The article just says
> a magistrate judge in the Northern District of California had granted a warrant to seize funds from the wallet earlier in the day.
But my understanding is that a judge can't just seize the wallet -- you'd need their private key. Anyone know what happened from a technical standpoint?
The affidavit [0] supporting the warrant details the flow of Bitcoin between various addresses and notes that the FBI has the private key of the address targeted for seizure, but doesn’t explain how they got the private key.
[0] linked, along with the warrant and other docs, from the DoJ press release: https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/department-justice-seizes-23-...
(1) It asks the question “why would they need a warrant if they had the private key”. The answer is obvious: the same reason they’d need a warrant to seize cash from your house even if they had your front door key. Legally, the FBI needs a warrant to seize property in your possession, outside of very narrow exceptions, and “well, we have the technical capability to take it” doesn’t itself qualify for any exception.
(2) It concludes from a warrant and supporting affidavit that explicitly ask the court to permit the FBI to seize BTC to which thet have the private key that...the FBI did not have the private key, but instead was serving the warrant on a “custodial wallet provider” like Coinbase. It it possible the wallet seized was custodial, but there is literally nothing supporting this interpretation of the FBI not actually having the private key ut serving the warrant on a third party rather than seizing it by use of the key in their possession. In fact, every element of that narrative is directly contradicted by the documents pointed to to support it.
Aside from “if it was parallel cobstruction, the documents obviously wouldn’t reflect it” (which is true but not evidence), what os the evidence of parallel cobstruction here?
> There are three ways they have the key:
There are a lot more than your three:
> 1. A non-FBI intelligence agency hacked a computer containing the private key.
> 2. A US intelligence agency physically beat it out of an American.
> 3. A non-US intelligence agency physically beat it out of a non-American.
1a. remove non- before FBI in 1.
2a/3a. Swap US and non-US in 2/3 (US intelligence agencies operate abroad and vice versa).
4. An agent of US intelligence infiltrated DarkSide and got access to the key without beating it out of anyone.
5. #4, but An agent of non-US intelligence did the same. The sponsoring nation provided the info to the US for foreign relations reasons.
6. A foreign intelligence service had contact with DarkSide and, for reasons, requested (likely with additional threat or inducement, express or implied) the information and that the funds be left there, and provided it to the FBI.
...
Can you please stop doing this?