174
FBI Seizure of Mastodon Server is a Wakeup Call to Fediverse Users and Hosts to Protect their Users (www.eff.org)
submitted 3 years ago by to c/technology@beehaw.org
52 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 28 points 3 years ago* (last edited 3 years ago) (2 children)

The whole point of Mastodon is to speak publicly, so I'm not sure I see the problem.

Other than the server owner's property being unnecessarily confiscated, of course. Such thievery is quite clearly a tactic for depriving defendants of the financial and other resources they need to prove their innocence in court.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 7 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    The problem is DMs. Having what appears to be a "private" communication mechanism that isn't private at all might mislead users into divulging information that could put them at risk.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 21 points 3 years ago* (1 child)

    When you type up a DM on Mastodon, there's a little popup notice that appears next to the text box that says:

    Posts on Mastodon are not end-to-end encrypted. Do not share any sensitive information over Mastodon.

    IMO the platform handles informing users about this responsibly.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    How is a law enforcement agent staring at some workstations and computers to know what equipment was involved in the alleged crime they are raiding the facility for? If the FBI was raiding a home for child abuse and pornography, there's no way they have the access or expertise at the time of a raid to know the server in the corner is only for Mastodon, the box over there is just a Linux firewall, and that box over there is a porn server. There's no practical way to trust a defendant on site as to what is relevant to an investigation or not. I agree that unnecessary confiscation is a problem, but in general I don't think the ill intent is there. I'm not a law enforcement officer, nor am I lobbying in any way for them, I'm just putting myself in their shoes in this situation.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    How is a law enforcement agent staring at some workstations and computers to know what equipment was involved in the alleged crime they are raiding the facility for?

    That would be a valid argument if they timely returned whatever they don't need, but they don't, so it isn't.

    If the FBI was raiding a home for child abuse and pornography, there’s no way they have the access or expertise at the time of a raid to know the server in the corner is only for Mastodon, the box over there is just a Linux firewall, and that box over there is a porn server.

    Maybe not, but if they're not completely incompetent, they'll have images of all of those devices within a day or two. They don't have any legitimate need to keep the seized equipment after that.

    The cruelty is the point.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 3 years ago

    We're talking about law enforcement agencies, not an IT department. Of course it's technically possible to image a machine quickly. However, there are all kinds of steps and rules for chain of custody, transporting evidence, cataloging it, storing, examining it, etc. and a finite number of personnel to perform the work. Revisiting the child pornography example I used, fingerprints and DNA evidence on equipment could be quite relevant to a case. There may even be a need to examine hard drive platters (old school spinning disk, not SSD obviously) to determine if there was data deleted in the past. It's rather simplistic to say it's a matter of just imaging and returning as quickly as possible. I agree the equipment being gone often presents a hardship for a defendant, but arguing that it's intentionally set up this way to inflict cruelty ignores the reality of investigations.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent