FBI Harassing Core Tor Developer, Demanding She Meet With Them, But Refusing To Explain Why
from the not-cool-fbi dept
Isis Agora Lovecruft is a lead software developer for Tor and has worked on Tor for many years, as well as on a variety of other security and encryption products, including Open Whisper Systems and the LEAP Encryption Access Project. And, apparently, the FBI would really like to talk to her, but won't tell her (or her lawyer) exactly why. It's really worth reading her whole post, which starts with an FBI agent showing up at her parents home and leaving a card, and then later phoning her mother's cell phone while she was at work a few days later. Lovecruft had a lawyer reach out to the FBI agent in question, which resulted in an odd discussion:Word got to my lawyer in the US, who decided to call FBI Special Agent Mark Burnett, on that Friday, saying that he represented me and my family. Burnett said the FBI simply wanted to ask me some questions. My lawyer responded by stating that, as my invoked representation, all questions should be directed to him rather than to me or my family. The agent agreed, paused while some muffled male voices were heard in the background, and asked to call back in five minutes.Complicating matters was the fact that Lovecruft was deep into the process of moving permanently to Germany, and actually had just been visiting her family in the US. She worried about whether or not she'd even be able to leave, though eventually flew back to Europe without incident. She notes that once back in Germany, she was focused on getting all the documentation in order to get her official residence visa in Germany when the FBI again came looking for her:
Five minutes later, Burnett called back and said, “I don’t believe you actually represent her.” Burnett stated additionally that a phone call from me might suffice, but that the FBI preferred to meet with me in person. After a pause he said, “But… if we happen to run into her on the street, we’re gonna be asking her some questions without you present.”
So, that seemed to settle things for the time being -- though still made her nervous. That last conversation happened in January. But it appears that last week, the FBI came knocking again, and apparently said they want to serve her with a subpoena.The day before my appointment, I spoke with my lawyer. He had received another call, this time from a FBI Special Agent Kelvin Porter in Atlanta.
Lawyer: Hello?
Agent: Hello, this is Special Agent Kelvin Porter at the FBI field offices in Atlanta. I’m calling concerning your client.
Lawyer: Yes. Why are you trying to contact her?
Agent: Well… as before… we would strongly prefer to meet her in person. We have teams in Los Angeles, San Francisco, Chicago, New York, and Atlanta keeping an eye out for her.
Lawyer: Your colleague mentioned last time that you would accept a phone call?
Agent: We would strongly prefer to meet her in person. We… uh… have some documents we’d like her opinion on.
Lawyer: Umm…? What documents?
Agent: Anyway, if she’s available to meet with us, that would be great, thanks.
It didn’t exactly help with the stress of applying for a residence visa to know that there were teams in five cities across America keeping an eye out for me. However, I’m glad to say that, the next day, my residence visa was approved. Eight hours afterwards, my laywer received a voicemail saying:
Agent: Hello this is Special Agent Kelvin Porter, we spoke two days ago regarding your client. Umm… well… so the situation with the documents… it’s umm… it’s all fixed. I mean, we would of course still be happy to meet with your client if she’s willing, but the problem has… uh… yeah… been fixed. And uh… yeah. Just let us know if she wants to set up a meeting.
The FBI has contacted my lawyer again. This time, they said, “She should meet with one of our agents in San Francisco to talk. Otherwise, are you the point of contact for serving a subpoena? She’s not the target of investigation, but, uh… we uh… need her to clear up her involvement or… uh… potential involvement in a matter.”She's (reasonably) worried that whatever the FBI is planning to ask her about or serve her with comes with a gag order and she won't be able to speak about it. She also notes that she's got a personal warrant canary, which might be worth watching for obvious reasons.
But, honestly, the part that struck me as most interesting about all of this is the incredible amount of stress that this obviously caused for her. It doesn't matter if the FBI says she's "not a target," having the FBI come looking for you can really shake you up. Especially when they won't provide any details:
I didn’t talk to anyone who wasn’t already in regular contact with me, fearing I might endanger them — some thug might show up at their mom’s door or make some threats to their lawyers — and I didn’t want to risk harming people I care about. It hurt to not tell my friends what was happening. I felt gagged and frightened. I wanted to play chess in the park. I wanted to learn duets on the piano. I wanted to ride bicycles through the ancient groves in the park in the endless Californian sunshine. I wanted to bring homemade vegan gluten-free brownies and stickers from collectives in France to my friends at the EFF. To be selfish, I wanted to read the number theory papers I’d just downloaded and play with a new pairing-based cryptography library I’d just been given the source to, but I couldn’t do those things either, simply because I was too stressed out to think straight.That, right there, is a clear description of the chilling effects that this kind of thing can cause. And that's a shame. As she later notes, her paychecks for working on Tor come from the US government. She's not a spy or a criminal. She's working on software that makes everyone safer. And no matter what the reason for the FBI's interest, it's ridiculous that someone should have to go through this kind of process.
