Title: BFL subpoena Post by: theymos on April 17, 2015, 05:36:49 AM I recently received a subpoena related to a case against BFL (Case No. 14-CV-2159-KHV-JPO). I had to release all database info on a few employees/ex-employees of BFL (including their PMs), plus a complete copy of every thread in which anyone mentioned BFL or in which a BFL employee participated. (It was a huge hassle to put all of this info together.) The subpoena originally demanded all PMs that even mentioned BFL, which is ridiculous, but I managed to get this part eliminated.
If a PM of yours was released due to this, then I already sent you a PM about it. I don't think that I'm going to send PMs about deleted posts that were released. 3196 users had deleted posts released, and I don't really want to send that many PMs when almost no one would care. I feel like people should have basically no expectation of privacy for something that they posted publicly anyway. I also released all "report to moderator" reports involving or mentioning BFL. I don't think that these are very sensitive, so I'm not going to send out PMs about these. Title: Re: BFL subpoena Post by: ABitNut on April 17, 2015, 06:23:47 AM That does sound like a lot of hassle indeed. I hope it's worth it. Also you probably did the right thing by PM-ing those who had there PMs exposed. It's a good time to remind people that PM stands for personal message, not private message...
Quote Note: PM privacy is not guaranteed. Encrypt sensitive messages. Do/did you get any compensation for the effort you had to put into this? Title: Re: BFL subpoena Post by: dserrano5 on April 17, 2015, 06:32:48 AM plus a complete copy of every thread in which anyone mentioned BFL LOL. This is pretty much the whole forum, right? :D Title: Re: BFL subpoena Post by: hilariousandco on April 17, 2015, 06:38:58 AM I wonder how many of those posts/messages were from Bruno? :D
That does sound like a lot of hassle indeed. I hope it's worth it. Also you probably did the right thing by PM-ing those who had there PMs exposed. It's a good time to remind people that PM stands for personal message, not private message... Quote Note: PM privacy is not guaranteed. Encrypt sensitive messages. Do/did you get any compensation for the effort you had to put into this? Well he probably should have been compensated for his time and effort but I bet he wasn't. Seems like a mammoth task to collect all that info. plus a complete copy of every thread in which anyone mentioned BFL LOL. This is pretty much the whole forum, right? :D They should just do that themselves if they really wanted it. Title: Re: BFL subpoena Post by: Quickseller on April 17, 2015, 06:48:59 AM I would be interested to know how many BFL related posts were ever deleted. I am sure it is a lot if 3k+ users had their deleted posts released. I can only imagine the poor staff attorney who has to go through all the posts on the various threads, especially the ones with the ridiculous pictures (that I have read about), many of which I am sure are NSFW.
There were probably BFL threads in almost every section. I would guess that this probably has something to do with why one of the BFL threads was recently apparently locked. Title: Re: BFL subpoena Post by: Leeroy Jenkins on April 17, 2015, 06:50:51 AM Awesome. :D
Use PGP if you want privacy. ;) Title: Re: BFL subpoena Post by: -ck on April 17, 2015, 07:03:57 AM I would guess that this probably has something to do with why one of the BFL threads was recently apparently locked. No that was sheer coincidence as I locked it without knowing theymos was facing this.Title: Re: BFL subpoena Post by: Bicknellski on April 17, 2015, 07:27:07 AM Quote Hello. I'm writing to let you know that due to a subpoena that I received related to a case against BFL, I was forced to release some of your PMs. In particular, I released all PMs that you sent to or received from the following people, possibly even if you deleted the PM: Inaba BFL-Engineer BFL_Josh SLok BFL_Sonny BFL AM Dave bcp19 nibbknot Who was nibbknot then? Interesting. Title: Re: BFL subpoena Post by: Quickseller on April 17, 2015, 07:31:31 AM nibbknot is someone who at least claimed to be Bruno Kucinskas (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=150803.msg9144249#msg9144249) - I can't imagine that Bruno actually worked for BFL though lol.
Title: Re: BFL subpoena Post by: Fernandez on April 17, 2015, 07:52:02 AM plus a complete copy of every thread in which anyone mentioned BFL LOL. This is pretty much the whole forum, right? :D I expect so, and I pity the poor investigators who have to go through endless pages of trolling and crying and what not. Maybe after this case Theymos can hire them as mods ;D Title: Re: BFL subpoena Post by: dogie on April 17, 2015, 09:34:08 AM Which side requested it, do you know?
Title: Re: BFL subpoena Post by: redsn0w on April 17, 2015, 10:17:03 AM @theymos,
are you obliged to give them these 'data' or not? Awesome. :D Use PGP if you want privacy. ;) You are right, I can't imagine someone read a pgp encrypted message and he doesn't know what the hell is write in that message (because he doesn't have the key for decrypt it http://techforum.it/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/asd.gif). Title: Re: BFL subpoena Post by: BadBear on April 17, 2015, 11:33:28 AM @theymos, are you obliged to give them these 'data' or not? Awesome. :D Use PGP if you want privacy. ;) You are right, I can't imagine someone read a pgp encrypted message and he doesn't know what the hell is write in that message (because he doesn't have the key for decrypt it http://techforum.it/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/asd.gif). Subpoena is a court order, so yes he has to respond (either consent or fight it in court) or he can be jailed. And yes you should always use PGP or something else for sensitive communications. I hope they enjoy reading my pm's to Inaba warning him to stop trolling and derailing threads, and him whining about someone else starting it. Title: Re: BFL subpoena Post by: Blazr on April 17, 2015, 11:48:49 AM Kind of scary how they asked for all PM's mentioning BFL. I recall a while ago theymos discussed the idea of adding javascript PM encryption as a way to protect the forum from unreasonable searches and seizures. It isn't the best way to do it, as of course theymos could modify the javascript at anytime (he could even potentially be compelled to do so by law), but modifying the javascript is detectable, and messages that were sent and viewed with the unmodified javascript are still safe. It adds an extra layer of security, which should be sufficient for most PM's. It would also be very useful should BitcoinTalk's database ever get compromised... again. Anyone who has something really secret to tell should use something like PGP instead of this however.
I think we should consider adding this to the new forum software. Title: Re: BFL subpoena Post by: Bicknellski on April 17, 2015, 11:49:56 AM @theymos, are you obliged to give them these 'data' or not? Awesome. :D Use PGP if you want privacy. ;) You are right, I can't imagine someone read a pgp encrypted message and he doesn't know what the hell is write in that message (because he doesn't have the key for decrypt it http://techforum.it/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/asd.gif). Subpoena is a court order, so yes he has to respond (either consent or fight it in court) or he can be jailed. And yes you should always use PGP or something else for sensitive communications. I hope they enjoy reading my pm's to Inaba warning him to stop trolling and derailing threads, and him whining about someone else starting it. 1. Bad form badbear shouldn't talk about Inaba behind his back. 2. The issue for the forum is going to be persistent given the loads of scams present. This won't be the last time you are going to get a subpoena. Might want to start collating all the other major scams you can. Good luck. Title: Re: BFL subpoena Post by: redsn0w on April 17, 2015, 12:10:14 PM @theymos, are you obliged to give them these 'data' or not? Awesome. :D Use PGP if you want privacy. ;) You are right, I can't imagine someone read a pgp encrypted message and he doesn't know what the hell is write in that message (because he doesn't have the key for decrypt it http://techforum.it/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/asd.gif). Subpoena is a court order, so yes he has to respond (either consent or fight it in court) or he can be jailed. And yes you should always use PGP or something else for sensitive communications. I hope they enjoy reading my pm's to Inaba warning him to stop trolling and derailing threads, and him whining about someone else starting it. The law is the law, maybe I should send all the sensitive messages but firstly encrypt them with my pgp private key. (I suppose) this forum is under the eyes of a lot of government (first the USA ::)). Thanks for the reply BadBear. Title: Re: BFL subpoena Post by: QuestionAuthority on April 17, 2015, 01:07:35 PM @theymos, are you obliged to give them these 'data' or not? Awesome. :D Use PGP if you want privacy. ;) You are right, I can't imagine someone read a pgp encrypted message and he doesn't know what the hell is write in that message (because he doesn't have the key for decrypt it http://techforum.it/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/asd.gif). Subpoena is a court order, so yes he has to respond (either consent or fight it in court) or he can be jailed. And yes you should always use PGP or something else for sensitive communications. I hope they enjoy reading my pm's to Inaba warning him to stop trolling and derailing threads, and him whining about someone else starting it. When the investigators read the BFL threads they'll probably think everyone here is nuts. They might want to lock up everyone involved as a public safety measure. lol Title: Re: BFL subpoena Post by: theymos on April 17, 2015, 01:49:42 PM Kind of scary how they asked for all PM's mentioning BFL. I recall a while ago theymos discussed the idea of adding javascript PM encryption as a way to protect the forum from unreasonable searches and seizures. It isn't the best way to do it, as of course theymos could modify the javascript at anytime (he could even potentially be compelled to do so by law), but modifying the javascript is detectable, and messages that were sent and viewed with the unmodified javascript are still safe. It adds an extra layer of security, which should be sufficient for most PM's. It would also be very useful should BitcoinTalk's database ever get compromised... again. Anyone who has something really secret to tell should use something like PGP instead of this however. I think we should consider adding this to the new forum software. The other big problem with that is how to handle private keys. If the private key is generated from your password, for example, then forgetting your password would mean losing all of your PMs. Most people aren't prepared for this. This is pretty much the whole forum, right? :D It was 2.3% of topics. (This still amounted to ~5 GB of text.) Title: Re: BFL subpoena Post by: Blazr on April 17, 2015, 01:53:54 PM The other big problem with that is how to handle private keys. If the private key is generated from your password, for example, then forgetting your password would mean losing all of your PMs. Most people aren't prepared for this. That is part of the point IMO. If someone "forgets" their password, they cannot be forced to provide it. Perhaps it should be an opt-in feature and it should be clear to the user that forgetting your password makes your PM's unrecoverable, which is both a feature and an issue. If that is not desirable, one option would be to use a Bitcoin address to recover access. This could be done by encrypting the PM master key with a Bitcoin addresses public key, some clients like Electrum have a built-in feature that allows you to encrypt/decrypt messages (though I'm unsure how safe this really is, it's rarely a good idea to reuse a key for both signing and encryption), perhaps something similar could be done in JS. Title: Re: BFL subpoena Post by: redsn0w on April 17, 2015, 01:54:34 PM @theymos, are you obliged to give them these 'data' or not? Awesome. :D Use PGP if you want privacy. ;) You are right, I can't imagine someone read a pgp encrypted message and he doesn't know what the hell is write in that message (because he doesn't have the key for decrypt it http://techforum.it/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/asd.gif). Subpoena is a court order, so yes he has to respond (either consent or fight it in court) or he can be jailed. And yes you should always use PGP or something else for sensitive communications. I hope they enjoy reading my pm's to Inaba warning him to stop trolling and derailing threads, and him whining about someone else starting it. When the investigators read the BFL threads they'll probably think everyone here is nuts. They might want to lock up everyone involved as a public safety measure. lol Most probable yes http://techforum.it/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/asd.gif. Kind of scary how they asked for all PM's mentioning BFL. I recall a while ago theymos discussed the idea of adding javascript PM encryption as a way to protect the forum from unreasonable searches and seizures. It isn't the best way to do it, as of course theymos could modify the javascript at anytime (he could even potentially be compelled to do so by law), but modifying the javascript is detectable, and messages that were sent and viewed with the unmodified javascript are still safe. It adds an extra layer of security, which should be sufficient for most PM's. It would also be very useful should BitcoinTalk's database ever get compromised... again. Anyone who has something really secret to tell should use something like PGP instead of this however. I think we should consider adding this to the new forum software. The other big problem with that is how to handle private keys. If the private key is generated from your password, for example, then forgetting your password would mean losing all of your PMs. Most people aren't prepared for this. This is pretty much the whole forum, right? :D It was 2.3% of topics. (This still amounted to ~5 GB of text.) ~5 gb of data, only for BFL ::). Can you upload the subpoeana here in the forum (as the other one, the silkroad subpoena?) thanks. Title: Re: BFL subpoena Post by: Quickseller on April 17, 2015, 01:59:39 PM Kind of scary how they asked for all PM's mentioning BFL. I