Hacker News Reader

Comment by codys | Hacker News Reader

It's also unclear how one could know it wasn't an authorized user who sent the message. ie: could be any of folks who are authorized who sent it.

Of course, they may have just asked all the authorized users, and had each of them deny it.

View on HN

> Of course, they may have just asked all the authorized users, and had each of them deny it.

Or they could... check the logs, pull the IP, get a warrant, and get the account/ address associated with that IP.

This is basic stuff.

They got a warrant. Judges aren't going to issue a warrant based on asking a bunch of people if they sent a message.

Have you ever read a warrant application? I have read a few, and they love to use the phrase "information and belief" to persuade the judge.

That's just a fancy way of saying "speculate," and judges don't seem to object.

We should see when the warrant application becomes public.

Another way to interpret it is, law and order types have been co-opted by Republicans, rather than the other way around. It shouldn't take a Dave Chapelle colorfully telling you it doesn't fucking matter that some Florida data scientist broke a dumb law when she was disclosing information implicating Republicans of incompetence.

> they love to use the phrase "information and belief"

Yep, often followed with "based on my training and experience".

Which is just a fancy way of saying "this is what the other cops in the lunchroom reckoned", and judges don't seem to object.

> We should see when the warrant application becomes public.

Don't have to wait, they updated the linked article with more details.

As I figured, they got her IP address from the logs.

Have you even bothered researching the Breonna Taylor case? The judge issued a warrant in spite of evidence clearly saying she's not guilty, and she's dead now.

Judges routinely issue warrants just because the good ol police officer man says it's totally ok and he'll get a nice lollipop for doing it.

As I understand it, the warrant for Taylor's house had nothing to do with Taylor herself, but with another person believed to be using her house. Her guilt or innocence were never at issue.

The issue is: the evidence they gathered was that her home was specifically NOT part of any drug rings. The judge went ahead and issued a warrant even though all actual evidence said her house was not involved. Cops lied and said it totally was, and the judge just said "sure thing bros, we're all such buds."

My point is just because a judge issues a warrant doesn't actually mean anything at all. It has the same factual basis as me saying the sky is actually made of M&M's and judge granting a decree that it must be true because I said it.

Aren't magistrate judges supposed to take the police's word for this? You can't have an adversarial process for getting a search warrant. The remedy for broken warrants happens at trial, with motions to exclude evidence.

There was grave misconduct in the Taylor case! Police shouldn't routinely be assaulting homes with weapons drawn. My issue is just the process you're describing here.

I'm mainly commenting on the way up parent here:

"They got a warrant. Judges aren't going to issue a warrant based on asking a bunch of people if they sent a message."

Judges absolutely issue warrants all the time just for the hell of it. The very up parent seems to be indicating that some sort of due process was done because "oh, a judge issued a warrant" and I'm emphatically stating: a judge issuing a warrant means as much as me saying the sky is made of M&M's - just the ravings of irrelevant madmen in the face of actual facts.

Edit: I will say - the warrant process should absolutely be adversarial. Justice is to be blind. Which means if a crackhead and a cop come to a judge and requests the legal authority to break into a home with lethal force, the judge should weigh both requests the same. That's the intent of our legal system - the executive does what it thinks it's supposed to do in light of what the legislative has passed, while the judicial watches them to make sure they don't screw up.

Instead they all get together as buddies and stomp their collective boots into the skull of their fellow citizens.

> Justice is to be blind. Which means if a crackhead and a cop come to a judge and requests the legal authority to break into a home with lethal force, the judge should weigh both requests the same.

A judge does not have the power to grant a random private citizen the right to break into someone else’s home, with or without legal force, under any circumstance. Even a court order to allow breaking into your own property, say to evict squatters or tenants, would involve law enforcement. The judge can’t just deputize you like it’s the Wild West.

That's my point - not that a judge should grant a warrant to a crackhead, but that they should act as if they're granting a warrant to a crackhead. So basically the opinions, social standing, and claims of the entity requesting the warrant are irrelevant. Only the actual evidence should be considered by a judge when granting a "right to wantonly kill" because that's exactly what a warrant is at the end of the day. It should be taken very seriously, and unfortunately, it's not.

This isn't realistic. Warrants occur relatively early in the investigative process and are often the first indication a target has that they're under investigation. An adversarial warrant process would simply result in the destruction of most evidence.