I got absolutely no work done.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: fbi, harassment, isis agora lovecruft, tor
Companies: tor project
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"TOR software developed by Isis, with financing from the US government!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
it's 'tor'.
my shift key is broken.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
FBI: "We need some paperwork cleared up."
Atty: "What paperwork."
FBI: "Uh... hold on a second."
Atty: [gets dial tone]
FBI: "Us again. Your client, we need her again."
Atty: "Why?"
FBI: "Just... get her here."
Isis: "WTF, FBI?!?"
All in all, if someone can have the feds come slamming down on an innocent person over ISIS beer funds, I can only imagine the abject horror of anyone actually named Isis, who is probably now on more watch lists than a TV guide.
That's probably what the FBI wants to confirm, but are too fucking stupid just to say it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Taking notes out of 'Creepy Stalkers 101' I see
Given the repeated insistence on a physical meeting, refusal to state what they wanted her for, and the not so veiled insinuation that they'd really rather not have her lawyer present, yeah, I'd say she had plenty of reason to be worried.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Taking notes out of 'Creepy Stalkers 101' I see
Maybe they didn't want the NSA listening in.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Taking notes out of 'Creepy Stalkers 101' I see
Oh wait, maybe they wanted to use Tor, but needed some tech support to get it working.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Taking notes out of 'Creepy Stalkers 101' I see
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Taking notes out of 'Creepy Stalkers 101' I see
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Taking notes out of 'Creepy Stalkers 101' I see
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Taking notes out of 'Creepy Stalkers 101' I see
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Taking notes out of 'Creepy Stalkers 101' I see
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Taking notes out of 'Creepy Stalkers 101' I see
Probably the safest place.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Taking notes out of 'Creepy Stalkers 101' I see
Probably the safest place.
Funny but sad that it has come to that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Taking notes out of 'Creepy Stalkers 101' I see
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Taking notes out of 'Creepy Stalkers 101' I see
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Taking notes out of 'Creepy Stalkers 101' I see
Clearly, the FBI is employing rapists and stalkers to act like terrorists.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Taking notes out of 'Creepy Stalkers 101' I see
My guess is that there isn't any conspiritard bullshit going on, and that they've Party Vanned some dude who was an exit node, and need someone to verify/tear apart his defence.
The thinly veiled 'you might be in trouble' routine is to make her pay attention.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Taking notes out of 'Creepy Stalkers 101' I see
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Taking notes out of 'Creepy Stalkers 101' I see
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Taking notes out of 'Creepy Stalkers 101' I see
Yes, because deception and intimidation are SOP for American law enforcement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Taking notes out of 'Creepy Stalkers 101' I see
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Taking notes out of 'Creepy Stalkers 101' I see
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lovecruft FBI meet
The FBI usually has a team of 2 participate in interviews, which under recent policy can be unrecorded if inconvenient. The agents will memorialize the interview... they write up what they "recall" of the interview afterwards.
Later, she may be summoned to appear before a grand jury. They ask the same questions. For some mysterious reason, her identical answers don't match the memorialization, which both agents swear to.
Result? Indictment for violation of USC 1001, lying to a federal agent. Prison time, or blackmail.
What to do? If encountered on the street, attract attention by screaming for them to get away from her, and run away. Otherwise, meet with them only with a witness (lawyer) present and/or on her own turf where she has a secret recording of her own. Then secrete the recording where it cannot be surreptitiously found. Better yet, live broadcast on the internet. Another suggestion, do not look at any documents while anyone other than her lawyer is present.
Standard disclaimers... IANAL
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Lovecruft FBI meet
It's too bad, because all you had to do, to get them off your case, was to insist on tape-recording the interview. Invariably, the much-insisted-as-crucial interview would be deemed not-so-necessary.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Lovecruft FBI meet
If you've done nothing wrong, you've got nothing to hide.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Lovecruft FBI meet
Wrong is a helluva subjective word these days, especially when government actors are involved.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Lovecruft FBI meet
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Lovecruft FBI meet
Do not attempt to record, you could be charged with felony wiretapping or who knows what. Reach into your pocket for a smartphone? Great way to get shot to death. 'The suspect made a furtive movement', 'The suspect reached for a weapon', the report will say.
Stand still and BE SILENT. Wait for them to go away, however long it takes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Lovecruft FBI meet
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Lovecruft FBI meet
> NOT SPEAK ANY WORDS WHATSOEVER. Stand there like a lamp
> post, and SAY NOTHING. Pressure will be applied, threats
> will be made, SAY NOTHING. Don't even nod or shake your
> head.
