's not subtle. Just super juvenile 'own the libs' silliness.
> Today on Fox & Friends Senator Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) said the Democrat National Committee ...
> “Essentially the Democrat Party bought themselves ...
Nah, that story was just propaganda to make people feel sorry for a dude who evaded like $20M in taxes by offering political services to corrupt governments and oligarchs. You need special permission from a judge to do a 'no-knock' raid or a night one. (First page here clearly shows it was a daytime search warrant: https://www.emptywheel.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/180626...)
The FBI knocked repeatedly, and then used a previously provided key to access Manafort's condo sometime after 6am, which is early but still after dawn in Virginia in August so even the "pre-dawn raid" people were wrong.
It involves some combination of:
- A highly reinforced front door, and bulletproof
- Just inside the front door, a floor that's in the middle of being mopped with very slippery soap.
- Copious amounts of glitter and shaving cream. (I'm still working out the details.)
Note: I recognize that most police perform dangerous and necessary work. My fantasy only applies to police committing criminal acts.
Note: policing isn’t that dangerous, and the way it used in practice in the US, it’s only necessary for enforcing property law and protecting people who own/run things. https://www.huffpost.com/entry/how-dangerous-is-police-w_b_6...
For sure. There are lots of reason to keep this in the realm of "mischievous fantasy".
That's why I'll always view the US government's approach to policing as repressionary unless they actually give workers rights preventing them from being fired, and actually funding the legal system to be more efficient. They run it like a business and intend to keep it that way.
* (disclaimer) cops almost never get convicted so it can be a fruitless, expensive waste of money and years of time.
We had to waste a lot of money and years of our time just to get an offense stricken from my mom's record: a sociopathic dick of a cop in a rural area made up trumped up charges to place on my mom in an escalation with a local school district. Compensation? Haha, good joke! We were lucky to have the money to fight the charges, but that cop received no punishment. Furthermore, my parents run their own business so they had no problem with the amount of time needed.
Lawsuits may as well not exist for a large portion of the population.
It's been 2 years since this happened and the cop has not admitted fault, hasn't had to put the dog down, hasn't been written up, or had to pay a dime. Although the city has agreed to pay because it was their officers fault, the funny thing was, no lawyer would take the case if my parents wanted to sue simply because they know suing the city is impossible (which is frankly ridiculous), and because it involved a cop not on active duty. I mean the city is still dragging their feet paying for his hospital visit and everything, meanwhile my brother is basically in collections for something he isn't supposed to pay for.
If anything the event has really taught me to despise the US government and cops more than ever. Cops individually may be nice people, but that badge and union suddenly turns them into some of the biggest repressionary forces to regular lower income people.
In my experience the cops I've dealt with have been professional and courteous, and they have guns.
Horrible aggressive cops seem to be a mostly American phenomenon.
not sure if it is libertarian or not but I think big corporations are a worse threat to freedom than big government.
EDIT: the reason being that big corporate can buy laws and regulations that favour them over individuals
So what is the lesson?
Realize that you can get raided at any time, without any warning, due to random life circumstances. Live life accordingly.
* Don't talk to the police
* Maintain off site backups because they will take everything, even the whole machine in my case
* Encrypt everything, this event really reinforced that for me
And the author writes:
> I was also asked for my password and if I had any encrypted data on my PC
> Because Gelfgatt already admitted to police that he owned and controlled the seized computers and had the ability to decrypt them, the court found that the act of decryption would not reveal anything new to the police. Therefore, the act of compelled decryption was not “testimonial.” Normally, the Fifth Amendment privilege prevents the government from forcing a witness to disclose incriminating information in his mind (like a password not written down anywhere else)—but only if that is information the police do not already know.
If he had simply made no statements to the police, he might have been able to invoke his 5th amendment right. But now we'll never now.
I now disable page prefetch on every browser I use. Some browsers don't even use it (which is a sensible thing in 2020 given the risk vs rewards of having it turned on).