recall a while ago theymos discussed the idea of adding javascript PM encryption as a way to protect the forum from unreasonable searches and seizures. It isn't the best way to do it, as of course theymos could modify the javascript at anytime (he could even potentially be compelled to do so by law), but modifying the javascript is detectable, and messages that were sent and viewed with the unmodified javascript are still safe. It adds an extra layer of security, which should be sufficient for most PM's. It would also be very useful should BitcoinTalk's database ever get compromised... again. Anyone who has something really secret to tell should use something like PGP instead of this however. I think we should consider adding this to the new forum software. The other big problem with that is how to handle private keys. If the private key is generated from your password, for example, then forgetting your password would mean losing all of your PMs. Most people aren't prepared for this. Title: Re: BFL subpoena Post by: Blazr on April 17, 2015, 02:03:48 PM Kind of scary how they asked for all PM's mentioning BFL. I recall a while ago theymos discussed the idea of adding javascript PM encryption as a way to protect the forum from unreasonable searches and seizures. It isn't the best way to do it, as of course theymos could modify the javascript at anytime (he could even potentially be compelled to do so by law), but modifying the javascript is detectable, and messages that were sent and viewed with the unmodified javascript are still safe. It adds an extra layer of security, which should be sufficient for most PM's. It would also be very useful should BitcoinTalk's database ever get compromised... again. Anyone who has something really secret to tell should use something like PGP instead of this however. I think we should consider adding this to the new forum software. The other big problem with that is how to handle private keys. If the private key is generated from your password, for example, then forgetting your password would mean losing all of your PMs. Most people aren't prepared for this. We're not talking about using PGP or any third party software at all. We're talking about doing this via javascript, so everything happens in the browser, and the user doesn't even need to know it's happening. PM's will function just like they do now except you'll need to enter a password to read your PM's, the password and plaintext PM's are never sent to the server and all encryption/decryption is done in-browser, similar to blockchain.info/wallet. This is SIGNIFICANTLY less safe than PGP, you need to trust theymos doesn't mess with the JS (unless you store it locally, perhaps we could use an optional browser add-on that does that in order to mitigate this risk), but it's probably sufficient to mitigate really invasive subpoena's etc. Title: Re: BFL subpoena Post by: Quickseller on April 17, 2015, 02:22:35 PM Kind of scary how they asked for all PM's mentioning BFL. I recall a while ago theymos discussed the idea of adding javascript PM encryption as a way to protect the forum from unreasonable searches and seizures. It isn't the best way to do it, as of course theymos could modify the javascript at anytime (he could even potentially be compelled to do so by law), but modifying the javascript is detectable, and messages that were sent and viewed with the unmodified javascript are still safe. It adds an extra layer of security, which should be sufficient for most PM's. It would also be very useful should BitcoinTalk's database ever get compromised... again. Anyone who has something really secret to tell should use something like PGP instead of this however. I think we should consider adding this to the new forum software. The other big problem with that is how to handle private keys. If the private key is generated from your password, for example, then forgetting your password would mean losing all of your PMs. Most people aren't prepared for this. We're not talking about using PGP or any third party software at all. We're talking about doing this via javascript, so everything happens in the browser, and the user doesn't even need to know it's happening. PM's will function just like they do now except you'll need to enter a password to read your PM's, the password and plaintext PM's are never sent to the server and all encryption/decryption is done in-browser, similar to blockchain.info/wallet. This is SIGNIFICANTLY less safe than PGP, but it's probably sufficient to mitigate really invasive subpoena's etc. In theory, the javascript could be modified so that whenever someone enters their password to decrypt a PM that the password is transmitted to either the forum or a third party attacker which would essentially allow them to decrypt any PM for that user. Title: Re: BFL subpoena Post by: r3wt on April 17, 2015, 02:31:13 PM Kind of scary how they asked for all PM's mentioning BFL. I recall a while ago theymos discussed the idea of adding javascript PM encryption as a way to protect the forum from unreasonable searches and seizures. It isn't the best way to do it, as of course theymos could modify the javascript at anytime (he could even potentially be compelled to do so by law), but modifying the javascript is detectable, and messages that were sent and viewed with the unmodified javascript are still safe. It adds an extra layer of security, which should be sufficient for most PM's. It would also be very useful should BitcoinTalk's database ever get compromised... again. Anyone who has something really secret to tell should use something like PGP instead of this however. I think we should consider adding this to the new forum software. The new forum software should be an open source project. i'm sure there are hundreds of good web dev's here who would be thrilled to participate.(If going the way you suggest). Title: Re: BFL subpoena Post by: BadBear on April 17, 2015, 02:35:50 PM It is open source.
Title: Re: BFL subpoena Post by: Blazr on April 17, 2015, 02:38:05 PM Well to avoid the problem of people potentially forgetting their password to decrypt their PM's the forum could automatically encrypt PM's sent to someone using javascript, users would then store the private key locally, outside of their browser in order to decrypt the message. If PGP is used, and the user is using GPGTools (https://gpgtools.org/gpgsuite.html) as their PGP client, and their private key is stored locally, then decrypting it would be as arbitrary as highlighting text and making two clicks (and entering your passphrase). In theory, the javascript could be modified so that whenever someone enters their password to decrypt a PM that the password is transmitted to either the forum or a third party attacker which would essentially allow them to decrypt any PM for that user. I think the PM encryption system shouldn't be dependant on any software other than a standard web browser as a lot of users won't install the third party tools and thus a lot of users won't turn on PM encryption. The idea is this system will be used for most messages as an extra layer of security, anything private should be encrypted with PGP or something similar, if most people don't turn it on it is completely useless. I disagree with theymos and actually think that forgetting your password is a feature. Anyway in your case losing your private key is the same as forgetting your password, and if you use default GnuPG settings and encrypt your private key, should you forget the passphrase for that you'll still lose your private key and as a result, your PM's. Users who fear they may lose their PM's due to forgetting a password should backup their PM's. You are right that the JS can be modified, I mentioned above one solution is to copy blockchain.info's solution which was to use a browser addon to verify the JS. Users worried about the JS being modified can install the addon, however it should be optional. Title: Re: BFL subpoena Post by: r3wt on April 17, 2015, 02:39:29 PM Title: Re: BFL subpoena Post by: Blazr on April 17, 2015, 02:40:19 PM http://github.com/epochtalk Title: Re: BFL subpoena Post by: r3wt on April 17, 2015, 02:48:10 PM http://github.com/epochtalk Title: Re: BFL subpoena Post by: Quickseller on April 17, 2015, 03:01:58 PM Well to avoid the problem of people potentially forgetting their password to decrypt their PM's the forum could automatically encrypt PM's sent to someone using javascript, users would then store the private key locally, outside of their browser in order to decrypt the message. If PGP is used, and the user is using GPGTools (https://gpgtools.org/gpgsuite.html) as their PGP client, and their private key is stored locally, then decrypting it would be as arbitrary as highlighting text and making two clicks (and entering your passphrase). In theory, the javascript could be modified so that whenever someone enters their password to decrypt a PM that the password is transmitted to either the forum or a third party attacker which would essentially allow them to decrypt any PM for that user. I think the PM encryption system shouldn't be dependant on any software other than a standard web browser as a lot of users won't install the third party tools and thus a lot of users won't turn on PM encryption. The idea is this system will be used for most messages as an extra layer of security, anything private should be encrypted with PGP or something similar, if most people don't turn it on it is completely useless. I disagree with theymos and actually think that forgetting your password is a feature. Anyway in your case losing your private key is the same as forgetting your password, and if you use default GnuPG settings and encrypt your private key, should you forget the passphrase for that you'll still lose your private key and as a result, your PM's. Users who fear they may lose their PM's due to forgetting a password should backup their PM's. You are right that the JS can be modified, I mentioned above one solution is to copy blockchain.info's solution which was to use a browser addon to verify the JS. Users worried about the JS being modified can install the addon, however it should be optional. Having the forum automatically encrypt your PM's to the recipients' PGP public key allows the person receiving the message to choose their own level of security. You are right that less people will use it if it is dependent on any third party software, however the forum can only hold people's hands so much when it comes to security/privacy. One thing that I could suggest (that I am sure will not be implemented - at least not for this forum) is that the forum could try to detect if PGP is being used and if not, it will not let you send the PM. Another option is to try to detect if PGP is being used and if not then giving a warning that their communication is not secure and that others may be able to see it in the future Title: Re: BFL subpoena Post by: Blazr on April 17, 2015, 03:17:46 PM Well with blockchain.info/wallet if your password is compromised then you can simply move your funds to another address that is not compromised (hell you can create a new bc.i wallet with a better password). With having a private key that is decrypted in the browser if your password is compromised and the password protected private key is stored by the forum (I think it would have to be) then it would not be possible to protect the privacy of your PM's. If your password is compromised, it is possible to change it. One way of doing this is to generate a random master key, which is actually the key that decrypts the PM's, and encrypt the master key with a password. So how it works is you open your Inbox, bitcointalk sends your browser your encrypted master key and encrypted PM's, you type in your password, your master key is decrypted using the password and then the PM's are decrypted using the master key. If your password is compromised you can change it, all you need to do is re-encrypt the master key with the new password, however should you ever forget the current password your PM's are gone unless you have another way of recovering your unencrypted master key. This is similar to how it works with PGP. If the passphrase to my PGP private key is compromised (but not the private key itself) then I can simply change the passphrase to my PGP private key (I think this is possible- you could have it temporarily in decrypted format then re-encrypt it with a new passphrase (then obviously securely delete all old copies of your PGP private key). My opinion is that PGP should really only be used for private information. Automatically PGP encrypting PM's is not a good idea, you should really only PGP encrypt PM's that actual private information. The reason for this is that if the receipient's PC is ever compromised, if they are unlocking their private key everyday to read their PM's then the malware can easily keylog them, however if they are only unlocking their PGP once every month or two to decrypt private information, there is a greater chance that the recipient will discover the keylogger before they unlock the private key. This is particularly bad because People also use their PGP keys for other purposes too like signing code, and it's generally not a good idea to have multiple PGP keys (unless you have multiple identities) as it can cause confusion, normally you should limit it to 1 key per identity. Having the forum automatically encrypt your PM's to the recipients' PGP public key allows the person receiving the message to choose their own level of security. You are right that less people will use it if it is dependent on any third party software, however the forum can only hold people's hands so much when it comes to security/privacy. like I said automatically PGP encrypting PM's isn't the best idea. We should only use the PGP keys for really important stuff. Title: Re: BFL subpoena Post by: Quickseller on April 17, 2015, 03:55:46 PM Well with blockchain.info/wallet if your password is compromised then you can simply move your funds to another address that is not compromised (hell you can create a new bc.i wallet with a better password). With having a private key that is decrypted in the browser if your password is compromised and the password protected private key is stored by the forum (I think it would have to be) then it would not be possible to protect the privacy of your PM's. If your password is compromised, it is possible to change it. One way of doing this is to generate a random master key, which is actually the key that decrypts the PM's, and encrypt the master key with a