If you ran a Bitcoin related service before the thing hit $100 you prolly ought to be somewhat concerned and/or prepared
http://www.thedrinkingrecord.com/2014/08/25/a-law-enforcement-encounter-if-y... A Law Enforcement Encounter: If you ran a Bitcoin related service before the thing hit $100 you prolly ought to be somewhat concerned and/or prepared Posted on August 25, 2014 So this afternoon I was roused from my day slumber by vigorous knocking at my front door. Under the impression the two gentlemen at my door step might be some sort of process servers or collections agents visiting about my substantial student loan debt I begrudgingly inquire as to what is going on. They inquire as to who I am, and I inquire as to who they are. 1 When they show badges I offer confirmation that I am indeed the person referred to frequently by the slave name2 they used. Their inquiry was laser focused on any information I might have about connections between BTCPak and The Silk Road3 of which I have none that can't be discovered by scraping public information off of the public web. BTCPak was this thing that accepted Bitcoin and provided prepaid codes you could load on to shitty Debit cards. I was new and didn't know any better so I had some of the most costly eatings and drinkings of my life. BTCPak was one of the more expensive ways to turn Bitcoin into US Dollars, but its advantage was it was fast and had a great reputation for working. If there weren't any codes to be had, the site wouldn't take Bitcoin. If you sent it Bitcoin it gave you the code in six confirmations. There was no market I knew of to feed the codes the other direction. The entire venture didn't even really seem to be a business. It just seemed to be a machine DBordello built to acquire Bitcoin in an automated fashion which as far as I can tell was turned off, because the future he was buying all of the cheap coins for finally arrived. A notable thing that kept coming up was an incredulity on the part of the investigators was that there was much of anything happening in early Bitcoin that wasn't shady and related to Black Market drugs. In reality a lot of stuff was happening on the plaintext Internet without the slightest shade of illegality. I mentioned the Devcoin4 thing that was my first source of any actual amount of Bitcoin. Devcoin was/is this arrangement where by dumping text into a wiki you earned coins on an altchain. You could then take the coins to this shitty exchange called Vircurex where you could dump them for BTC. As astounding as it seems at the time when I started doing this devcoin thing dumping a few thousand words in their wiki was probably worth a two digit number of BTC in the first month I got paid. Fuck me for having been so shortsighted and having not quite stumbled into what actual people were writing about Bitcoin. As astoundingly stupid as the premise sounds much of early Bitcoin involved people throwing coins around for appallingly, dumbfoundingly, stupid reasons in the name of "supporting Bitcoin" and "getting the ecosystem moving." Many stupid and lucrative things were scams of the Pirateat40 and GLBSE sort,5 I instead did the writing for Devcoins thing because I like sleeping soundly at night. What you, dear reader can take from this encounter is that if you were involved with Bitcoin before Coindesk6 became a thing and live in the United States, you too might be questioned by agents of two separate federal law enforcement agencies at the same time. If they are asking about BTCPak now, who knows how long the backlog of sites and ventures they are working through is. It's something to prepare for. When the agents suggested that I probably never expected they'd find me, they seemed a little shock when I replied that I kind of expected this attention eventually. I don't exactly keep the connections between my self and my slave name incredibly well guarded secrets, at least not on the scale of Silk Road users and administrators. This old Boy Scout would like to remind everyone of the motto: "Be Prepared". The reason for this is in my jurisdiction failure to identify yourself in a law enforcement encounter is a crime of questionable constitutional provenance, while having a conversation with a debt collector or process server that consists of nothing on your part other than intoning "Fuck You" a myriad of different was is great justice for all and legally sound. ↩ This odd thing happens when use a screen name long enough and act with established, credible pseudononymity in a space long enough, especially one with such an effective Web of Trust surrounding it. The layperson Toby gets asked about the learned amateur Bingo's hobby and suddenly you find yourself in an IRL encounter where you feel like you are wearing a person suit. Welcome to the future, its a weird fucking place. ↩ That thing I've avoided and wrote about on this blog before. ↩ Even though devcoin has dropped twenty times in value from ~200 satoshis per to ~10 satoshis per now, holding it would still have booked a dollar denominated gain over the time. But no, holding Devcoin would be stupid. ↩ Well so it would have seemed at least to the people running them. Running such a thing though doesn't fit my acceptable risk profile in the same way The Silk Road never fit my acceptable risk profile. ↩ Yes, the FBI agent name dropped Coindesk as a thing he reads as well as admitting to having a small amount of Bitcoin. ↩ This entry was posted in Bitcoin, Commentary, Disclosures, News. Bookmark the permalink.