A good way to prosecute your side of this argument would be to point out any country in the world that has an adversarial warrant system and how well it works. I'm unfamiliar with any. Much of Europe doesn't even have the exclusionary rule, meaning that evidence of crimes obtained under false or broken warrants remain admissible.

If your argument is simply that most police shouldn't be armed, you'll get no argument from me.

To my knowledge, much of the rest of the developed world doesn't have a problem with cops being able to lie under oath with no punishment. The non-adversarial systems you reference rely on the confidence that when a cop gets caught knowingly lying to get a warrant, that cop is fucked. Here in the US, it's just another Tuesday morning at the coffee shop with the boys.

On the destruction of evidence, this one has always baffled me - so is there evidence or not? Presumably when I go to a judge saying I need the legal authority to kill some babies at 3 AM because otherwise the evidence will be destroyed... I have enough evidence to justify killing those babies, right?

... So this begs the question... Why do I need authorization to kill babies at 3 AM? In case the suspects destroy more evidence? What was my evidence to kill babies to begin with? Just a hunch? Because a judge should absolutely shit on that, and it should be adversarial. A judge should laugh when evidence for a warrant request is "oh, I need the warrant because they'll destroy the evidence for me to request this warrant."

From my rough observation of the news for the past 20 or so years, the evidence of these crimes these babies died to protect has never been worth it. Maybe you know of a few where the death of a few babies were worth it because the crimes were so heinous. Every time I'm aware of - it's just been drugs, which could have been done in daylight hours, with no dead babies.

Now maybe this is your point about unarmed police. I'm not sure. But a warrant tends to be a fuck ton of latitude (as I've said in prior comments - judges just hand them out like candy), so just send in cops who want to kill with their bare hands and you'll get the same result, in my opinion.

I agree I'm being extreme, but that's where we are today. We tried the whole "let's just all get along and try to fight crime together" method, and it turns out cops will just lie to judges and go kill kids. This isn't me doing a slippery slope "what if" scenario. This has already happened. A bunch of times. Too many times in my opinion.

So now it's time for us to take away everyone's toys until they can show us they can all be good.

I don't really understand how this is a response to what I said. I pointed out that much of Europe doesn't even have the exclusionary rule: that if the police obtain evidence through misconduct, prosecutors are allowed to use it at trial. You responded with 6 paragraphs about killing babies.

Be specific. What country has better rules regarding warrants than the US? This should be easy, because it seems hard to believe that we could be the best country in the world at this process. Then we can go look at how that country handles things, in specifics, and learn something.

Honestly, I've typed out a few replies, and I've got nothing.

Basically, I'm saying I don't trust cops because they kill 1,100 people a year. That's it. That's my whole argument. Just 1,100 lives. Every year.

You're saying that's not relevant to what we're talking about and let's look at how European countries seem fine with their more lax evidentiary protocols, legal systems, and trusting cops. Even though their cops only kill 50 people a year (at equivalent population rates).

I really don't have a "better" warrant system to propose other than an adversarial one because at the end of the day I don't trust cops, and you're advocating for a legal system that intrinsically does. This is me saying "hey, blue is actually yellow" and you saying "no, blue is blue." Our perceived realities are too far apart.

You haven't proposed an adversarial system. That would involve details, or an example of some country or system that uses one, so we can get the details from there. It's not interesting to simply wish that the warrant process was adversarial, because it doesn't appear realistic to have such a system; you might just as well abolish investigations altogether.

I'm not interested in your feelings about the police killing people, because I share them, and there's nothing for us to discuss about it.

I am interested in the provenance of warrants, because they're central to the actual story we're commenting on.

I think that you're both arguing a bit past each other. Fountainofage is stating that the situation as it stands is untenable and needs to change, and they've given several good reasons as to why. You are asking for examples of a direction for society's legal systems to change to, to fix the problem.

Basically you both are in violent agreement, I think.

No, we're not. We agree that police barging into homes with guns drawn and shooting people is a problem. We violently disagree about the solution: I think we should disarm most police, eliminate qualified immunity, have states license police officers, and require police officers to carry insurance. 'Fountainofage wants to eliminate search warrants.

> have states license police officers

I’m pretty sure this is the case in most if not all US jurisdictions. You have to pass police Academy and annual or at least somewhat regular proficiency, physical, and written tests to ensure you are competent.

It not like you can just get hired as a cop because you have a cop friend.