I was quite pleased, however, to find that this had already been turned off for me, and enforced, by uBlock Origin: https://imgur.com/a/9seIFEU
I opened a word document some random agency put on my USB drive and I got a federal trojan.
Booooo. Die BVT dropped the ball on preserving the chain of custody for this evidence. They should have used equipment that bars device writes.
This sounds farfetched when I write it out.
Either file type can also be unzipped and have their contents inspected for anything suspicious.
The interesting aspect is the weaponization of legit LE - this is similar to swatting. This can easily be extended to harassment by all sorts of random government agencies depending on context. It isn't even really new - you can think of false OSHA reports and the like as similar.
I think the new aspect is about the expanded reach of social connections, combined with people's willingness to be much more vicious when the interaction is virtual.
Alternatively, consider always using at least some kind of VPN.
In the modern climate of VPN ads all over tech videos I doubt it is terribly unusual if you have one, yet it immediately makes this kind of bullshit considerably less likely.
I feel Wireguard (for those not in the know: a VPN protocol and software suite like OpenVPN) provides the kind of performance and latency that is completely acceptable for almost all traffic other than video games, and if you are a Linux user you can even play with things like network namespaces to force some apps through Wireguard (and maybe some through bare metal.)
I am not affiliated with any VPN but I am a happy customer of Mullvad for years, and I don’t recall any time they’ve ended up in the news for bad reasons. I’ve also heard ExpressVPN and PIA are good options.
- The trouble here is that the ISP is in the same country as your police. Having a VPN that is in a different jurisdiction requires international warrants. (IANAL.)
- Mullvad claims they do not log, as many VPN providers. I have a tin foil hat usually but I think their track record warrants an unusual amount of trust.
- You can also do multi hop through Wireguard, if you’re into that kind of thing.
>just a warrant away, that’s how they make real money.
Now that is unbelievable. You are suggesting to me that the police are paying VPNs for logs? Why would they pay if they have a warrant?
I don’t think the data that ISPs or VPNs have is actually worth that much. For VPNs most of it is probably genuinely torrent traffic and HTTPS traffic. Even DNS can be encrypted nowadays (and should be imo.)
It’s one thing to say they are selling logs, but it’s hard to believe that’s where they make the real money from. And either way, it’s a completely unsourced claim.
I'm not leaning in either direction here but worth noting that warrants are hard to get without evidence. Illegally obtained information can be used for ostensibly legal targeting, pre-warrant. It's a dangerous, clandestine abuse of power called parallel construction .
https://apnews.com/a2b48c6f1911472986b0e501bdca9f25 - Most Utah warrants approved in less than 3 minutes
Today you probably encrypted everything, right? Would they force you to tell your password, or what was the intention of just asking for it?
Laws in the UK are pretty Orwellian to say the least: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Key_disclosure_law#United_King...
"I was on a site around the time it was hacked and I had no proxy or VPN."
How would a VPN would have saved in this situation. A free public proxy might hide the original ip address to some extent. The VPN would still be linked to his real identity straight away. Right?
They might have done the same thing and taken all your computers but you probably would be in the clear a lot sooner.
The reason seems to be, in part, that they often get to keep the stuff as part of any plea deal and can, and do, use it to equip their computer crime labs with better equipment.
This has been happening since the operation Sundevil days where it was documented in Bruce Sterling’s The Hacker Crackdown.
a) Destroy every storage device in your home every time you click a random link on IRC.
b) Destroy every storage device in your home "when I opened the door we were greeted by the police, counter terrorism agents and a state-prosecutor".
Option A would be an expensive hobby. Option B seems like it would cause more problems than it solved.
I'm reminded very much of xkcd's $5 wrench. It also seems to me that in this case, his data is his alibi.
Well, there was no evidence on them. If they were destroyed then there would also be no evidence.
Agreed on everything else.