password. So how it works is you open your Inbox, bitcointalk sends your browser your encrypted master key and encrypted PM's, you type in your password, your master key is decrypted using the password and then the PM's are decrypted using the master key. If your password is compromised you can change it, all you need to do is re-encrypt the master key with the new password, however should you ever forget the current password your PM's are gone unless you have another way of recovering your unencrypted master key. This is similar to how it works with PGP. If the passphrase to my PGP private key is compromised (but not the private key itself) then I can simply change the passphrase to my PGP private key (I think this is possible- you could have it temporarily in decrypted format then re-encrypt it with a new passphrase (then obviously securely delete all old copies of your PGP private key). My opinion is that PGP should really only be used of private information. Automatically PGP encrypting PM's is not a good idea, you should really only PGP encrypt PM's that actual private information. The reason for this is that if the receipient's PC is ever compromised, if they are unlocking their private key everyday to read their PM's then the malware can easily keylog them, however if they are only unlocking their PGP once every month or two to decrypt private information, there is a greater chance that the recipient will discover the keylogger before they unlock the private key. If you reserve PGP use for only sensitive information then an attacker would only need to look to people who have sent/received PGP encrypted messages in the past to look for potentially sensitive information that could be of value. It is probably not very secure to have the forum encrypt messages for you as if it is compromised then it could also encrypt it to a third key who you did not intend it to be encrypted to. People also use their PGP keys for other purposes too like signing code, and this puts their key at more risk. Any code signing key should be kept offline and should be separate from your other PGP keys. I don't think someone should even try to decrypt something encrypted to their code signing key as if a code signing key is compromised then malware could easily be spread very quickly and very far. Title: Re: BFL subpoena Post by: RocketSingh on April 17, 2015, 04:44:02 PM I recently received a subpoena related to a case against BFL (Case No. 14-CV-2159-KHV-JPO). I had to release all database info on a few employees/ex-employees of BFL (including their PMs), plus a complete copy of every thread in which anyone mentioned BFL or in which a BFL employee participated. (It was a huge hassle to put all of this info together.) The subpoena originally demanded all PMs that even mentioned BFL, which is ridiculous, but I managed to get this part eliminated. If a PM of yours was released due to this, then I already sent you a PM about it. I don't think that I'm going to send PMs about deleted posts that were released. 3196 users had deleted posts released, and I don't really want to send that many PMs when almost no one would care. I feel like people should have basically no expectation of privacy for something that they posted publicly anyway. I also released all "report to moderator" reports involving or mentioning BFL. I don't think that these are very sensitive, so I'm not going to send out PMs about these. I wonder how do they send you Subpoena ? Does not it require to have your physical address ? But, do they have it ? What would they have done if BitcoinTalk owner were not located in USA ? Sending Subpoena to forum admins appear ridiculous to me. Conversations are all open in public. They can directly collect their info from there. And how would they verify whether you are sending them correct PMs or not ? How can this become an evidence in a judicial process ? Title: Re: BFL subpoena Post by: Quickseller on April 17, 2015, 04:50:44 PM I recently received a subpoena related to a case against BFL (Case No. 14-CV-2159-KHV-JPO). I had to release all database info on a few employees/ex-employees of BFL (including their PMs), plus a complete copy of every thread in which anyone mentioned BFL or in which a BFL employee participated. (It was a huge hassle to put all of this info together.) The subpoena originally demanded all PMs that even mentioned BFL, which is ridiculous, but I managed to get this part eliminated. If a PM of yours was released due to this, then I already sent you a PM about it. I don't think that I'm going to send PMs about deleted posts that were released. 3196 users had deleted posts released, and I don't really want to send that many PMs when almost no one would care. I feel like people should have basically no expectation of privacy for something that they posted publicly anyway. I also released all "report to moderator" reports involving or mentioning BFL. I don't think that these are very sensitive, so I'm not going to send out PMs about these. I wonder how do they send you Subpoena ? Does not it require to have your physical address ? But, do they have it ? What would they have done if BitcoinTalk owner were not located in USA ? Sending Subpoena to forum admins appear ridiculous to me. Conversations are all open in public. They can directly collect their info from there. And how would they verify whether you are sending them correct PMs or not ? How can this become an evidence in a judicial process ? They most likely emailed him the subpoena, at least that is how they served him the DPR subpoena Title: Re: BFL subpoena Post by: CanaryInTheMine on April 17, 2015, 07:53:05 PM I recently received a subpoena related to a case against BFL (Case No. 14-CV-2159-KHV-JPO). I had to release all database info on a few employees/ex-employees of BFL (including their PMs), plus a complete copy of every thread in which anyone mentioned BFL or in which a BFL employee participated. (It was a huge hassle to put all of this info together.) The subpoena originally demanded all PMs that even mentioned BFL, which is ridiculous, but I managed to get this part eliminated. If a PM of yours was released due to this, then I already sent you a PM about it. I don't think that I'm going to send PMs about deleted posts that were released. 3196 users had deleted posts released, and I don't really want to send that many PMs when almost no one would care. I feel like people should have basically no expectation of privacy for something that they posted publicly anyway. I also released all "report to moderator" reports involving or mentioning BFL. I don't think that these are very sensitive, so I'm not going to send out PMs about these. I wonder how do they send you Subpoena ? Does not it require to have your physical address ? But, do they have it ? What would they have done if BitcoinTalk owner were not located in USA ? Sending Subpoena to forum admins appear ridiculous to me. Conversations are all open in public. They can directly collect their info from there. And how would they verify whether you are sending them correct PMs or not ? How can this become an evidence in a judicial process ? Title: Re: BFL subpoena Post by: QuestionAuthority on April 17, 2015, 07:56:29 PM I recently received a subpoena related to a case against BFL (Case No. 14-CV-2159-KHV-JPO). I had to release all database info on a few employees/ex-employees of BFL (including their PMs), plus a complete copy of every thread in which anyone mentioned BFL or in which a BFL employee participated. (It was a huge hassle to put all of this info together.) The subpoena originally demanded all PMs that even mentioned BFL, which is ridiculous, but I managed to get this part eliminated. If a PM of yours was released due to this, then I already sent you a PM about it. I don't think that I'm going to send PMs about deleted posts that were released. 3196 users had deleted posts released, and I don't really want to send that many PMs when almost no one would care. I feel like people should have basically no expectation of privacy for something that they posted publicly anyway. I also released all "report to moderator" reports involving or mentioning BFL. I don't think that these are very sensitive, so I'm not going to send out PMs about these. I wonder how do they send you Subpoena ? Does not it require to have your physical address ? But, do they have it ? What would they have done if BitcoinTalk owner were not located in USA ? Sending Subpoena to forum admins appear ridiculous to me. Conversations are all open in public. They can directly collect their info from there. And how would they verify whether you are sending them correct PMs or not ? How can this become an evidence in a judicial process ? They most likely emailed him the subpoena, at least that is how they served him the DPR subpoena Title: Re: BFL subpoena Post by: Quickseller on April 17, 2015, 08:02:10 PM I recently received a subpoena related to a case against BFL (Case No. 14-CV-2159-KHV-JPO). I had to release all database info on a few employees/ex-employees of BFL (including their PMs), plus a complete copy of every thread in which anyone mentioned BFL or in which a BFL employee participated. (It was a huge hassle to put all of this info together.) The subpoena originally demanded all PMs that even mentioned BFL, which is ridiculous, but I managed to get this part eliminated. If a PM of yours was released due to this, then I already sent you a PM about it. I don't think that I'm going to send PMs about deleted posts that were released. 3196 users had deleted posts released, and I don't really want to send that many PMs when almost no one would care. I feel like people should have basically no expectation of privacy for something that they posted publicly anyway. I also released all "report to moderator" reports involving or mentioning BFL. I don't think that these are very sensitive, so I'm not going to send out PMs about these. I wonder how do they send you Subpoena ? Does not it require to have your physical address ? But, do they have it ? What would they have done if BitcoinTalk owner were not located in USA ? Sending Subpoena to forum admins appear ridiculous to me. Conversations are all open in public. They can directly collect their info from there. And how would they verify whether you are sending them correct PMs or not ? How can this become an evidence in a judicial process ? They most likely emailed him the subpoena, at least that is how they served him the DPR subpoena If either party wanted to dispute the completeness of what was provided or wanted to dispute anything that was provided was actually a true and correct copy of the forum's records then he would need to testify (or if either party wanted to otherwise dispute what was provided). I would say there is a pretty good chance that theymos won't need to personally appear, or if he does it will most likely only be for a disposition. I would say the BFL case(s) will most likely get settled out of court (and plea agreements will be reached for criminal cases) Title: Re: BFL subpoena Post by: QuestionAuthority on April 17, 2015, 08:08:08 PM I recently received a subpoena related to a case against BFL (Case No. 14-CV-2159-KHV-JPO). I had to release all database info on a few employees/ex-employees of BFL (including their PMs), plus a complete copy of every thread in which anyone mentioned BFL or in which a BFL employee participated. (It was a huge hassle to put all of this info together.) The subpoena originally demanded all PMs that even mentioned BFL, which is ridiculous, but I managed to get this part eliminated. If a PM of yours was released due to this, then I already sent you a PM about it. I don't think that I'm going to send PMs about deleted posts that were released. 3196 users had deleted posts released, and I don't really want to send that many PMs when almost no one would care. I feel like people should have basically no expectation of privacy for something that they posted publicly anyway. I also released all "report to moderator" reports involving or mentioning BFL. I don't think that these are very sensitive, so I'm not going to send out PMs about these. I wonder how do they send you Subpoena ? Does not it require to have your physical address ? But, do they have it ? What would they have done if BitcoinTalk owner were not located in USA ? Sending Subpoena to forum admins appear ridiculous to me. Conversations are all open in public. They can directly collect their info from there. And how would they verify whether you are sending them correct PMs or not ? How can this become an evidence in a judicial process ? They most likely emailed him the subpoena, at least that is how they served him the DPR subpoena If either party wanted to dispute the completeness of what was provided or wanted to dispute anything that was provided was actually a true and correct copy of the forum's records then he would need to testify (or if either party wanted to otherwise dispute what was provided). I would say there is a pretty good chance that theymos won't need to personally appear, or if he does it will most likely only be for a disposition. I would say the BFL case(s) will most likely get settled out of court (and plea agreements will be reached for criminal cases) Yeah, that's what I kept telling myself right up to the day of my appearance in court. lol Title: Re: BFL subpoena Post by: VenusFlyTrap on April 18, 2015, 02:45:55 AM I wonder when they will be requesting info on bcp19's alts. He's posted under:
Pokokohua! badgerkiller bcpokey DaBitcoinGuy Maybe a couple others I can't remember, but the guy just totally lost his mind (probably because of the subpoena) and revealed his latest alt account. Meh, par for the course when BFL is involved. ::) Title: Re: BFL subpoena Post by: dogie on April 18, 2015, 02:58:13 AM I wonder when they will be requesting info on bcp19's alts. He's posted under: Pokokohua! badgerkiller bcpokey DaBitcoinGuy Maybe a couple others I can't remember, but the guy just totally lost his mind (probably because of the subpoena) and revealed his latest alt account. Meh, par for the course when BFL is involved. ::) Not in the mood for searching through 200 pages of PMs, but I believe an admin confirmed to me there wasn't any obvious connection between Josh and Pokokohua!. Do you know something different? Title: Re: BFL subpoena Post by: Leeroy Jenkins on April 18, 2015, 03:10:24 AM Well, I don't see why the "BFL" account (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=44366) was not included in the subpoena. Am I missing something? ???