It is absolutely not the case. You generally have to pass a competency test, and, having done that, your retention is a matter for your local police force and governed by its collective bargaining agreement. Some states can "decertify" police officers, mostly for committing a felony, which is a batshit standard.

The point of licensing is to bypass the CBA; the state can revoke a license --- for reasons other than "failed an exam" --- and having done so, the local department cannot retain the officer regardless of the results of labor arbitration.

This is something Illinois is working on right now, at the behest of the Lightfoot administration, though I haven't seen much news on progress. It's a big deal.

> Aren't magistrate judges supposed to take the police's word for this?

No. They have to convince a judge who is neutral in the matter. They have to have probable cause the criminal activity has/is occurring at the stated location the warrant is requested to be issued for. And the officers are under oath for this process, yet we see very few repercussions for a breakdown in this process. The affiant is open to persecution for perjury. The officers in the Taylor case lied by listing her and two others on the warrant. [0]

It's not an adversarial process, it's one of fact based decision making. Why would the judge blindly trust or mistrust the officer? The judge should trust the facts being presented are true, but that doesn't constitute a rubber stamp. And, as stated, if said officer lies about that evidence they should be prosecuted appropriately. Facts are often questioned to ascertain validity, that clearly did not happen in her case.

[0] https://www.wave3.com/2020/05/12/breonna-taylor-shooting-war...

Right, the facts presented to the judge, taken as stated, have to add up to cause for a search. Judges shouldn't ignore a paucity of factual assertions. I don't doubt that many do. But short of an adversarial process, which I don't think can work with warrants, I don't know what you can do to mitigate a police officer fabricating evidence.

This is becoming nothing but a semantic problem. Where lies the line between "judges shouldn't ignore a paucity of factual assertions" and "judges should be adversarial towards a warrant application"?

But to me, the more important question is "what are the ramifications for subverting the intended warrant process"? It seems that both sides here are arguing that the warrant process should be based on veracity and proportionality, and it regularly isn't. So what process oversees and corrects the rubber-stamping of warrants?

In the US, the major ramification of exploiting misconduct to get warrants is that all the evidence stemming from that warrant is excluded from the trial, which is a rule we have that is not common in the rest of the world.

> The remedy for broken warrants happens at trial, with motions to exclude evidence.

But merely broken (if not fraudulently obtained) warrants aren't a basis for excluding evidence, because of the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule.

That's a good point.

> "Aren't magistrate judges supposed to take the police's word for this?"

What do you imagine is the point of having one? It's to hold police accountable and Judge if what he/she being told is potentiality total BS.

This is untrue, Taylor was listed on the warrant no different than the other two persons. [0][1]

[0] https://www.wave3.com/2020/05/12/breonna-taylor-shooting-war... [1] https://www.wisconsinrightnow.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/09...

She's listed because it's her residence. Read the warrant, and compare the language in it about her to the language of the other people suspected of using the building.

She is listed as part of the "and/or on the person or persons of", I did.

Note how there's no criminal history associated with her, and none of her behavior is a predicate to the warrant. Compare to what the warrant says about the other occupants of the building.

I'm not sure you read the warrant correctly. They clearly state they've seen Taylor's car in front of the 2424 Elliott address. That wasn't the address issued for the warrant. This is an implication being made. The warrant is issued for 3003 Springfield.

Maybe go reread it.

You helpfully linked to it upthread. I'm comfortable that I've summarized it accurately.

You've summarized it inaccurately unfortunately. Taylor was part of the warrant, not simply because it was her address. This has been publicly put to bed:

"The connection with Glover is an important piece in this puzzle. The narcotics investigation was not just going after Glover, but several people believed to be involved in a drug trafficking ring. Police had reason to believe that Breonna Taylor had been involved because they believed that packages were being delivered to her apartment which Glover picked up and he said that she was in possession of several thousand dollars that belonged to him." [0]

This is readily apparent in the warrant.

And another, just to clarify. [1]

[0] https://clashdaily.com/2020/08/report-breonna-taylor-extensi... [1] https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2020/09/04/report...

Obviously she's "a part of the warrant". It's her house. I don't know what "Clash Daily" is; I read the original source, which you provided. It comported with what I'd already read about the case, which is that Taylor wasn't the target of the investigation. See also the NYT's coverage, asserting that Jamarcus Glover was the target.

They explicitly call out her car being at a different address, not her own, in the warrant. This implicates her with the other two. She is clearly a target of the warrant. You can find validation of this in the warrant and the follow on reports done by the police department. At this point you're pushing a false narrative pretty hard.