That's actually extremely poor advice, Mr. Internet Lawyer Genius Person, considering the fact that the Supreme Court has ruled that a person has to affirmatively and verbally assert their right to remain silent in order for it to have legal effect. Sitting there "like a lamp post" will allow the government to argue that your silence in the face of accusations that would provoke a response in a normal person is evidence of guilt.
Your license to practice Internet Comment Thread Law should be revoked.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Lovecruft FBI meet
print MOUTH "Uppon information and belief, to the best of my recollection, and I have to say, my recollection isn't 100%, ", $_;
}
close(BRAIN)
close(MOUTH)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Lovecruft FBI meet
open(BRAIN, ") {
print MOUTH "Uppon information and belief, to the best of my recollection, and I have to say, my recollection isn't 100%, ", $_;
}
close(BRAIN)
close(MOUTH)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rendition?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Rendition?
Of course, the fact that they stated that the situation is now in hand implies that after failing with her, they approached one of her colleagues and got what they wanted. Getting her would just be an added precaution.
So: a thorough review of all recent TOR code check-ins as well as all future check-ins from anyone who might be under a gag order is in order.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Rendition?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Rendition?
More likely, I think, is that the FBI has obtained a court order to unlock her smart phone. Her fingerprint is insufficient because the FBI may need to unlock the phone multiple times, on multiple occasions during its investigation.
So the FBI has obtained a court order to remove her finger.
This seems more in the character and nature of the FBI.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Rendition?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If bad guys wanted to mess with the agencies, they could easily play confuse-a-cat by sprinkling the names of real people around.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Her name is Isis
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Imagineering
The other thought that comes to mind is something that occurred to me the other day reading about someone being arrested for child porn when they (man and wife) (not quietly, but very publicly) ran a TOR exit node. Are they going to try to hold her responsible for something SODD (some other dude did) by claiming that that document they were worried about was 'on her computer' or some such crap?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just a guess...
The FBI has "documents" they want to talk to her about.
The FBI wants an in person meeting, in the US.
My guess is that they have (what they feel is) just about enough to arrest her and charge her with something, and her answers to certain questions related perhaps to what work she specifically did or some action she may have taken would be the trigger.
My suggestion for her is to stay in Germany and don't come back under any circumstances. Perhaps at best meet with the FBI in a nice public place in Germany, perhaps with the media nearby.
TOR is a great idea and very useful, but it creates an incredibly complex web of legal ramifications. I think she is about to meet one of those "rams" head on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Just a guess...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Just a guess...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
FBI Trying to contact a Tor Developer
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: FBI Trying to contact a Tor Developer
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: FBI Trying to contact a Tor Developer
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: FBI Trying to contact a Tor Developer
google 'palmer raids' to see how much those scumsuckers cared about the constitution...
those orgs have NOTHING to do with crime and keeping us safe, but are ALL about spying on, intimidating, and framing any and all TRUE patriots who dare to speak against Empire...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: FBI Trying to contact a Tor Developer
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: FBI Trying to contact a Tor Developer
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: FBI Trying to contact a Tor Developer
Makes me wonder who they called on when doing my background check when I was up for a Federal job.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: FBI Trying to contact a Tor Developer
agent: Okay, but do you still think he's loyal to the United States, though?
me: Well, now that you mention it... he did seem... shorter when he returned from that trip. In the back of my mind I've always kinda wondered if they, you know... replaced him.
agent: Okay... we have just a few more questions to get through.
When I told him later that I'd been playing fast and loose with his career plans, my friend practically shat a brick.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: FBI Trying to contact a Tor Developer
> loose with his career plans, my friend practically shat a
> brick.
Wow, you're an awesome friend.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: FBI Trying to contact a Tor Developer
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: FBI Trying to contact a Tor Developer
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: FBI Trying to contact a Tor Developer
Eventually, they sometimes just show up at the home, hoping to catch the person at home. Doesn't really seem like "harassment" to me. I've had 2 stalkers which behaved worse. I've also been met in my office, at work, by 2 FBI guys. They were checking a reference for a friend who used me on her clearance paperwork. I knew this months earlier, but had forgotten about it completely. My office at the time, was inside a secure facility, so they had to be escorted inside.
OTOH, the FBI **has** been lying about all sorts of things the last 15 years. They could easily lie about the purpose for the meeting. Their previous, recent, actions, have caused this to be one of the first thoughts for paranoid people. That doesn't mean some people shouldn't be paranoid. Especially when the FBI is trying for months to get a meeting. Mom always said, "you capture more flies with honey than vinegar."
