Hackerspace raided in Sweden(forskningsavd.se)
forskningsavd.se
Hackerspace raided in Sweden
http://forskningsavd.se/2009/11/29/i-can-haz-moar-bout-teh-reid/
7 comments
My advice to these guys:
"Better start including defenses against this stuff in your planned activities - I think since the Dutch boys showed Counterfeiting and Cuff keys on their site(s) in relation to the reprap they may as well have painted a giant red bullseye on all open hardware projects. Naivety is a fearsomely expensive trait. I too was raided 11 years ago lost 8 PC’s and a bunch of software (20,000 worth) all on a false accusation - I gave up even thinking I’d ever get it back years ago... Disperse your assets, wake up to the REAL situation, Police act, then justify those action as necessary. Analyze why you where targeted and THINK. Police time is a scarce commodity, it is not used accidentally. There are 10’s of thousands of us to each one of them. Good Luck.
Sure, I’m paranoid, but, am I paranoid ENOUGH?"
and the last line is a recursive joke... ;-)
"Better start including defenses against this stuff in your planned activities - I think since the Dutch boys showed Counterfeiting and Cuff keys on their site(s) in relation to the reprap they may as well have painted a giant red bullseye on all open hardware projects. Naivety is a fearsomely expensive trait. I too was raided 11 years ago lost 8 PC’s and a bunch of software (20,000 worth) all on a false accusation - I gave up even thinking I’d ever get it back years ago... Disperse your assets, wake up to the REAL situation, Police act, then justify those action as necessary. Analyze why you where targeted and THINK. Police time is a scarce commodity, it is not used accidentally. There are 10’s of thousands of us to each one of them. Good Luck.
Sure, I’m paranoid, but, am I paranoid ENOUGH?"
and the last line is a recursive joke... ;-)
It is common in Sweden that the police never return computers once they have been raided. If they give it back, it will usually at least take some years, the computers will be old by then.
Ugh. Stuff like this makes me so angry.
Ugh. Stuff like this makes me so angry.
This happens in a lot of countries. It's unfortunate at best, malicious at worst.
Example: 2009 April FBI raid on Core IP Dallas data center
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=546067
> [Core IP CEO] Simpson added that there were 50 businesses without access to email and data due to the raid. "If you run a datacenter, please be aware that in our great country, the FBI can come into your place of business at any time and take whatever they want, with no reason," he wrote.
Bruce Sterling foreshadows "Data Havens"
"A data haven is a computer or a network that holds data protected from government action by both technical means (encryption) and location in a country that has either no laws, or poorly-enforced laws restricting use of data and no extradition treaties."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_haven
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=546067
> [Core IP CEO] Simpson added that there were 50 businesses without access to email and data due to the raid. "If you run a datacenter, please be aware that in our great country, the FBI can come into your place of business at any time and take whatever they want, with no reason," he wrote.
Bruce Sterling foreshadows "Data Havens"
"A data haven is a computer or a network that holds data protected from government action by both technical means (encryption) and location in a country that has either no laws, or poorly-enforced laws restricting use of data and no extradition treaties."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_haven
In case of encrypted data, can't the US government legally force one to disclose passwords following a raid? In other words they might raid a company, they find encrypted hard drives so they ask for passwords. Then does revealing passwords fall under "self-incriminating" or not revealing them fall under "obstructing justice"?
My understanding is that in the US, passwords fall under the 5th amendment. Here's an example where a subpoena ordering the defendant to enter in a password was quashed: http://www.eff.org/files/Boucher.pdf
The Wikipedia article has more info on that case.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Boucher
In February of this year, the judge required him to provide unencrypted access to the drive.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Boucher
In February of this year, the judge required him to provide unencrypted access to the drive.
A good read, thanks for posting.
In the US, it appears that you cannot be compelled to give up your password. Even if you could be, it is possible that the obstruction of justice charge would carry a lighter sentence than whatever is on the disk would get you.
(But of course, if you are at the point where your hardware is being seized, it's possible that the government already has enough evidence on you.)
(But of course, if you are at the point where your hardware is being seized, it's possible that the government already has enough evidence on you.)
Theoretically, a password is protected by the fifth amendment only in very limited circumstances, basically when the mere knowledge of it would be evidence against you. If your equipment is seized legally with a court issued warrant, you'd normally be expected to disclose it. However, if your defense is that your system was compromised and encrypted files were put there by an attacker, there is an issue of self-incrimination and fifth amendment protections may apply. It would then be up to the judge to rule on it.(corrections welcome, IANAL)
I wonder if stating that the password it's self is incriminating information would also allow it to fall under Fifth Amendment protection. AKA, the password is a sentence that contains incriminating information.