Edit: Anyone!? Title: Re: BFL subpoena Post by: r3wt on April 18, 2015, 03:16:10 AM I wonder when they will be requesting info on bcp19's alts. He's posted under: Pokokohua! badgerkiller bcpokey DaBitcoinGuy Maybe a couple others I can't remember, but the guy just totally lost his mind (probably because of the subpoena) and revealed his latest alt account. Meh, par for the course when BFL is involved. ::) Here's what i know about bcp19 I said something about BFL being a scam. then i got some pretty new red paint on my trust profile Title: Re: BFL subpoena Post by: b!z on April 18, 2015, 03:37:23 AM Exclusive interview with Theymos: "I think that I fought for user privacy much more vigorously than most sites would in this situation, and I still had to release a lot of private data."
http://www.coinbuzz.com/2015/04/17/bitcoin-forum-gives-600-peoples-private-info-to-us-government/ Title: Re: BFL subpoena Post by: dogie on April 18, 2015, 03:44:23 AM Exclusive interview with Theymos: "I think that I fought for user privacy much more vigorously than most sites would in this situation, and I still had to release a lot of private data." http://www.coinbuzz.com/2015/04/17/bitcoin-forum-gives-600-peoples-private-info-to-us-government/ In case of DDOS, mobile, refusal to support coinbuzz etc: Quote The administrator of the world’s most popular bitcoin forum, bitcointalk.org, told users that he was forced by a subpoena to release 600 people’s private messages. Michael Marquadt, a.k.a. theymos, told affected users that he would mark the information as confidential, but that may not be enough to keep it from going public. He goes on to clarify in the message, “In particular, I believe that BFL has full access to the PMs and could choose to release them.” The bulk message was sent out to anyone who interacted with the Butterfly Labs staff accounts on the forums. Any messages – even deleted ones – sent to the following accounts may have been released: Inaba BFL-Engineer BFL_Josh SLok BFL_Sonny BFL AM Dave bcp19 nibbknot Forum administrator responds CoinBuzz reached out to Marquadt (theymos) for more information: When were you asked to release the PMs? The subpoena is dated March 3. Whom were you asked by? Subpoenas are always sent by a government, usually a court. You can’t just go and send someone a subpoena. This one was issued by the US District Court for the District of Kansas. It is related to case number 14-CV-2159-KHV-JPO. Are you concerned about what might be done with the PMs you provided? Yes. That’s why I spent so much time/money reducing the number of PMs I would have to release to the bare minimum. (The subpoena originally requested all PMs that even mentioned BFL, from/to anyone.) Only PMs to/from a few people who (apparently) are/were BFL employees were released. The PMs are also covered by a protective order, which should make it somewhat more difficult for the PMs to become public. Even though I want to protect forum PMs as much as I can, users of any website should be aware that it is basically impossible for any service to completely protect data that you give them access to. For example, if Google received a similar subpeona saying, “Give us all GMail emails talking about BFL,” it seems plausible to me that they might give up this info without any fight at all, and maybe not even tell the affected users about it. I think that I fought for user privacy much more vigorously than most sites would in this situation, and I still had to release a lot of private data. Therefore, you should always securely encrypt sensitive information before putting it on the Internet. Don’t trust third-parties with anything important. Are you concerned about how BFL might respond to this? I treated both BFL and the plantiff fairly here. They don’t have any reason to be upset with me. I am somewhat concerned that BFL could get some info about people who were anti-BFL and use this against them somehow. For example, perhaps some of released PMs show that an ex-BFL-employee broke an NDA. (This is just an example — I haven’t actually read most of the released PMs, and I didn’t observe anything like this in what I did read.) This is unavoidable, unfortunately. What is your opinion on Butterfly Labs in general? As far as I know, they accepted substantial preorders and then failed to deliver in any reasonable timeframe. This is very bad. But whether this was due to bad luck, incompetence, or malice, I don’t know. The long and troubled past of ButterFfy Labs Butterfly Labs are perhaps the most infamous company in the Bitcoin space. For years they’ve been the centre of controversy, due to their long history of false promises, unreasonable delays, and unpopular customer service. In September of 2014 the mining hardware manufacturers were shut down by the Federal Trade Commission. They proceeded to reopen in January and set a timetable for shipping their Monarch hardware and issuing refunds to some customers, but this recent development suggests that they are still being investigated. Title: Re: BFL subpoena Post by: Leeroy Jenkins on April 18, 2015, 04:00:41 AM Here's what i know about bcp19 I said something about BFL being a scam. then i got some pretty new red paint on my trust profile Dude, take a look at Blazr's stats history by activity. Guess what shows up? Nah, I'll tell you: Korean. Who also knows Korean, is in love with himself and BFL and held a bullshit contest? Josh Zerlan. Now where is my cookie?::) Title: Re: BFL subpoena Post by: Quickseller on April 18, 2015, 04:03:00 AM Here's what i know about bcp19 I said something about BFL being a scam. then i got some pretty new red paint on my trust profile Dude, take a look at that account's stats history by activity. Guess what shows up? Nah, I'll tell you: Korean. Who also knows Korean, is in love with himself and BFL, and held a bullshit contest? Josh Zerlan. Now where is my cookie?::) Title: Re: BFL subpoena Post by: Leeroy Jenkins on April 18, 2015, 04:08:16 AM Blazr is too smart to be BFL_josh. They also live in different countries/continents/extremely distant time zones. Hrm, the "too smart" bit doesn't seem to jive but thanks for the alternate POV. Title: Re: BFL subpoena Post by: r3wt on April 18, 2015, 04:30:17 AM Well, I don't see why the "BFL" account (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=44366) was not included in the subpoena. Am I missing something? ??? Edit: Anyone!? Probably because that account hasn't had activity since 2013, but who can really say for certain. Title: Re: BFL subpoena Post by: r3wt on April 18, 2015, 04:35:57 AM Here's what i know about bcp19 I said something about BFL being a scam. then i got some pretty new red paint on my trust profile Dude, take a look at Blazr's stats history by activity. Guess what shows up? Nah, I'll tell you: Korean. Who also knows Korean, is in love with himself and BFL and held a bullshit contest? Josh Zerlan. Now where is my cookie?::) I'm not into lying, so i'll be honest and say that Blazr's feedback on my profile is atleast partially earned through past transgressions by myself. In the context of this discussion, i'd say that Blazr's feedback had nothing to do with BFL, and more to do with me not being able to let a sleeping dog lie. Title: Re: BFL subpoena Post by: Leeroy Jenkins on April 18, 2015, 04:49:42 AM Well, I don't see why the "BFL" account (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=44366) was not included in the subpoena. Am I missing something? ??? Edit: Anyone!? Probably because that account hasn't had activity since 2013, but who can really say for certain. But, but the time period for the subpoena is from mid-2011 to now, so it remains inexplicable that it wouldn't be included, especially given who I (and many others) think operated that account. :o Title: Re: BFL subpoena Post by: Bicknellski on April 18, 2015, 06:35:22 AM I wonder when they will be requesting info on bcp19's alts. He's posted under: Pokokohua! badgerkiller bcpokey DaBitcoinGuy Maybe a couple others I can't remember, but the guy just totally lost his mind (probably because of the subpoena) and revealed his latest alt account. Meh, par for the course when BFL is involved. ::) Just check my trust for that complete list. Title: Re: BFL subpoena Post by: Xian01 on April 18, 2015, 07:17:10 AM Can you upload the subpoeana here in the forum (as the other one, the silkroad subpoena?) thanks. Subpoena for Bitcointalk information -- http://ia801803.us.archive.org/33/items/gov.uscourts.ksd.97083/gov.uscourts.ksd.97083.68.1.pdf "Alexander et al v. BF Labs Inc." - http://ia801803.us.archive.org/33/items/gov.uscourts.ksd.97083/gov.uscourts.ksd.97083.docket.html Title: Re: BFL subpoena Post by: Muhammed Zakir on April 18, 2015, 08:06:48 AM Can you upload the subpoeana here in the forum (as the other one, the silkroad subpoena?) thanks. Subpoena for Bitcointalk information -- http://ia801803.us.archive.org/33/items/gov.uscourts.ksd.97083/gov.uscourts.ksd.97083.68.1.pdf "Alexander et al v. BF Labs Inc." - http://ia801803.us.archive.org/33/items/gov.uscourts.ksd.97083/gov.uscourts.ksd.97083.docket.html Thank you. So not only keyword "BFL" but there are more. It will be a big pain for theymos. Quote from: subpoena Target Keywords: BFL BF Labs Butterfly Labs Vleisides Zerlan Ownby Ghoseiri eclipse butterflylabs.com eclipsemc.com monarch jalapeno nimbusmining Title: Re: BFL subpoena Post by: Last of the V8s on April 18, 2015, 09:13:14 AM @op do you have plans to leave that jurisdiction?