On 8/26/14, Eugen Leitl <eugen@leitl.org> wrote:
... Under the impression the two gentlemen at my door step might be some sort of process servers or collections agents visiting about my substantial student loan debt I begrudgingly inquire as to what is going on. They inquire as to who I am, and I inquire as to who they are...
doing it right -^
On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 3:01 PM, coderman <coderman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 8/26/14, Eugen Leitl <eugen@leitl.org> wrote:
... Under the impression the two gentlemen at my door step might be some sort of process servers or collections agents visiting about my substantial student loan debt I begrudgingly inquire as to what is going on. They inquire as to who I am, and I inquire as to who they are... 1 When they show badges I offer confirmation that I am indeed the person referred to frequently by the slave name2 they used... ... [keeps on talking] ...
doing it right -^
Not necessarily... he doesn't indicate being detained (per RS) and subsequently asked, so he has no obligation (in US) to respond in confirmation. And unbelievably, he keeps on talking. He even lets them engineer themselves into becoming his 'friends' and talking yet more... "A notable thing that kept coming up was an incredulity...". The blog is probably not the full recount and this guy should review situation with a lawyer. Always good to discern who's knocking and why though. And there's always a careful and amiable balance to be made, but still, trolls at your door be trolling... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eCVa-bmEHuQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATlf5A2Qwpo
If they are asking about BTCPak now, who knows how long the backlog of sites and ventures they are working through is.
With so many bitcoin ventures, players and events... probably much longer than can be fit within time limits.
On 9/1/14, grarpamp <grarpamp@gmail.com> wrote:
... Not necessarily... he doesn't indicate being detained (per RS) and subsequently asked, so he has no obligation (in US) to respond in confirmation.
you don't have to be detained per Reasonable Suspicion for RS to apply. so if there was RS refusing to identify could get you arrested by itself. [0][1] i imagine you'd only discover you were detained if you tried to leave the premises? presumably the "use of bitcoin for anonymous pre-paid payments associated with other known criminal activity" or similar bullshit was bravely painted "reasonable". i am not a lawyer, of course, but this is my understanding of how one explained it to me. it also seems this guidance may be very state specific.
And unbelievably, he keeps on talking.
it went bad from there ... get their badges and names before identifying yourself. then let your very next words be "i demand legal counsel be present for any further inquiry." best regards, 0. "Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada" - http://supreme.justia.com/us/542/177/case.html 1. "Stop and identify statutes" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_and_identify_statutes
On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 11:42 PM, coderman <coderman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 9/1/14, grarpamp <grarpamp@gmail.com> wrote:
... Not necessarily... he doesn't indicate being detained (per RS) and subsequently asked, so he has no obligation (in US) to respond in confirmation.
you don't have to be detained per Reasonable Suspicion for RS to apply. so if there was RS refusing to identify could get you arrested by itself. [0][1] i imagine you'd only discover you were detained if you tried to leave the premises?
Detainer is only permissible via specific and articulable facts and rational inference therefrom leading to RS [Terry]. Only when detained are you required to name yourself if asked/ordered [Hiibel]. If you're 'being detained', you may leave when you're 'free to go'. Otherwise you may keep on walking [past your 'casual' encounter]. Detainer is different from arrest (per PC).
state specific
Federal minimum is in Hiibel. States may be more intrusive, at risk of unconstitutionality. There may still be an untested claim to the Fifth at 542:177:190,191. http://www.papersplease.org/ http://www.papersplease.org/hiibel/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_suspicion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probable_cause
0. "Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada" - http://supreme.justia.com/us/542/177/case.html
If you read this stuff you'd change that 404 to http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/slipopinions.aspx?Term=03 http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/03pdf/03-5554.pdf http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/boundvolumes/542bv.pdf
On 9/2/14, grarpamp <grarpamp@gmail.com> wrote:
... Federal minimum is in Hiibel. States may be more intrusive, at risk of unconstitutionality. There may still be an untested claim to the Fifth at 542:177:190,191.
is anyone pursuing this in any other states? the ACLU seems to list just Hiibel. ..
If you read this stuff you'd change that 404 to http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/slipopinions.aspx?Term=03 http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/03pdf/03-5554.pdf http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/boundvolumes/542bv.pdf
those are better. thanks :)
participants (3)
-
coderman
-
Eugen Leitl
-
grarpamp