I it could be argued that pleading the fifth for every single question is allowed under the Fifth Amendment because what information you think might be incriminating is also incriminating information. AKA where on December 2, 1952 and you plead the fifth. But you are willing to say where you where on the December 1, 1952 and December 3, 1952.
I it could be argued that pleading the fifth for every single question is allowed under the Fifth Amendment because what information you think might be incriminating is also incriminating information. AKA where on December 2, 1952 and you plead the fifth. But you are willing to say where you where on the December 1, 1952 and December 3, 1952.
This is a quick route to a contempt of court charge and the judge will let you spend some quality time with the folks in the local jail until you decide that being a smartass to someone who can send you directly to jail is a bad idea.
[deleted]
The password can be protected. The contents of what's protected by that password is not. So for instance, that you encrypted content with the password "ilikelittlechildren" can be protected. But that said content is thousands of instances of child pornography cannot be protected, and you can be required to (yourself) unencrypt the content even though you don't tell anyone your password.
The most correct answer in the U.S. is that the question of whether a defendant can be forced to give up his password is still undecided.
In the UK the government settled the question with a law making it a crime to withhold your password:
http://security.homeoffice.gov.uk/ripa/encryption/faqs/
The issue hasn't really come up in Canada. Some authorities have recommended a law similar to the UK's.
In the UK the government settled the question with a law making it a crime to withhold your password:
http://security.homeoffice.gov.uk/ripa/encryption/faqs/
The issue hasn't really come up in Canada. Some authorities have recommended a law similar to the UK's.
[deleted]
Today CCP raided a datacenter in Shanghai and over 10k sites were offline.
http://www.otaku.net.cn/viewthread.php?tid=7339
http://www.otaku.net.cn/viewthread.php?tid=7339
I agree. What will the police even do with the computers? There should be laws against that kind of thing. Seriously disgusting.
Agreed though it might not be a completely fair view.
Siezed computers would need to be held on to till after any trial - which could be years away. Otherwise the defence can call any computer evidence into question.
Siezed computers would need to be held on to till after any trial - which could be years away. Otherwise the defence can call any computer evidence into question.
Couldn't they just keep HDDs and give the rest back? Or would that be too logical.
yes possibly - though in my experience explaining that to a police office (with no disrespect meant - most are tech illiterate) could be difficult.
Then you have the huge issue of explaining that to the jury; the defence would probably still have a field day.
And finally, certainly here in the UK so this might not apply elsewhere, there is quite a strict mandate for handling evidence. Returning the computer and keeping the HDD's would almost certainly break those guidelines.
It's really illogical all round; the main problem being computer evidence is still treated with suspicion by Juries (probably due to technical misunderstanding) and greeted with delight by defense teams (who will take joy in asking obscure, mundane and irrelevant questions :D just to derail things)
Finally: complex investigations might really take months to complete (as in 8 or 10). And then going to trial can take upwards of 2 years.
EDIT: with all of that said I strongly disagree with the police actions in this case.
Not giving a list of seizures, even within a few hours, is definite grounds for massive legal action here. It would be unheard of, frankly.
Not giving computers back after, say, 5 months where the case was unproven or the computers irrelevant would also be wrong. In the case where information was found but no trial forthcoming stuff should be returned within 2 years.
I wont comment on the legality of the raid though; we are only getting one side of the story and it could be there is evidence to have raided them. We also haven't seen or heard about the warrant used; so we cant really speculate on the legality of the seizures.
Then you have the huge issue of explaining that to the jury; the defence would probably still have a field day.
And finally, certainly here in the UK so this might not apply elsewhere, there is quite a strict mandate for handling evidence. Returning the computer and keeping the HDD's would almost certainly break those guidelines.
It's really illogical all round; the main problem being computer evidence is still treated with suspicion by Juries (probably due to technical misunderstanding) and greeted with delight by defense teams (who will take joy in asking obscure, mundane and irrelevant questions :D just to derail things)
Finally: complex investigations might really take months to complete (as in 8 or 10). And then going to trial can take upwards of 2 years.
EDIT: with all of that said I strongly disagree with the police actions in this case.
Not giving a list of seizures, even within a few hours, is definite grounds for massive legal action here. It would be unheard of, frankly.
Not giving computers back after, say, 5 months where the case was unproven or the computers irrelevant would also be wrong. In the case where information was found but no trial forthcoming stuff should be returned within 2 years.
I wont comment on the legality of the raid though; we are only getting one side of the story and it could be there is evidence to have raided them. We also haven't seen or heard about the warrant used; so we cant really speculate on the legality of the seizures.