Title: Re: BFL subpoena Post by: QuestionAuthority on April 18, 2015, 02:11:45 PM Can you upload the subpoeana here in the forum (as the other one, the silkroad subpoena?) thanks. Subpoena for Bitcointalk information -- http://ia801803.us.archive.org/33/items/gov.uscourts.ksd.97083/gov.uscourts.ksd.97083.68.1.pdf "Alexander et al v. BF Labs Inc." - http://ia801803.us.archive.org/33/items/gov.uscourts.ksd.97083/gov.uscourts.ksd.97083.docket.html I'm pretty sure nibbknot is Bruno's sock. Bruno didn't work for BFL, did he? Title: Re: BFL subpoena Post by: redsn0w on April 18, 2015, 02:26:33 PM Can you upload the subpoeana here in the forum (as the other one, the silkroad subpoena?) thanks. Subpoena for Bitcointalk information -- http://ia801803.us.archive.org/33/items/gov.uscourts.ksd.97083/gov.uscourts.ksd.97083.68.1.pdf "Alexander et al v. BF Labs Inc." - http://ia801803.us.archive.org/33/items/gov.uscourts.ksd.97083/gov.uscourts.ksd.97083.docket.html Thanks for the links ;). .... So not only keyword "BFL" but there are more. It will be a big pain for theymos. Quote from: subpoena Target Keywords: BFL BF Labs Butterfly Labs Vleisides Zerlan Ownby Ghoseiri eclipse butterflylabs.com eclipsemc.com monarch jalapeno nimbusmining It seems all words "related" with BFL... Title: Re: BFL subpoena Post by: sbogovac on April 18, 2015, 06:10:10 PM [...] when the Government needs any info, it's hard to convince them. [...] Huh... ??? What's you talking about? What does government have to do with this? Did you even read the subpoena (let alone the rest of this thread before posting)? Title: Re: BFL subpoena Post by: erikalui on April 18, 2015, 06:31:12 PM [...] when the Government needs any info, it's hard to convince them. [...] Huh... ??? What's you talking about? What does government have to do with this? Did you even read the subpoena (let alone the rest of this thread before posting)? I just found this: http://www.plainsite.org/dockets/download.html?id=176216470&z=77fe495b And this http://ia801803.us.archive.org/33/items/gov.uscourts.ksd.97083/gov.uscourts.ksd.97083.68.1.pdf I thought it is the Government agency who issued this. ??? If you know better than me, then would you mind explaining when the following are the Target accounts: BFL_Josh BFL_Sonny BFL-Engineer Inaba BFL AM Dave bcp19 nibbknot SLok Why did they ask for all the posts that mentioned that term? They think all posts and PMs will be helpful for their investigation but theymos has reduced it(according to OP). P.S. =snip= The subpoena originally demanded all PMs that even mentioned BFL, which is ridiculous, but I managed to get this part eliminated. =snip= I read that in the first post but my concern was if they want to take any action on the users that just used the terms or they are only interested in the BFL employees-/ex employees posts. Title: Re: BFL subpoena Post by: Muhammed Zakir on April 18, 2015, 07:05:49 PM [...] when the Government needs any info, it's hard to convince them. [...] Huh... ??? What's you talking about? What does government have to do with this? Did you even read the subpoena (let alone the rest of this thread before posting)? I just found this: http://www.plainsite.org/dockets/download.html?id=176216470&z=77fe495b And this http://ia801803.us.archive.org/33/items/gov.uscourts.ksd.97083/gov.uscourts.ksd.97083.68.1.pdf I thought it is the Government agency who issued this. ??? If you know better than me, then would you mind explaining when the following are the Target accounts: BFL_Josh BFL_Sonny BFL-Engineer Inaba BFL AM Dave bcp19 nibbknot SLok Why did they ask for all the posts that mentioned that term? They think all posts and PMs will be helpful for their investigation but theymos has reduced it(according to OP). P.S. =snip= The subpoena originally demanded all PMs that even mentioned BFL, which is ridiculous, but I managed to get this part eliminated. =snip= Title: Re: BFL subpoena Post by: sbogovac on April 18, 2015, 08:04:50 PM [...] when the Government needs any info, it's hard to convince them. [...] Huh... ??? What's you talking about? What does government have to do with this? Did you even read the subpoena (let alone the rest of this thread before posting)? I just found this: http://www.plainsite.org/dockets/download.html?id=176216470&z=77fe495b And this http://ia801803.us.archive.org/33/items/gov.uscourts.ksd.97083/gov.uscourts.ksd.97083.68.1.pdf I thought it is the Government agency who issued this. ???[...] As you can reed on the first page of the subpoena it were: KYLE ALEXANDER, and DYLAN SYMINGTON of the WOOD LAW FIRM that requested it. (And if you Google WOOD LAW FIRM and BFL together, what do you get...?) Title: Re: BFL subpoena Post by: sbogovac on April 18, 2015, 08:07:44 PM [...]Why did they ask for all the posts that mentioned that term?[...] Only they know. But my guess is - like Muhammed's - they think it wil somehow help them in their investigation of / case against BFL... Title: Re: BFL subpoena Post by: sbogovac on April 18, 2015, 08:09:15 PM [...] when the Government needs any info, it's hard to convince them. [...] Huh... ??? What's you talking about? What does government have to do with this? Did you even read the subpoena (let alone the rest of this thread before posting)?Where in the first post does it say anything about government? You assumed it... I assume... :P Title: Re: BFL subpoena Post by: erikalui on April 18, 2015, 08:14:14 PM As you can reed on the first page of the subpoena it were: KYLE ALEXANDER, and DYLAN SYMINGTON of the WOOD LAW FIRM that requested it. (And if you google WOOD LAW FIRM and BFL together, what do you get...?) Oh it was a Law Firm. I get this if I Google search it: http://www.woodlaw.com/cases/butterfly-labs-and-bf-labs-inc-bitcoin-miners I assumed it was a Government agency as I just went by the definition and I read the case that the company hasn't lived up to the expectations of their customers and they have many cases issued against them. Thanks for the reply :) Title: Re: BFL subpoena Post by: unamis76 on April 18, 2015, 08:33:29 PM I'm surprised that BFL is such a small part of the forum. I was about to suggest you should just give them yesterday's forum snapshot ;D
Jokes aside... What the hell do we have to do with BFL? Why the hell should theymos be forced to lose time gathering all the information these guys need? If they need info, get them yourselves... Don't force your own citizens to work for you for free, gathering old information they have nothing to do about and sending them in if they don't bow to this... Pretty annoying. As for the PM protection... I agree with Blazr. Losing your password would be a feature. But this also should be opt-in, with a big, annoying, one time warning. Title: Re: BFL subpoena Post by: redsn0w on April 18, 2015, 08:40:27 PM I'm surprised that BFL is such a small part of the forum. I was about to suggest you should just give them yesterday's forum snapshot ;D Jokes aside... What the hell do we have to do with BFL? Why the hell should theymos be forced to lose time gathering all the information these guys need? If they need info, get them yourselves... Don't force your own citizens to work for you for free, gathering old information they have nothing to do about and sending them in if they don't bow to this... Pretty annoying. As for the PM protection... I agree with Blazr. Losing your password would be a feature. But this also should be opt-in, with a big, annoying, one time warning. I have asked the 'same' thing and this is was the reply from BadBear: Subpoena is a court order, so yes he has to respond (either consent or fight it in court) or he can be jailed. And yes you should always use PGP or something else for sensitive communications. I hope they enjoy reading my pm's to Inaba warning him to stop trolling and derailing threads, and him whining about someone else starting it. I was lucky to have not sent any 'sensitive' pm to any 'member' of BFL team or person related with them. Title: Re: BFL subpoena Post by: VenusFlyTrap on April 19, 2015, 12:12:01 AM I just found this: http://www.plainsite.org/dockets/download.html?id=176216470&z=77fe495b And this http://ia801803.us.archive.org/33/items/gov.uscourts.ksd.97083/gov.uscourts.ksd.97083.68.1.pdf We have been following this for months. Where have you been dude? Look at the other BFL threads. Title: Re: BFL subpoena Post by: dogie on April 19, 2015, 12:38:06 AM I just found this: http://www.plainsite.org/dockets/download.html?id=176216470&z=77fe495b And this http://ia801803.us.archive.org/33/items/gov.uscourts.ksd.97083/gov.uscourts.ksd.97083.68.1.pdf We have been following this for months. Where have you been dude? Look at the other BFL threads. Its hard to when only 1/60 posts is actually about the case, which is CK's point. While there may be some useful content in that old thread, there's so much noise that its untenable to actually find that information in the thread. Title: Re: BFL subpoena Post by: VenusFlyTrap on April 19, 2015, 01:12:39 AM I just found this: http://www.plainsite.org/dockets/download.html?id=176216470&z=77fe495b And this http://ia801803.us.archive.org/33/items/gov.uscourts.ksd.97083/gov.uscourts.ksd.97083.68.1.pdf We have been following this for months. Where have you been dude? Look at the other BFL threads. Its hard to when only 1/60 posts is actually about the case, which is CK's point. While there may be some useful content in that old thread, there's so much noise that its untenable to actually find that information in the thread. Title: Re: BFL subpoena Post by: dogie on April 19, 2015, 01:29:45 AM I just found this: http://www.plainsite.org/dockets/download.html?id=176216470&z=77fe495b And this http://ia801803.us.archive.org/33/items/gov.uscourts.ksd.97083/gov.uscourts.ksd.97083.68.1.pdf We have been following this for months. Where have you been dude? Look at the other BFL threads. Its hard to when only 1/60 posts is actually about the case, which is CK's point. While there may be some useful content in that old thread, there's so much noise that its untenable to actually find that information in the thread. Why do I have to say that? Of course I didn't contribute to that thread, it was unusable and a mess. Not a lot of point investing time into thoughtful discussion there when its going to get buried by PG/GG within 20 seconds. Title: Re: BFL subpoena Post by: Bicknellski on April 19, 2015, 06:10:25 AM I'm surprised that BFL is such a small part of the forum. I was about to suggest you should just give them yesterday's forum snapshot ;D Jokes aside... What the hell do we have to do with BFL? Why the hell should theymos be forced to lose time gathering all the information these guys need? If they need info, get them yourselves... Don't force your own citizens to work for you for free, gathering old information they have nothing to do about and sending them in if they don't bow to this... Pretty annoying. As for the PM protection... I agree with Blazr. Losing your password would be a feature. But this also should be opt-in, with a big, annoying, one time warning. Ignoring scams leads to this. Being proactive could resolve it simply banning BFL in 2012 or 2013 as things escalated. If you don't want to bother doing hours of info collation then eliminate the scammers sooner and permanently. No remorse here this subpoena has happened. It will happen again without any proactive measures by admins. Title: Re: BFL subpoena Post by: Quickseller on April 19, 2015, 06:18:40 AM I'm surprised that BFL is such a small part of the forum. I was about to suggest you should just give them yesterday's forum snapshot ;D Jokes aside... What the hell do we have to do with BFL? Why the hell should theymos be forced to lose time gathering all the information these guys need? If they need info, get them yourselves... Don't force your own citizens to work for you for free, gathering old information they have nothing to do about and sending them in if they don't bow to this... Pretty annoying. As for the PM protection... I agree with Blazr. Losing your password would be a feature. But this also should be opt-in, with a big, annoying, one time warning. Ignoring scams leads to this. Being proactive could resolve it simply banning BFL in 2012 or 2013 as things escalated. If you don't want to bother doing hours of info collation then eliminate the scammers sooner and permanently. No remorse here this subpoena has happened. It will happen again without any proactive measures by admins. Title: Re: BFL subpoena Post by: erikalui on April 19, 2015, 09:37:42 AM I just found this: http://www.plainsite.org/dockets/download.html?id=176216470&z=77fe495b And this http://ia801803.us.archive.org/33/items/gov.uscourts.ksd.97083/gov.uscourts.ksd.97083.68.1.pdf We have been following this for months. Where have you been dude? Look at the other BFL threads. I was alive but not that alive to read about something I don't know about nor am interested in bro. I dint know the term BFL till this post was created. I can't search every section of this forum to find out what's going on and I don't even know anyone who could tell me about this case. and also it's pretty obvious that what you might know, I might not and vice versa. Not surprising at all. What other BFL thread? Aren't they all deleted? I'm surprised that BFL is such a small part of the forum. I was about to suggest you should just give them yesterday's forum snapshot ;D Jokes aside... What the hell do we have to do with BFL? Why the hell should theymos be forced to lose time gathering all the information these guys need? If they need info, get them yourselves... Don't force your own citizens to work for you for free, gathering old information they have nothing to do about and sending them in if they don't bow to this... Pretty annoying. As for the PM protection... I agree with Blazr. Losing your password would be a feature. But this also should be opt-in, with a big, annoying, one time warning. I have asked the 'same' thing and this is was the reply from BadBear: Subpoena is a court order, so yes he has to respond (either consent or fight it in court) or he can be jailed. And yes you should always use PGP or something else for sensitive communications. I hope they enjoy reading my pm's to Inaba warning him to stop trolling and derailing threads, and him whining about someone else starting it. I was lucky to have not sent any 'sensitive' pm to any 'member' of BFL team or person related with them. It's obvious that when there is some legal trouble or a law firm investigating a case, they ask for all other information. Like I can read the OP, it says that most employees of the company were members of this forum. Theymos may be asked to provide everything related to those employees and if he wouldn't do it, it could have appeared as if he is supporting them. That usually is assumed. Glad that he supported them. Title: Re: BFL subpoena Post by: unamis76 on April 19, 2015, 10:24:45 AM I'm surprised that BFL is such a small part of the forum. I was about to suggest you should just give them yesterday's forum snapshot ;D Jokes aside... What the hell do we have to do with BFL? Why the hell should theymos be forced to lose time gathering all the information these guys need? If they need info, get them yourselves... Don't force your own citizens to work for you for free, gathering old information they have nothing to do about and sending them in if they don't bow to this... Pretty annoying. As for the PM protection... I agree with Blazr. Losing your password would be a feature. But this also should be opt-in, with a big, annoying, one time warning. I have asked the 'same' thing and this is was the reply from BadBear: Subpoena is a court order, so yes he has to respond (either consent or fight it in court) or he can be jailed. And yes you should always use PGP or something else for sensitive communications. I hope they enjoy reading my pm's to Inaba warning him to stop trolling and derailing threads, and him whining about someone else starting it. I was lucky to have not sent any 'sensitive' pm to any 'member' of BFL team or person related with them. Of course he has to respond, that's how their laws are made... But they shouldn't have sent the subpoena in the first place: this is not the BFL forums neither is theymos involved with BFL We shouldn't have to waste time dealing with other people's problems. Being a forum admin doesn't include that responsibility. Or at least it shouldn't. I guess they're just going to ask to all admins of websites where criminals have gone through to release their info ::) Ignoring scams leads to this. Being proactive could resolve it simply banning BFL in 2012 or 2013 as things escalated. If you don't want to bother doing hours of info collation then eliminate the scammers sooner and permanently. No remorse here this subpoena has happened. It will happen again without any proactive measures by admins. Ignoring scams leads to many precedents, which don't really make sense around here, in my opinion. That's why there are forum parts where there are red letters saying that possible scams are not removed. As far as I know, theymos position around here is being neutral (as you can read by his interview posted earlier in the thread). Removing sensitive things doesn't really make him neutral. I think that wouldn't be good for his image and, most importantly, to the image of the forum. Removing things makes admins and mods look like they're on one side of the fence, and I wouldn't like to visit a forum where admins remove things that may (or may not) be a scam. That's up to us to see what's up (and we're a pretty smart community around here) Title: Re: BFL subpoena Post by: sbogovac on April 19, 2015, 10:43:18 AM [...] Any normal "rule-of-law" country should have these kind of laws. If a forum provides the ability for people to meet and transact, the both parties should be able to collect enough information to settle disputes (especially if one of those parties is conducting "business" the way BFL has done)... Or would you prefer the "wild west" where the "law of the strongest/richest/cunnyest applies? Title: Re: BFL subpoena Post by: DeboraMeeks on April 19, 2015, 10:46:14 AM To prevent this sort of thing happening in future why doesn't theymos cede control of the forum to someone he trusts who lives in Russia or Belize or wherever, and who is willing to ignore such subpoenas?
