Sedition Prosecution Of Oath Keepers Members Shows The FBI Can Still Work Around Encryption

from the it's-so-dark-we-could-only-indict-eleven-defendants-at-the-same-time dept

There is no "going dark." Despite the FBI's protestations otherwise -- mostly embodied by FBI directors with axes to grind and narratives to sell -- investigators aren't finding encryption to be much of an impediment.

The FBI claimed -- using stats irrationally inflated by (according to the FBI) malfunctioning software -- that law enforcement agencies were drowning in devices whose content they couldn't access. That turned out to be a lie. Perhaps it wasn't a deliberate lie but it had certainly proved convenient. Once the FBI recognized its error, it promised to deliver an accurate count. In May 2018, the DOJ and FBI promised to release an updated number. The agencies still have yet to do so.

That brings us to the events of last January, when a bunch of dipshits decided the only way to restore democracy was to destroy it. A raid on the Capitol building in Washington DC -- egged on by lame duck president Donald Trump and a handful of Congressional toadies -- culminated in BlueLivesMatter hashtaggers attacking cops who stood between them and their twisted perception of justice. The effort failed, but the stain on American history -- perpetrated by self-declared "patriots" -- will last forever.

Since then, the FBI and DOJ have engaged in hundreds of investigations and prosecutions. The OPSEC of Capitol raiders was sometimes nearly nonexistent, but more than a few participants knew enough to utilize encrypted services for their communications. The fact that the government has investigated, arrested, and charged hundreds of Capitol raiders shows encryption isn't holding it back.

The blockbuster indictment brought against several members of the Oath Keepers -- one that includes seldom-seen sedition charges -- makes it clear the FBI still has plenty of options when it comes to dealing with encryption.

Federal investigators say they accessed encrypted Signal messages sent before the Jan. 6, 2021, riot on the U.S. Capitol, and used them as evidence to charge the leader of Oath Keepers, an extremist far-right militia group, and other defendants in a seditious plot.

In a legal complaint made public on Thursday, the Department of Justice alleges the defendants conspired to forcefully oppose the transfer of power between then-President Donald Trump to Joe Biden, including by trying to take control of the U.S. Capitol.

The complaint references numerous messages sent on Signal, an end-to-end encrypted messaging app, raising questions about how authorities accessed them and recalling a longstanding point of tension between the law enforcement community and tech industry.

Questions have been raised, but there are no answers coming. The DOJ, FBI, and Signal have refused to comment on the news. But the simplest explanation is likely this: the DOJ and FBI found someone they could flip -- a person who gave them access to their account and any stored messages. Other explanations are more speculative, but it's not outside the realm of possibility that a federal agent infiltrated an Oath Keepers group, which gave them access to encrypted messages as a faux participant in the planned insurrection.

Of course, if it's the latter, more questions will be raised. If the FBI had access during the planning, why didn't it act to stop it? If this prosecution of Oath Keepers members has its basis in undercover work, the FBI and DOJ can expect to be asked difficult questions as the congressional investigation into the January 6th events continues.

According to the complaint [PDF], the defendants began their planning in late December 2020, using "encrypted and private communication applications." Oath Keeper members -- using these applications -- agreed to grab their guns and head to Washington DC to stop the election results from being certified.

But the complaint shows the FBI had access before that. Or, at least, was able to access communications -- possibly via another defendant -- that dated back further than the late December messages where the raid plan coalesced. The complaint notes that members were discussing possibly violent responses to the presidential election as early as two days after it occurred. Again, these communications were taken from an "invitation-only, end-to-end encrypted group chat" on Signal.

These communications -- which discussed reconnaissance of DC areas, weapons training, and what methods could be deployed to prevent election certification -- continued all the way until January 6th, utilizing both Signal and encrypted email service, ProtonMail.

The complaint, obviously, does not explain how FBI investigators had access to these communications. But -- in terms of the "going dark" narrative -- this lack of explanation does not matter. The fact is the FBI obtained access to end-to-end encrypted messages. This alone undercuts its claims that widespread use of encrypted services and device encryption makes it impossible to investigate crimes. It can do this. It may occasionally be more difficult, but even people engaged in trying to overthrow the government aren't able to keep the feds locked out of their discussions.

