▲ | tptacek 14 hours ago | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
It would have been extraordinarily dumb for someone on parole electronic monitoring to install Tor, but my understanding of Tor's role in the bigger story is that it's about stuff that was happening many years ago. There's nothing about Tor in the parole violation warrant; just that he had an unauthorized iPhone, and when they did a forensic inspection of it, there were no further violations discovered on that phone. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
▲ | shagie 14 hours ago | parent | next [-] | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
https://trellis.law/doc/district/8373835/united-states-v-roc... The defendant plead nolo contendere (no contest) in 2014. Any activity between 2014 and 2019 was under supervision restrictions. Any use of Tor during that period would likely be an issue. Page 6 of 8:
His activity, no matter how it is framed, was in violation of the supervision orders.Furthermore, he worked to circumvent the monitoring software in September of 2019 and had no internet activity recorded in October of 2019. > 1. Back in 2014 this person committed a pretty grave computer offense, which was not at the time prosecuted. > 2. Some time after that, he became a high-profile Tor relay operator. > 3. Some time after that, he was asked to subvert those Tor relays by the DOJ. It wasn't prosecuted because he plead no contest. After that, the use of Tor was in violation of supervision. I read #3 as "you're not running the monitoring software as required" which would subvert the exit nodes... but he shouldn't have been running them in the first place. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
▲ | 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
[deleted] |