Title: Re: BFL subpoena Post by: IPO Magic on April 19, 2015, 01:11:55 PM I'm surprised that BFL is such a small part of the forum. I was about to suggest you should just give them yesterday's forum snapshot ;D Jokes aside... What the hell do we have to do with BFL? Why the hell should theymos be forced to lose time gathering all the information these guys need? If they need info, get them yourselves... Don't force your own citizens to work for you for free, gathering old information they have nothing to do about and sending them in if they don't bow to this... Pretty annoying. As for the PM protection... I agree with Blazr. Losing your password would be a feature. But this also should be opt-in, with a big, annoying, one time warning. Ignoring scams leads to this. Being proactive could resolve it simply banning BFL in 2012 or 2013 as things escalated. If you don't want to bother doing hours of info collation then eliminate the scammers sooner and permanently. No remorse here this subpoena has happened. It will happen again without any proactive measures by admins. A disclaimer stating that scams are not banned doesn't absolve the forum from responsibility of being a vehicle for fraud. Scams are banned in US. Theymos is a US citizen, operating from US soil, regardless of where the servers are physically located, and is subject to US law. @DeboraMeeks: And control of $ million + in BTC? Not gonna happen. Title: Re: BFL subpoena Post by: Blazr on April 19, 2015, 02:04:33 PM A disclaimer stating that scams are not banned doesn't absolve the forum from responsibility of being a vehicle for fraud. By that same logic, if your Bitcoin node relayed a fraudulent transaction it received it would be a vehicle for fraud, therefore it's safe to assume every Bitcoin user running a node is just as guilty as theymos as undoubtedly every Bitcoin node has relayed a fraudulent transaction. Thankfully the law doesn't work that way and there are laws in place designed to protect website owners from the actions of their users, which is why craigslist's owners aren't in jail for the actions of people like the Craigslist Killer. Title: Re: BFL subpoena Post by: QuestionAuthority on April 19, 2015, 03:33:58 PM To prevent this sort of thing happening in future why doesn't theymos cede control of the forum to someone he trusts who lives in Russia or Belize or wherever, and who is willing to ignore such subpoenas? Why? It's not the responsibility of theymos to make sure the users of this forum are decent honest people. It's also not his responsibility to protect forum users from the law. He's a forum administrator not a mommy or a nanny. He only has one job duty on this forum and only owes one thing to its membership - keep the forum running. There are a bunch of little jobs inside that one duty like keep the spam down, ban the disruptive people, pay for the hosting, update the software, bla bla. Nowhere in that duty list does it say, keep members from being ripped off and hide them from the law. Title: Re: BFL subpoena Post by: dogie on April 19, 2015, 03:34:46 PM To prevent this sort of thing happening in future why doesn't theymos cede control of the forum to someone he trusts who lives in Russia or Belize or wherever, and who is willing to ignore such subpoenas? Because the last entity you want to piss off is the US Government. If you stick your fingers up at them they'll find a way to insert them into you. While we all agree that bitcointalk.org shouldn't have been subject to such sweeping requests for information, there is little reason to start a war over it. Title: Re: BFL subpoena Post by: sbogovac on April 19, 2015, 03:40:16 PM A disclaimer stating that scams are not banned doesn't absolve the forum from responsibility of being a vehicle for fraud. By that same logic, if your Bitcoin node relayed a fraudulent transaction it received it would be a vehicle for fraud, therefore it's safe to assume every Bitcoin user running a node is just as guilty as theymos as undoubtedly every Bitcoin node has relayed a fraudulent transaction. Thankfully the law doesn't work that way and there are laws in place designed to protect website owners from the actions of their users, which is why craigslist's owners aren't in jail for the actions of people like the Craigslist Killer. Yes, indeed. Exactly why Craigslist provides infomation to anyone requesting formally; either private/through a lawyer because they've been ripped off or by government LEO's trying to catch criminals... Title: Re: BFL subpoena Post by: sbogovac on April 19, 2015, 04:22:38 PM To prevent this sort of thing happening in future why doesn't theymos cede control of the forum to someone he trusts who lives in Russia or Belize or wherever, and who is willing to ignore such subpoenas? Why? It's not the responsibility of theymos to make sure the users of this forum are decent honest people. It's also not his responsibility to protect forum users from the law. He's a forum administrator not a mommy or a nanny. He only has one job duty on this forum and only owes one thing to its membership - keep the forum running. There are a bunch of little jobs inside that one duty like keep the spam down, ban the disruptive people, pay for the hosting, update the software, bla bla. Nowhere in that duty list does it say, keep members from being ripped off and hide them from the law. It does however "say": provide information to people who request it formally and with good reason... If Theymos had seen this as 'no good reason' (which in part he did) he's free to protest (which he did succesfully)... Title: Re: BFL subpoena Post by: IPO Magic on April 19, 2015, 04:59:28 PM A disclaimer stating that scams are not banned doesn't absolve the forum from responsibility of being a vehicle for fraud. By that same logic, if your Bitcoin node relayed a fraudulent transaction it received it would be a vehicle for fraud, therefore it's safe to assume every Bitcoin user running a node is just as guilty as theymos as undoubtedly every Bitcoin node has relayed a fraudulent transaction. We're not discussing logic or how things should be, had we our way. We're talking about US laws. US laws do not allow US person to run websites where people sell CI drugs, or promoting unregistered securities. The fact that such practices may be perfectly legal in Liberland is irrelevant. This is basic stuff. Quote Thankfully the law doesn't work that way and there are laws in place designed to protect website owners from the actions of their users, which is why craigslist's owners aren't in jail for the actions of people like the Craigslist Killer. If Craigslist operators knew the ad was placed by a murderer, were informed, on multiple occasions, that the guy was killing people, and refused to take down the ad? You can be absolutely certain they'd be jailed. Further, if most of the ads on Craigslist were made by killers, putting a disclaimer along the lines of... http://s13.postimg.org/k25iulgrb/Capture.png or, rather, "We do not remove ads by likely killers. Thus far, it appears that roughly 95% of these ads have proven to have been placed by confirmed murderers. Use your head." just wouldn't cut the mustard :-\ But, again, we're not talking about logic, we're talking about US law. Title: Re: BFL subpoena Post by: Quickseller on April 19, 2015, 05:04:21 PM A disclaimer stating that scams are not banned doesn't absolve the forum from responsibility of being a vehicle for fraud. By that same logic, if your Bitcoin node relayed a fraudulent transaction it received it would be a vehicle for fraud, therefore it's safe to assume every Bitcoin user running a node is just as guilty as theymos as undoubtedly every Bitcoin node has relayed a fraudulent transaction. We're not discussing logic or how things should be, had we our way. We're talking about US laws. US laws do not allow US person to run websites where people sell CI drugs, or promoting unregistered securities. This is basic stuff. Quote Thankfully the law doesn't work that way and there are laws in place designed to protect website owners from the actions of their users, which is why craigslist's owners aren't in jail for the actions of people like the Craigslist Killer. If Craigslist operators knew the ad was placed by a murderer, were informed, on multiple occasions, that the guy was killing people, and refused to take down the ad? You can be absolutely certain they'd be jailed. Further, if most of the ads on Craigslist were made by killers, putting a disclaimer along the lines of... http://s13.postimg.org/k25iulgrb/Capture.png or, rather, "We do not remove ads by likely killers. Thus far, it appears that roughly 95% of these ads have proven to have been placed by confirmed murderers. Use your head." just wouldn't cut the mustard :-\ The only real way that CL can *know* that a specific person is using CL to find victims to kill is if the killer is actually convicted (and would most likely in be jail), otherwise it would just be speculation Title: Re: BFL subpoena Post by: IPO Magic on April 19, 2015, 05:17:58 PM A disclaimer stating that scams are not banned doesn't absolve the forum from responsibility of being a vehicle for fraud. By that same logic, if your Bitcoin node relayed a fraudulent transaction it received it would be a vehicle for fraud, therefore it's safe to assume every Bitcoin user running a node is just as guilty as theymos as undoubtedly every Bitcoin node has relayed a fraudulent transaction. We're not discussing logic or how things should be, had we our way. We're talking about US laws. US laws do not allow US person to run websites where people sell CI drugs, or promoting unregistered securities. This is basic stuff. Quote Thankfully the law doesn't work that way and there are laws in place designed to protect website owners from the actions of their users, which is why craigslist's owners aren't in jail for the actions of people like the Craigslist Killer. If Craigslist operators knew the ad was placed by a murderer, were informed, on multiple occasions, that the guy was killing people, and refused to take down the ad? You can be absolutely certain they'd be jailed. Further, if most of the ads on Craigslist were made by killers, putting a disclaimer along the lines of... http://s13.postimg.org/k25iulgrb/Capture.png or, rather, "We do not remove ads by likely killers. Thus far, it appears that roughly 95% of these ads have proven to have been placed by confirmed murderers. Use your head." just wouldn't cut the mustard :-\ Such policy is simply illegal in US. As I already have pointed out, "If Craigslist operators knew the ad was placed by a murderer, were informed, on multiple occasions, that the guy was killing people, and refused to take down the ad? You can be absolutely certain they'd be jailed." That's what is being discussed - users alerting Theymos of a crime taking place, and Theymos refusing to act because policy. Title: Re: BFL subpoena Post by: Quickseller on April 19, 2015, 05:37:21 PM A disclaimer stating that scams are not banned doesn't absolve the forum from responsibility of being a vehicle for fraud. By that same logic, if your Bitcoin node relayed a fraudulent transaction it received it would be a vehicle for fraud, therefore it's safe to assume every Bitcoin user running a node is just as guilty as theymos as undoubtedly every Bitcoin node has relayed a fraudulent transaction. We're not discussing logic or how things should be, had we our way. We're talking about US laws. US laws do not allow US person to run websites where people sell CI drugs, or promoting unregistered securities. This is basic stuff. Quote Thankfully the law doesn't work that way and there are laws in place designed to protect website owners from the actions of their users, which is why craigslist's owners aren't in jail for the actions of people like the Craigslist Killer. If Craigslist operators knew the ad was placed by a murderer, were informed, on multiple occasions, that the guy was killing people, and refused to take down the ad? You can be absolutely certain they'd be jailed. Further, if most of the ads on Craigslist were made by killers, putting a disclaimer along the lines of... http://s13.postimg.org/k25iulgrb/Capture.png or, rather, "We do not remove ads by likely killers. Thus far, it appears that roughly 95% of these ads have proven to have been placed by confirmed murderers. Use your head." just wouldn't cut the mustard :-\ Such policy is simply illegal in US. As I already have pointed out, "If Craigslist operators knew the ad was placed by a murderer, were informed, on multiple occasions, that the guy was killing people, and refused to take down the ad? You can be absolutely certain they'd be jailed." That's what is being discussed - users alerting Theymos of a crime taking place, and Theymos refusing to act because policy. There have been a number of court cases involving ponzis on the forum and theymos (or the forum) were not held liable Title: Re: BFL subpoena Post by: IPO Magic on April 19, 2015, 06:08:19 PM A disclaimer stating that scams are not banned doesn't absolve the forum from responsibility of being a vehicle for fraud. By that same logic, if your Bitcoin node relayed a fraudulent transaction it received it would be a vehicle for fraud, therefore it's safe to assume every Bitcoin user running a node is just as guilty as theymos as undoubtedly every Bitcoin node has relayed a fraudulent transaction. We're not discussing logic or how things should be, had we our way. We're talking about US laws. US laws do not allow US person to run websites where people sell CI drugs, or promoting unregistered securities. This is basic stuff. Quote Thankfully the law doesn't work that way and there are laws in place designed to protect website owners from the actions of their users, which is why craigslist's owners aren't in jail for the actions of people like the Craigslist Killer. If Craigslist operators knew the ad was placed by a murderer, were informed, on multiple occasions, that the guy was killing people, and refused to take down the ad? You can be absolutely certain they'd be jailed. Further, if most of the ads on Craigslist were made by killers, putting a disclaimer along the lines of... http://s13.postimg.org/k25iulgrb/Capture.png or, rather, "We do not remove ads by likely killers. Thus far, it appears that roughly 95% of these ads have proven to have been placed by confirmed murderers. Use your head." just wouldn't cut the mustard :-\ Such policy is simply illegal in US. As I already have pointed out, "If Craigslist operators knew the ad was placed by a murderer, were informed, on multiple occasions, that the guy was killing people, and refused to take down the ad? You can be absolutely certain they'd be jailed." That's what is being discussed - users alerting Theymos of a crime taking place, and Theymos refusing to act because policy. There have been a number of court cases involving ponzis on the forum and theymos (or the forum) were not held liable Not sure if you're intentionally missing the point. The case law cited in your wiki article does not address knowingly facilitating illegal activities. In other words, a website allowing users to post pictures & being 95% child porn is not going to benefit from Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. Regardless of disclaimers. Re. bitcointalk lawsuits: not you're referring to (links?), but the fact that theymos has not been charged with anything merely proves that bitcointalk is much more useful as a honypot, a place that a couple of fat LEO could monitor from the comfort of their office. And providing a perfect paper trail to second-rate conmen, should their scams warrant sufficient interest. As long as theymos cooperates, everything's fine. Thus far, he's been cooperative :) Title: Re: BFL subpoena Post by: QuestionAuthority on April 19, 2015, 06:09:56 PM To prevent this sort of thing happening in future why doesn't theymos cede control of the forum to someone he trusts who lives in Russia or Belize or wherever, and who is willing to ignore such subpoenas? Why? It's not the responsibility of theymos to make sure the users of this forum are decent honest people. It's also not his responsibility to protect forum users from the law. He's a forum administrator not a mommy or a nanny. He only has one job duty on this forum and only owes one thing to its membership - keep the forum running. There are a bunch of little jobs inside that one duty like keep the spam down, ban the disruptive people, pay for the hosting, update the software, bla bla. Nowhere in that duty list does it say, keep members from being ripped off and hide them from the law. It does however "say": provide information to people who request it formally and with good reason... If Theymos had seen this as 'no good reason' (which in part he did) he's free to protest (which he did succesfully)... He didn't have to protest, he did that because he's a bleeding heart liberal. If I was running this forum and received a subpoena I'd roll you over in the clover every single time. Mainly because I don't have a reason to make your criminal behavior become my legal battle. Title: Re: BFL subpoena Post by: Quickseller on April 19, 2015, 06:19:37 PM Why don't you cite the law that makes this policy illegal? Section 230 of the Communications Decency act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230_of_the_Communications_Decency_Act) protects the owners of a website who publish information provided by others. There have been a number of court cases involving ponzis on the forum and theymos (or the forum) were not held liable Not sure if you're intentionally missing the point. The case law cited in your wiki article does not address knowingly facilitating illegal activities. In other words, a website allowing users to post pictures & being 95% child porn is not going to benefit from Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. Regardless of disclaimers. Re. bitcointalk lawsuits: not you're referring to (links?), but the fact that theymos has not been charged with anything merely proves that bitcointalk is much more useful as a honypot, a place that a couple of fat LEO could monitor from the comfort of their office. I don't see your point here. So what if the forum is a de-facto honeypot? Don't break the law?And providing a perfect paper trail to second-rate conmen, should their scams warrant sufficient interest. As long as theymos cooperates, everything's fine. Thus far, he's been cooperative :) edit: link to case regarding illegal activity on the forum (http://www.forbes.com/sites/jordanmaglich/2014/11/06/texas-man-arrested-for-4-5-million-bitcoin-ponzi-scheme/) Title: Re: BFL subpoena Post by: IPO Magic on April 19, 2015, 06:53:34 PM Why don't you cite the law that makes this policy illegal? Section 230 of the Communications Decency act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230_of_the_Communications_Decency_Act) protects the owners of a website who publish information provided by others. There have been a number of court cases involving ponzis on the forum and theymos (or the forum) were not held liable Not sure if you're intentionally missing the point. The case law cited in your wiki article does not address knowingly facilitating illegal activities. In other words, a website allowing users to post pictures & being 95% child porn is not going to benefit from Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. Regardless of disclaimers. Oh, let me see... Let's start with the gambling section. There's the Interstate Wire Act, that goes something like this: Quote Whoever being engaged in the business of betting or wagering knowingly uses a wire communication facility for the transmission in interstate or foreign commerce of bets or wagers or information assisting in the placing of bets or wagers on any sporting event or contest, or for the transmission of a wire communication which entitles the recipient to receive money or credit as a result of bets or wagers, or for information assisting in the placing of bets or wagers, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both. there's also Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection, and Enforcement Act, a plethora more. Plenty of things this forum can go down for, a veritable grab bag. Still wanna to go there? Quote Re. bitcointalk lawsuits: not you're referring to (links?), but the fact that theymos has not been charged with anything merely proves that bitcointalk is much more useful as a honypot, a place that a couple of fat LEO could monitor from the comfort of their office. I don't see your point here. So what if the forum is a de-facto honeypot? Don't break the law?And providing a perfect paper trail to second-rate conmen, should their scams warrant sufficient interest. As long as theymos cooperates, everything's fine. Thus far, he's been cooperative :) edit: link to case regarding illegal activity on the forum (http://www.forbes.com/sites/jordanmaglich/2014/11/06/texas-man-arrested-for-4-5-million-bitcoin-ponzi-scheme/) Bitcointalk was not on the wrong side of the letter v. In the case you cited, it was Mr. Shavers. I've pointed out that a street dealer being allowed to run around on the loose does not imply that dealing dope is legal. It only implies that (a) he hasn't been popped yet, or (b) he's more useful to LEO as a snitch. That's all. Title: Re: BFL subpoena Post by: Quickseller on April 19, 2015, 08:17:53 PM Does bitcointalk run some kind of casino? Does it engage in the business of betting? If not then your cited Interstate Wire Act does not show that the forum is breaking the law.
