FBI has been harassing a Tor developer since 2015, won't tell her or her lawyer why

[Read the post]


intending to have “a talk” with her without her lawyer present if they can manage it.

Unconstitutional, really unconstitutional.


Well, that gives me my dose of dystopia on a Friday morning. Thanks @doctorow.


This seems far more like the “Soviet Union’s oppressive, incompetent bureaucracy” than long lines at our airports.


I have another hypothesis - they want to interview her, and then prosecute for “lying” to a federal LEO.

It’s a trick/trap the FBI is known to use - heck, BB reported on in a while back! https://boingboing.net/2013/05/07/dont-ever-speak-to-the-fbi-w.html


Setting up to read her post, but first…why do we have to have these things anymore? Why are they “obligatory” now?

Obligatory Disclaimer: Personal or political views presented within this post absolutely do not reflect those of my employer(s), client(s), and/or legal counsel.

They’re growing, too. Used to be that personal views didn’t represent those of the poster’s employer, now we have to mention clients and lawyers, too?

But in the first seconds of glancing at the post, the dickhead FBI folks have already shown up:

Five minutes later, Burnett called back and said, “I don’t believe you actually represent her.”

To which I would instruct my lawyer to say, “Oh yeah? Well, tough shit. I don’t believe you’re actually an FBI agent.”


My suggestion: Try applying for asylum in Germany. The BAMF (the agency processing those applications) is currently so swamped with asylum applications that they probably just rubber-stamp hers.


Miss Lovecruft is hardcore and I wish I had her skillz for thinking this all through. The warrant canary page deserves it’s own BB post, or at least a link to help in setting one up.

In case the FBI is seeking data on Tor users or Tor bridges, and especially in case the subpoena turns out to be sealed or accompanied by an NSL: the original published contents of this post are archived as a PDF here, and the RIPE160(SHA256(PDF)) is equal to 5541405e08048658cf457b3c59bf42a51f84a1a3 and hence Bitcoin address 18mnc4BCud3vjAdLbCc3QhyrjN84VTT1iM, in order to prove in a cryptographically verifiable manner that I published before that point in time.

I read that and think, “the low-tech people don’t have a freakin chance.” And lastly, how the hell can folks like this afford so many lawyers?


To which the response, apparently, is to never talk to them without your lawyer (of course), and for your lawyer to insist on recording the conversation, which, apparently, they will refuse, because it is their policy to make sure they have room to perjure themselves and say that you lied to a federal agent. Then, you will not have talked to them, and your lawyer will have a record of the fact that you were willing to, but they were not willing to talk on the record.


Isn’t it obvious? Those iPhones don’t crack themselves, you know.


Perhaps the FBI believe Lovecruft is in cahoots with Cthalha?


I see what you did there :thumbsup:


Not at all. A “talk” without custody is just that - a “talk.” The constitution does not address “talking.”

A “talk” with the FBI is never just a talk. Also, I can’t help but wonder if the poor little FBI is just confused about her first name.


I get what you’re saying, but once Isia Agora Lovecruft has told them that she’ll only talk with a lawyer it’s a moot point. It doesn’t matter if you’re in custody, if you’ve been charged, or only in for a talk.

By the way, I spoke to a FBI agent in the elevator one day after federal grand jury duty about general stuff and he said that it amazes him how many defendants don’t ask for a lawyer and think that if they just chat with them that they won’t get in trouble. He basically told me never to meet with any LEO without an attorney because he said this is the advice he gives his family members.

At this stage, they’re just harassing her.


My response was to the person saying that the FBI’s wish to speak without her lawyer present is"really unconstitutional." It may be illegal, immoral, or promoting anthropogenic climate change, but it is not unconstitutional.

But just to be really, really clear - that, and the fact that they have “five teams” looking for her is many different kinds of fucked up.


To be clear, a “talk” with the FBI always carries with it the risk of spending the rest of your life in a federal penitentiary.


Because people will get your work to fire you without them in a lot of places for things you say on the Internet on your own time.


ergo you can always claim your right to counsel and to take the fifth.


And I’m sure it’s no coincidence that both her blog and warrant canary are no longer reachable. (Did someone seize some equipment?)

1 Like