It is smart not to use a phone, though bouncing off a VoIP service in a different country could be sufficient. That way, GCHQ could listen as well. ;)
If the US Gov intends to entrap her somehow, I can see why she wouldn't be willing to talk with them. Seems their actions and general distrust of their motives have come back to bite them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: FBI Trying to contact a Tor Developer
* Attempt to contact a relative instead of contacting you directly
* Refuse to discuss the nature of the inquiry, even when specifically prompted to do so
* Explicit indication that a lawyer is unwelcome and will be excluded on the first opportunity, while again refusing to discuss why contact is even required
* Use unspecified methods to enable contacting your relatives on the pretense of being unable to use those same unspecified methods to contact you
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: FBI Trying to contact a Tor Developer
* indicate they wanted to serve a subpoena upon you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: FBI Trying to contact a Tor Developer
* clearly state the cites where agents were actively watching for you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: FBI Trying to contact a Tor Developer
There's only one reason why they want to talk to her without an attorney...so she'll speak freely and possibly incriminate herself.
By being a major Tor developer, she has a massive target on her back. Speaking as someone who has been sent two target letters from the DOJ, she rightfully should be crapping her pants right about now. She needs to get to a country that doesn't have extradition treaties with the US as she's in legitimate legal danger.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: FBI Trying to contact a Tor Developer
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: FBI Trying to contact a Tor Developer
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
My mother assumed that, if it were really important, the agent would call her. He did, while she was at work a couple days later. (As an aside: that any random FBI agent has the ability to learn someone’s personal cell phone number and use it — uninvited — is, in my opinion, extremely threatening and unacceptable.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
It's hardly difficult or uncommon, nor is the ability to do it limited to law enforcement. Anyone who subscribes and pays the fee can access the info.
And since when in the entire history of telephones have you either legally or culturally needed a pre-invitation to call someone before phoning them up?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
homemade vegan gluten-free brownies
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Tell me again, who are the terrorists?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Doing the math, the odds that such a meeting would end up going well for her are sufficiently small it would be appropriate to express them in scientific notation.
Her making noise - and lots of it - about the situation is her best defense to being put in a box (either literal or figurative) she can't escape from.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
the point of "freedom" is to be allowed to do what you want as long as it doesn't break any laws. I'm horrified to learn that you want to live in a world where, instead of free association, you have approved association, and may only associate with individuals and groups approved by your oberschtompenfuhrer, or whatever.
Lovecruft's decision to proclaim herself an anarchist came from an erroneous belief that she is a free woman in a free country. How appalling it is that you're so eager to consolidate the proof that she is wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The thing with open source is that anyone can look at the source code, and all the upstream distributions compile from source. This makes it more difficult to get a back-door in place, as it cannot be done via a sabotaged binary.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The three letter agencies have been known to recruit developers to plant bugs in the OSS community.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: re:
Loads just fine for me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I have this feeling ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Poooor Isis...
I think that this is either a collaborative hoax by the respective agencies involved - for some reason - or the whiny brat actually did something and that's why her "Oh, God! Everyone support me!" ass was hightailing it to Germany.
Let's not forget: For a long time Tor strung everyone along on the crowdsourcing myth, where they portrayed themselves as honest little David up against privacy-invading Goliath, who was backed by U.S. spy agencies who were always trying to hack the Tor network. They regularly fanned the flames of this lie with reports about attacks by these agencies, until they were exposed as, rather, being funded by them.
Then, all of a sudden, they started having a lot of public drama about internal harassment and promoting women, over the asshole, Andrea Sheperd, who started a lot it. Most of what we hear from them is devious bullshit and this probably is too.
Seriously..."Lovecruft"? Probably another lame pop culture rip off (of Lovecraft). Even the name is made up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's a trap
Saying a person isn't a target - just means they don't have paperwork filled out on you at that point in time. It also gets around them needing to talk to your lawyer first, hence grabbing you before you have representation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's a trap
It could mean that. It could also just mean they're lying.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: It's a trap
> > have paperwork filled out on you at that point in time."
> It could mean that. It could also just mean they're lying.
Or it could mean they're telling the truth and the person isn't a target of the investigation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dev's blog offline?
Has anyone else here been able to read the post Mike linked to in the first paragraph?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Dev's blog offline?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Dev's blog offline?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A plethora of incompetence
It cannot even find one known, normal citizen?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
this time european union vs USA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Stress
> having the FBI come looking for you can really shake you
> up.
What the heck is that supposed to mean? Is the FBI supposed to stop investigating cases altogether because asking people questions might stress them out too much?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: FBI Trying to contact a Tor Developer
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: FBI Trying to contact a Tor Developer
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]