It totally looks like the raids described in "Hacker Crackdown" the operation sundevil(citation needed). Even more like the raid of the illuminates game developers.They raid your office for no reason at all. Cant you sue them in anyway?
I think there is more to this story than people realize.
My Swedish is a little rusty, but from what I read in the media and the police press announcement, the following happened:
The Malmo hackerspace is located in a building that has roots in the squatter/anarchist collective scene. That group was organizing a party there where they were apparently selling alcohol without a proper license.
During the raid of that party, the police simply went through the whole building. Including the hacker space.
If this is what happened then the raid had probably completely nothing to do with the hackerspace and everything with their hosts.
My Swedish is a little rusty, but from what I read in the media and the police press announcement, the following happened:
The Malmo hackerspace is located in a building that has roots in the squatter/anarchist collective scene. That group was organizing a party there where they were apparently selling alcohol without a proper license.
During the raid of that party, the police simply went through the whole building. Including the hacker space.
If this is what happened then the raid had probably completely nothing to do with the hackerspace and everything with their hosts.
So then the Police entered the building ostensibly to break up an illegal party, and then decided to confiscate the computers while they were there?
That sounds like a fishing expedition to me.
I don't know what the law is in Sweden, but in the US there are 4th amendment protections against that sort of thing.
That sounds like a fishing expedition to me.
I don't know what the law is in Sweden, but in the US there are 4th amendment protections against that sort of thing.
Sweden does not have any such protections.
All evidence is admissible in court no matter how it was obtained, legally or illegally.
Of course if you can prove that the evidence was obtained illegally you can file charges for that, but the evidence will still be used.
All evidence is admissible in court no matter how it was obtained, legally or illegally.
Of course if you can prove that the evidence was obtained illegally you can file charges for that, but the evidence will still be used.
Does this include statements made under duress?
Yes. There are two parts to this: parties in a trial are free to present any evidence to the court, no matter how it was obtained.
However, the court alone decides the value of the evidence presented, and thus the weight it places in such evidence.
Obviously statements from people suspected to be coerced in some way is not considered high-value evidence.
However, the court alone decides the value of the evidence presented, and thus the weight it places in such evidence.
Obviously statements from people suspected to be coerced in some way is not considered high-value evidence.
I am shocked. This is an awful policy!
Most countries have similar laws. The US is fairly unique in its strong laws about inadmissible evidence. The argument for those policies is that it stops people being let go on a technicality due to someone signing the wrong form or whatever.
However just because evidence is admissible doesn't mean it has to be taken into consideration. Often the court will decide that certain evidence won't be taken into consideration due to how it was obtained. This is an entirely separate decision than whether or not it should be admissible.
However just because evidence is admissible doesn't mean it has to be taken into consideration. Often the court will decide that certain evidence won't be taken into consideration due to how it was obtained. This is an entirely separate decision than whether or not it should be admissible.
From over this side of the world it appears those protections aren't actually of any use:
http://www.sfbg.com/entry.php?entry_id=9462
"Police seize DJs' laptops New police chief apparently condones policy that critics call illegal and punitive"
http://www.sfbg.com/entry.php?entry_id=9462
"Police seize DJs' laptops New police chief apparently condones policy that critics call illegal and punitive"
Doesn't matter what the police chief thinks the law is. It matters what the courts think.
Yes, but once your computer is siezed, you're screwed. It only takes one link in the chain to think it's a good idea.
Oops, sorry, "seized."
What the police think matters on the scale of hours, days, weeks -- because even if the courts decide otherwise, practically, the remedy is likely to be limited to the return of the equipment, with no penalties for the police. (The pattern of abuse would have to be egregious, or damages very tangible, for courts or legislatures to rule otherwise.)
According to the hackerspace page, the police had IT-techs with them from the start. Why would they bring techs with them if they where just going to bust an illegal bar.
well, actually, the hackerspace is located in a building that is rented. The rest of the rented space is used for various of things, i.e. reparation of bicycles, cheap/free restaurant (mondays), concerts etc. The space is not a squatt.
the raid had probably completely nothing to do with the hackerspace and everything with their hosts.
If that's true, than the warrant would have been limited in scope. Clearly it wasn't since the police seized everything. You can be sure there's a larger agenda than busting underage drinkers.
If that's true, than the warrant would have been limited in scope. Clearly it wasn't since the police seized everything. You can be sure there's a larger agenda than busting underage drinkers.
Why do they have cut away locks to practice lock picking and blank keys and stuff like that? Sounds kind of shady.
At least in the Netherlands it has been common for hackers to be interested in lockpicking. The irregular magazine Hacktic (which spawned the awesome ISP XS4ALL) used to have features and tutorials about lockpicking.