Wasn't pirate40 running a ponzi scheme on the forum? I know that there were threads about his ponzi on here. If you are saying that by not taking down scams the forum knows about they are breaking the law, and it should have been obvious that he was running a ponzi that would eventually collapse (e.g. a scam). Title: Re: BFL subpoena Post by: sbogovac on April 19, 2015, 08:46:13 PM To prevent this sort of thing happening in future why doesn't theymos cede control of the forum to someone he trusts who lives in Russia or Belize or wherever, and who is willing to ignore such subpoenas? Why? It's not the responsibility of theymos to make sure the users of this forum are decent honest people. It's also not his responsibility to protect forum users from the law. He's a forum administrator not a mommy or a nanny. He only has one job duty on this forum and only owes one thing to its membership - keep the forum running. There are a bunch of little jobs inside that one duty like keep the spam down, ban the disruptive people, pay for the hosting, update the software, bla bla. Nowhere in that duty list does it say, keep members from being ripped off and hide them from the law. It does however "say": provide information to people who request it formally and with good reason... If Theymos had seen this as 'no good reason' (which in part he did) he's free to protest (which he did succesfully)... He didn't have to protest, he did that because he's a bleeding heart liberal. If I was running this forum and received a subpoena I'd roll you over in the clover every single time. Mainly because I don't have a reason to make your criminal behavior become my legal battle. I'm "a bleeding heart liberal" too, but basically we seem to agree... ;D Title: Re: BFL subpoena Post by: IPO Magic on April 19, 2015, 09:15:29 PM Does bitcointalk run some kind of casino? Does it engage in the business of betting? If not then your cited Interstate Wire Act does not show that the forum is breaking the law. Wasn't pirate40 running a ponzi scheme on the forum? I know that there were threads about his ponzi on here. If you are saying that by not taking down scams the forum knows about they are breaking the law, and it should have been obvious that he was running a ponzi that would eventually collapse (e.g. a scam). Bitcointalk engages in "transmission of a wire communication [...] for information assisting in the placing of bets or wagers." Again, the fact that Theymos was not V& for pirate's f*ckup doesn't mean he is above reproach & should keep pushing the envelope. Most who break laws aren't charged. Until they are. Before this degenerates into more internet lawyering & wiki quotin', let me point out that what you're doing now is absurd at best. You might think yourself a white knight, but in reality you're more like my clueless buddy, who started lecturing a statey when we got pulled over. From my passenger seat. Had the cop gotten irked and as much as frisked me, it wouldn't have been his ass in the back of that cop car. You may now return to... what is it that you do? Sell Bitcointalk accounts? :D Title: Re: BFL subpoena Post by: Quickseller on April 19, 2015, 10:09:39 PM Does bitcointalk run some kind of casino? Does it engage in the business of betting? If not then your cited Interstate Wire Act does not show that the forum is breaking the law. Wasn't pirate40 running a ponzi scheme on the forum? I know that there were threads about his ponzi on here. If you are saying that by not taking down scams the forum knows about they are breaking the law, and it should have been obvious that he was running a ponzi that would eventually collapse (e.g. a scam). Bitcointalk engages in "transmission of a wire communication [...] for information assisting in the placing of bets or wagers." Again, the fact that Theymos was not V& for pirate's f*ckup doesn't mean he is above reproach & should keep pushing the envelope. Most who break laws aren't charged. Until they are. Before this degenerates into more internet lawyering & wiki quotin', let me point out that what you're doing now is absurd at best. You might think yourself a white knight, but in reality you're more like my clueless buddy, who started lecturing a statey when we got pulled over. From my passenger seat. Had the cop gotten irked and as much as frisked me, it wouldn't have been his ass in the back of that cop car. You may now return to... what is it that you do? Sell Bitcointalk accounts? :D Quote (b) Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent the transmission in interstate or foreign commerce of information for use in news reporting of sporting events or contests, or for the transmission of information assisting in the placing of bets or wagers on a sporting event or contest from a State or foreign country where betting on that sporting event or contest is legal into a State or foreign country in which such betting is legal. First, in order to violate section (b), it would need to be proven that the forum is not reporting the news in relation to any bets that you think it is facilitating; I think that is a pretty high burden. Section (b) also has an exemption that states that it is okay to transmit information when the actual betting is being done in a place where it is legal to place such bets. -snip- (d) When any common carrier, subject to the jurisdiction of the Federal Communications Commission, is notified in writing by a Federal, State, or local law enforcement agency, acting within its jurisdiction, that any facility furnished by it is being used or will be used for the purpose of transmitting or receiving gambling information in interstate or foreign commerce in violation of Federal, State or local law, it shall discontinue or refuse, the leasing, furnishing, or maintaining of such facility, after reasonable notice to the subscriber, but no damages, penalty or forfeiture, civil or criminal, shall be found against any common carrier for any act done in compliance with any notice received from a law enforcement agency. Nothing in this section shall be deemed to prejudice the right of any person affected thereby to secure an appropriate determination, as otherwise provided by law, in a Federal court or in a State or local tribunal or agency, that such facility should not be discontinued or removed, or should be restored. -snip- Do you have any evidence that such bets are being placed from/to places where it is illegal to gamble? If not then the law you cite is not being broken. Quote You may now return to... what is it that you do? Sell Bitcointalk accounts? I am not sure why so many people think that I sell bitcointalk accounts. You clearly are not playing very close attention to detail (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=704370.0;all)Title: Re: BFL subpoena Post by: IPO Magic on April 19, 2015, 10:45:06 PM ... Before this degenerates into more internet lawyering & wiki quotin' ... Clearly, I was too late :( So you're not selling bitcointalk accounts? Nor have sold accounts in the past? Huh, must've mistaken you with some other pillar of bitcointalk community. What do you do now, sell trust? :D (your link doesn't work for me, not sure why) Edit: Never mind, it was a truncated link, fixed it and looooooo! You do sell accounts, a whole thread of eking out a living by peddling them. What made you stop? Out of stock? Or did you stack enough cheddar? Title: Re: BFL subpoena Post by: r3wt on April 19, 2015, 11:47:56 PM He didn't have to protest, he did that because he's a bleeding heart liberal. If I was running this forum and received a subpoena I'd roll you over in the clover every single time. Mainly because I don't have a reason to make your criminal behavior become my legal battle. /thread Title: Re: BFL subpoena Post by: smoothie on April 20, 2015, 03:42:34 AM The term "Private Message" isn't as private as you might think.
We should start calling it Public Message with a twist of "maybe" privacy if no legal authority asks for it. Title: Re: BFL subpoena Post by: Quickseller on April 20, 2015, 04:07:59 AM The term "Private Message" isn't as private as you might think. The term "PM" is actually "Personal Message". If you want something to be private then you should PGP encrypt it to the recipient. We should start calling it Public Message with a twist of "maybe" privacy if no legal authority asks for it. Title: Re: BFL subpoena Post by: Gleb Gamow on April 20, 2015, 06:13:33 AM I just found this: http://www.plainsite.org/dockets/download.html?id=176216470&z=77fe495b And this http://ia801803.us.archive.org/33/items/gov.uscourts.ksd.97083/gov.uscourts.ksd.97083.68.1.pdf We have been following this for months. Where have you been dude? Look at the other BFL threads. Its hard to when only 1/60 posts is actually about the case, which is CK's point. While there may be some useful content in that old thread, there's so much noise that its untenable to actually find that information in the thread. Why do I have to say that? Of course I didn't contribute to that thread, it was unusable and a mess. Not a lot of point investing time into thoughtful discussion there when its going to get buried by PG/GG within 20 seconds. Odd, for it was PG/GG, me, Bruno Kucinskas, that contributed immensely to the investigation against BFL, conducting more research than most, with more discoveries than all the others combined not part of the "most" part. Recall, I'm the one that shown beyond a shadow of a doubt that BFL used BitPay as their own personal exchange to launder tens of millions of dollars worth of bitcoins via BFL's 1QAHVyRzkmD4j1pU5W89htZ3c6D6E7iWDs (https://blockchain.info/address/1QAHVyRzkmD4j1pU5W89htZ3c6D6E7iWDs) bitcoin wallet address to fiat, directed toward bank accounts currently unknown, albeit BitPay has the records. http://vignette1.wikia.nocookie.net/memoryalpha/images/9/95/Pakleds_ask_for_help.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20121208045348&path-prefix=en "Bruno is making our new thread unusable and a mess. Meanwhile, you're more than welcome to use our Star System Rating Service, derived via our bespoke Much Wow Algorithm. Apologies for the echo." Title: Re: BFL subpoena Post by: Leeroy Jenkins on April 20, 2015, 06:21:36 AM +1 for Bruno. Bitcointalk's #1 detective and PI.
Title: Re: BFL subpoena Post by: Gleb Gamow on April 20, 2015, 06:27:25 AM A disclaimer stating that scams are not banned doesn't absolve the forum from responsibility of being a vehicle for fraud. By that same logic, if your Bitcoin node relayed a fraudulent transaction it received it would be a vehicle for fraud, therefore it's safe to assume every Bitcoin user running a node is just as guilty as theymos as undoubtedly every Bitcoin node has relayed a fraudulent transaction. We're not discussing logic or how things should be, had we our way. We're talking about US laws. US laws do not allow US person to run websites where people sell CI drugs, or promoting unregistered securities. This is basic stuff. Quote Thankfully the law doesn't work that way and there are laws in place designed to protect website owners from the actions of their users, which is why craigslist's owners aren't in jail for the actions of people like the Craigslist Killer. If Craigslist operators knew the ad was placed by a murderer, were informed, on multiple occasions, that the guy was killing people, and refused to take down the ad? You can be absolutely certain they'd be jailed. Further, if most of the ads on Craigslist were made by killers, putting a disclaimer along the lines of... http://s13.postimg.org/k25iulgrb/Capture.png or, rather, "We do not remove ads by likely killers. Thus far, it appears that roughly 95% of these ads have proven to have been placed by confirmed murderers. Use your head." just wouldn't cut the mustard :-\ Such policy is simply illegal in US. As I already have pointed out, "If Craigslist operators knew the ad was placed by a murderer, were informed, on multiple occasions, that the guy was killing people, and refused to take down the ad? You can be absolutely certain they'd be jailed." That's what is being discussed - users alerting Theymos of a crime taking place, and Theymos refusing to act because policy. There have been a number of court cases involving ponzis on the forum and theymos (or the forum) were not held liable Not sure if you're intentionally missing the point. The case law cited in your wiki article does not address knowingly facilitating illegal activities. In other words, a website allowing users to post pictures & being 95% child porn is not going to benefit from Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. Regardless of disclaimers. Re. bitcointalk lawsuits: not you're referring to (links?), but the fact that theymos has not been charged with anything merely proves that bitcointalk is much more useful as a honypot, a place that a couple of fat LEO could monitor from the comfort of their office. And providing a perfect paper trail to second-rate conmen, should their scams warrant sufficient interest. As long as theymos cooperates, everything's fine. Thus far, he's been cooperative :) Damn, I wanna comment on this post so badly, but my tongue is bleeding. Title: Re: BFL subpoena Post by: Gleb Gamow on April 20, 2015, 06:36:38 AM Does bitcointalk run some kind of casino? Does it engage in the business of betting? If not then your cited Interstate Wire Act does not show that the forum is breaking the law. Wasn't pirate40 running a ponzi scheme on the forum? I know that there were threads about his ponzi on here. If you are saying that by not taking down scams the forum knows about they are breaking the law, and it should have been obvious that he was running a ponzi that would eventually collapse (e.g. a scam). At the risk of making this thread unusable and a mess, it was I, Bruno Kucinskas, that recently connected the [micro] dots between Josh Zerlan and Trendon Shavers, with Josh aka Inaba calling another a criminal for dealing with a criminal - pirateat40 - LITERALLY JUST TWO WEEKS EARLIER when josh conducted his last transaction with Priateat40 aka Pirate's Ponzi Scheme aka Trendon Shavers. Title: Re: BFL subpoena Post by: dogie on April 20, 2015, 09:29:04 AM I just found this: http://www.plainsite.org/dockets/download.html?id=176216470&z=77fe495b And this http://ia801803.us.archive.org/33/items/gov.uscourts.ksd.97083/gov.uscourts.ksd.97083.68.1.pdf We have been following this for months. Where have you been dude? Look at the other BFL threads. Its hard to when only 1/60 posts is actually about the case, which is CK's point. While there may be some useful content in that old thread, there's so much noise that its untenable to actually find that information in the thread. Why do I have to say that? Of course I didn't contribute to that thread, it was unusable and a mess. Not a lot of point investing time into thoughtful discussion there when its going to get buried by PG/GG within 20 seconds. Odd, for it was PG/GG, me, Bruno Kucinskas, that contributed immensely to the investigation against BFL, conducting more research than most, with more discoveries than all the others combined not part of the "most" part. Recall, I'm the one that shown beyond a shadow of a doubt that BFL used BitPay as their own personal exchange to launder tens of millions of dollars worth of bitcoins via BFL's 1QAHVyRzkmD4j1pU5W89htZ3c6D6E7iWDs (https://blockchain.info/address/1QAHVyRzkmD4j1pU5W89htZ3c6D6E7iWDs) bitcoin wallet address to fiat, directed toward bank accounts currently unknown, albeit BitPay has the records. "Bruno is making our new thread unusable and a mess. Meanwhile, you're more than welcome to use our Star System Rating Service, derived via our bespoke Much Wow Algorithm. Apologies for the echo." I never said you made it unusable, but there was certainly a monopoly on "posting inches" that would have made it difficult for others to contribute. If you slow the thread down and allow a discussion to form, you don't need to repost the same proofs because they've slipped off the page. Stop, slow down, create an 'OP' somewhere which has a summary of the claims and links to evidence. Title: Re: BFL subpoena Post by: 420 on April 20, 2015, 04:12:33 PM so I just get back and you reward me with this PM release bs
Title: Re: BFL subpoena Post by: b!z on April 21, 2015, 08:06:23 AM so I just get back and you reward me with this PM release bs Interesting day to come back on, considering your username! Title: Re: BFL subpoena Post by: r3wt on April 21, 2015, 01:37:24 PM so I just get back and you reward me with this PM release bs Interesting day to come back on, considering your username! He's here for the good vibez dude |