She's a target of the warrant. It's her house. Glover was using her car. Of course she's a target of the warrant. Her guilt or innocence in drug trafficking had nothing to do with the warrant's issuance. She's not the target of the investigation. If I'd been renting a room in her house, I'd be a target of the warrant too.

Sorry, but she was the soft target of the investigation. As you (hopefully) know her house was only one of the warrants executed on that day.

From NPR: "The purpose of the raid on Taylor's home was to find evidence linking her to an ex-boyfriend, Jamarcus Glover, a convicted felon with a history of drug trafficking, according to court documents.

Police didn't find any.

Now it appears prosecutors attempted to tie Taylor to a life of crime after her death." [0]

Now color me sceptical, but that appears to be an interesting argument if she's not a target as you continue to incorrectly posit.

Please top spreading misinformation.

[0] https://www.npr.org/2020/09/02/908625259/prosecutors-plea-of...

Your own quote refutes the rest of your comment.

That's even more worrisome.

What? the warrant had nothing to do with her house. The police broke into a home, and shot the occupants, and then arrested the one who survived for practicing his 2nd amendment right to use a gun to defend himself from criminals that were trying to murder him.

"The perpetrator used tor. Therefore it can only be this disgruntled employee."

Aren't the requirements for being a judge basically just (1) be a lawyer (2) get elected? I'd hazard a guess that the bar in terms of technical sophistication for a Tallahassee judge is not that high and that it wouldn't be inconceivable for police to sell them a story about a scary hacker stealing people's medical data.

You don’t even really need to be a lawyer in a lot of cases...

> I'd hazard a guess that the bar in terms of technical sophistication for a Tallahassee judge is not that high

I do wonder how much of the response to this post just begins with the assumption that red states are incompetent. If this had happened in a blue state no doubt the comments would be different. On the internet it's all ideology all the time.

Florida is still a purple state and Wikipedia says Tallahassee is 2:1 Democrat:Republican. I'd have said the same about judges in most areas of the US that don't have a significant tech presence. I would not feel that way about a judge in, say, Austin.

Per the article: "The FDLE investigator claims he determined through his "investigative resources" that an Internet Protocol, or IP, address associated with Jones's Comcast account was the source of the ESF-8 text message."

> Per the article: "The FDLE investigator claims he determined through his "investigative resources" that an Internet Protocol, or IP, address associated with Jones's Comcast account was the source of the ESF-8 text message."

Comcast has this weird system that allows users to open their WiFi AP to other Comcast customers, in return for the ability to hop on to any other "open" Comcast AP.

AFAIK, Comcast made it opt-out.

So, someone could have driven by to use her AP specifically in order to implicate her.

Doesn't the open end of the wifi get a separate external IP?

That is not how Comcast's wifi works. You'll find that when you connect to an Xfinity Wifi network in a subscriber's home, you're on a completely different network from their home network.

How much would you bet against that when the cop 'determined through his "investigative resources"' the ip address of the guest Xfinity network still came back as 'associated with Jones's Comcast account' ???

Are you claiming that the Comcast modem uses a different IP address for Comcast-network side of the NAT? That the modem has two routable addresses, one for the 'house', and one for the 'open' world?

Yes, that is generally/approximately correct. I'm not sure precisely how it's implemented on the public side, but you're placed into a seperate VLAN that enforces the captive portal. Traffic from the public WiFi network is isolated from the subscriber's traffic.

That doesn't at all answer GPs question though. That they're isolated LANs doesn't at all answer what WAN address they use. If no other indication it probably uses the same.

I have multiple VLANs at home, and I only have one WAN IP.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Comcast/comments/67orc4/xfinity_wif...

for what its worth: claims to have tested and says they are different public IPs

Okay, so what do you get if you lookup which customer is associated with the public IP?

That does not mean it uses a different public IP address that communicate with the rest of the intermet, I have seen dozens of such public/private wifi systems, abd never seen one with a separate public IP

Yes, let’s start a new conspiracy theory with an unfalsifiable conjecture!

It's falsifiable.

It could be a false flag to result in this intimidation operation.

Yeah, it would definitely be something I would think to do. It's not like Wi-Fi security is that tight either. I'm mostly baffled by the resources being put into this crime. There's no way that if this weren't politically motivated it would get this much effort.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com