I assume it is the same for Sweden.
And if you've got a curious mind I cannot imagine why you would not be interested in it!
I assume it is the same for Sweden.
And if you've got a curious mind I cannot imagine why you would not be interested in it!
It's not about being interested in it or not, it's about the appearance. Cops don't know anything about the hacker mind or why they are using them.
Cops aren't hackers. If you're too curious, you can't even be a cop. If I was a cop and I was busting a place doing illegal stuff and I saw lock picking gear laying around everywhere, I would think they are up to no good.
Why everyone here is shocked by thought that cops would think people publicly collaborating to defeat security measures are up to no good is a bit perplexing.
I am not saying they were up to no good. I am saying it is easily believable that they were up to no good. In fact, I would say, cops who did not assume they were up to no good would be remiss in their duties to protect the public, because in most cases, people with that kind of stuff lying around aren't into it for benevolence.
Cops aren't hackers. If you're too curious, you can't even be a cop. If I was a cop and I was busting a place doing illegal stuff and I saw lock picking gear laying around everywhere, I would think they are up to no good.
Why everyone here is shocked by thought that cops would think people publicly collaborating to defeat security measures are up to no good is a bit perplexing.
I am not saying they were up to no good. I am saying it is easily believable that they were up to no good. In fact, I would say, cops who did not assume they were up to no good would be remiss in their duties to protect the public, because in most cases, people with that kind of stuff lying around aren't into it for benevolence.
I think you might be misunderstanding what a cutaway lock is. A cutaway lock is a normal lock with portions of the casing made out of transparent material or removed entirely. Their specific function is to practice lock picking. And blank keys aren't tools with a single usage scenario. Good guys and criminals alike use them to copy or make keys. The important thing here is not to judge by the equipment, but by the intent of the owner. Most laws about owning lock picks reflect this pragmatic view.
Also, if you're attempting to criticize the activity of lock picking in general, realize that it is a long standing tradition in the hacker community. Sergey Brin is a prominent example of a "non-evil" person who tinkered with it [1].
[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/10/technology/10google.html
Also, if you're attempting to criticize the activity of lock picking in general, realize that it is a long standing tradition in the hacker community. Sergey Brin is a prominent example of a "non-evil" person who tinkered with it [1].
[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/10/technology/10google.html
Local, state, federal, and whatever other applicable laws permitting, you should definitely learn to open easy locks with paper clips (optionally a pair of pliers and a screwdriver as well). We did it on the last day of the graduate-level security course I took, and I will definitely never take the security of locks for granted again.
They have their use, they ensure that only sophisticated thief get away with your loot. Makes for more impressive local news coverage than this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQqk-x7dD0Abest quote is at 1:40. Skilled practice a throwing bricks.
Purchasing and using a bump key (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lock_bumping) is not particularly sophisticated.
I don't think that's fishy, it sounds like normal hackerdom to me. I have a nice set of lock picks and have enjoyed messing around with opening locks for years and years. For me, it's a perfectly normal part of exploring the man-made world.
A shady character: http://www.dgp.toronto.edu/people/tu/slides/feynman.gif
It's nice how they don't mention that the police found 6 pipebombs.
As you seem so concerned with the "facts", a more accurate description would be a "hose bomb" as it's made with a garden hose or similar tubing. The effect is more of a firecracker than an actual bomb.
I seriously doubt that those were in the hackspace.
Sounds more like a serious case of having the hackspace in the wrong building with the wrong neighbours.
Sounds more like a serious case of having the hackspace in the wrong building with the wrong neighbours.
Well, I don't know who had them, but Sydsvenskan (Swedish newspaper) published the list of impounded goods, and there were 6 pipeboms on there.
No there where 6 "slangbomber" which is a home made firecracker, not a pipebomb.
Yeah, also listed in the police press release. Together with green lasers (not listed as missing from the hackspace), pepperspray and some other questionable stuff ...
In addition to the stuff taken mentioned in Hackerspaces post http://forskningsavd.se/2009/11/29/i-can-haz-moar-bout-teh-r...
Stuff confiscated. * 860 beers, 33 cl cans. * 39 bottles of booze. * 66 liters wine
Other illegal or "problematic" things found and seized * 6 improvised explosive devices. Of low explosive force, mainly used to make a big bang. * 3 high power green light laser pointers. May need a permit depending on power. * 4 Spring Billy Club or Collapsible Batons. Illegal in Sweden * 3 Cans of pepper spray. Illegal in Sweden. * 1 High Power Slingshot. Illegal in Sweden. * 2 Items of police uniform. This cannot be bought legally * 2 Devices for making keys and key raw-materials.