"Going dark" is still a myth. To be sure, encryption may sometimes keep investigators separated from evidence. But the rise of encryption isn't keeping investigators locked out. They still have plenty of options, ranging from grabbing communications from cooperating defendants or witnesses to pulling massive amounts of useful data from cloud services and third parties. Holding onto this narrative when event after event proves it wrong shows the FBI is more interested in obtaining easy access to everything, rather than utilizing its considerable budget and expertise to mitigate the limitations encryption can pose.

Filed Under: doj, encryption, fbi, going dark, oath keepers, sedition, stewart rhodes
Companies: signal

Hacked Data Exposes Law Enforcement Officers Who Joined Far-Right Oath Keepers Group

from the more-transparency-inflicted-on-secretive-groups dept

Some more unsettling news about law enforcement's close relationship to (or at least professional tolerance of) far-right groups linked to the January 6th raid of the Capitol building has come to light, thanks to transparency activists Distributed Denial of Secrets.

Email accounts linked to several key members of the Oath Keepers -- four of whom are currently facing charges for their participation in the attack on the Capitol -- have been hacked, exposing communications between the Oath Keepers and law enforcement officers seeking to join the group.

The law enforcement officers described what they could offer the Oath Keepers:

“I have a wide variety of law enforcement experience, including undercover operations, surveillance and SWAT,” one wrote on the membership application.

"Communications, Weapons, K9 Officer for local Sheriffs office 12 years to present," another wrote.

“​​I am currently working as a deputy sheriff in Texas,” a third typed.

These men, who had sworn to uphold the law, signed up to join an armed, extremist, anti-government group.

The five gigabyte trove of data includes emails, chat logs, and lists of donors and members. According to USA Today's examination of the data, more than 200 current and former law enforcement officers approached the group to become members. At this point, it only appears 20 of those are still employed as officers. Another 20 retired at some point after joining the group.

The Oath Keepers have long courted law enforcement officers and military members, finding some sort of solidarity with government employees who also swear oaths and carry guns. But joining the Oath Keepers requires members to swear a new oath -- one that conflicts with their other oaths and, presumably, supersedes their ongoing obligations to the public at large. On the list of things to be sworn to are promises to never disarm citizens, refusal to recognize state of emergency declarations, and a longer list of fresh-off-the-crack-pipe assertions like never assisting the government with putting American citizens into concentration camps.

The oath also says Oath Keepers will engage in a bloody revolution if the government decides its should start doing any of the things on the list.

If you the people decide that you have no recourse, and such a revolution comes, at that time, not only will we NOT fire upon our fellow Americans who righteously resist such egregious violations of their God given rights, we will join them in fighting against those who dare attempt to enslave them.

Somehow, this group decided the Trump Administration was the government they could trust, leading to some federal charge-accumulating Revolution Lite at the US Capitol. This same group of insurrectionists -- ones known to be supportive of police officers -- decided even cop lives didn't matter when it came to stealing back an election Donald Trump claimed was stolen.

That's all very concerning. Even prior to the Oath Keepers presence during the DC raid, the oath promising to turn on the government the moment it threatened certain freedoms should have warned officers of the law that joining this group would be extremely problematic. And yet, it managed to attract a couple hundred potential members who didn't see any conflict between sworn oaths, even if it theoretically meant they'd be killing their own brothers in blue if Obama finally sent someone for the guns.

Officers verified to be two-timing the rule of law with the Oath Keepers unsurprisingly don't want to talk about it. Eben Bratcher, operations chief for the Yuma County Sheriff's Office, claimed the group didn't do much for him other than clog up his email inbox and stated he "did not recall specifics." Fortunately, the Oath Keepers' server remembers.

A note attributed to Bratcher on the sign-up list reads, "We have 85 sworn officers and Border (of) Mexico on the South and California on the West. I've already introduced your web site to dozens of my Deputies."

Another officer, Michael Lynch of the Anaheim Police Department, claimed his membership lapsed years ago. However, he's now being investigated by his department for (at least temporarily) joining the group -- something he did while touting his years of undercover and SWAT team experience.

This is a clear conflict of interest. Cops like these can either remain cops and fulfill their obligations to the American public or they can join a group that aligns itself with an imagined version of the Constitution -- one that comes with conspiracy theories and implicit threats of violence attached. That the Oath Keepers would want cops in its ranks is unsurprising. Sadly, the fact that some cops would feel right at home with an unhinged paramilitary group is equally unsurprising.

Filed Under: insurrection, law enforcement, oath keepers, police