Author Topic: forum security...what say you??? (Read 80 times)

hypnos · « **on:** November 19, 2009, 01:51:46 AM »

i am kinda new to participating in online forums--i have often looked, but never got involved until this year--so the question is "how safe/unsafe do you feel it is to share information about your experiments AND maintain some level of 'plausible deniability' if say LE were lookin on?"

personally i am here coz of the level of knowledge available & the fact that recreational drugs are an acceptable topic--yeah i LOVE to make/take them but this isnt my only chemical interest--funnily enough i like making 'scents' which is just as potentially incriminating (unfucknbelievable these govt 'precursor' acts!!)

what risks can i/do i face when posting a) incriminating experimental data--b) if i do 'bioassays' etc?

i'm not talking about data on PC's(encrypt,encrypt,encrypt) but how easy would it be for these spoilsports to link me via this forum (or others?) to activities i report doing here

i am aware that nothing is totally secure in cyberspace-if they REALLY want to,,LE has the resources to access heaps!!--the question is "how hard IS IT for them to backtrack to me from here?"

so far i have had some great input and advice from several of the members here and i thank you for it--personally i think this place is filled with 'interesting thinkers'

Vesp · « **Reply #1 on:** November 19, 2009, 02:05:56 AM »

Honestly, I don't even know. Like you said if they want it, they can get it. So my advice is don't do anything illegal.
If you do, and want to report it here, say you found it somewhere else, etc.
Also use something to change your IP address, view the site in private browsing (least.. its a function on firefox...), view it in firefox, because IE sucks and FF can offer more protection IMO
etc..

hypnos · « **Reply #2 on:** November 19, 2009, 02:44:01 AM »

thanx matey--its this type of feedback i am after---that said--keep it coming peoples,,i am sure there are lots of intereting stories floating around--has any one had any experience with LE 'trying'

and/or succeeding in prosecutions using forum based evidence?

I wonder about the validity of "swim'ing"...surely if they can connect your user name to who you are,,no matter how much you "swim" you WILL sink if you can be connected to your posts $:-\$

Vesp · « **Reply #3 on:** November 19, 2009, 04:05:44 AM »

Swimming is stupid and I hate it. It really degrades the quality of the forum. It is best to say things like "I heard that... blah blah" or talk with out ever talking about yourself, your cat, etc...

Write synthesis like orgsynth does...

For instance...

100mls of X was added to a 1000ml RBF and was stirred under reflux for Y hours, a precipitate formed that was a yellow.. etc etc

no reason to say "hey I just added 100mls of X to a 1000ml RBF.... "

Get what I mean?

hypnos · « **Reply #4 on:** November 19, 2009, 04:24:42 AM »

yep

i agree..its 'sandpit/3rd grade' anonomity--what bart says i.e ' it wasnt me...i dont know.'plausible' just...if you're a 10 yr old

but i am still interested in more pov's about this...anyone

Wizard X · « **Reply #5 on:** November 19, 2009, 05:51:08 AM »

SSL encryption would be a good 1st start.

Locked · « **Reply #6 on:** November 19, 2009, 04:58:44 PM »

I second ssl, but from the net history of wing clippings, these online fables just help the prosecution paint a super ugly picture of you and quantify the level of your work and how long it had been happening.

I know how you will get busted. Someone somewhere that you never should have trusted with your life is going to open their mouth.

That's the start of it 99.99999999999% of the time.

For that other .00000000001%, play like you should to avoid identity theft. Never write on things. Never leave receipts. Pay with cash. Shred everything. Clean everything.

Somebody reading this is having their trash searched right now. What's in there? When you are DIRTY know that testable residue is on everything. It's funny that it looks like tinkerbell the E fairy has given lots of your stuff a iridescence, but not when the pigs are swabbing.

It is good to be a little paranoid, but worry about the things that will benefit you the most. Look at how everyone else gets busted and avoid/limit exposure to these things.

Don't be the guy speeding down the highway drunk with his seatbelt off talking about airline safety.

geezmeister · « **Reply #7 on:** November 19, 2009, 09:01:50 PM »

As a long time criminal defense lawyer, and as a former prosecutor, let me express my laughter at your disdain of "Swim."

The rules of evidence allow the introduction of statements against a penal interest made by a party to be introduced as evidence against him. A statement against a penal interest is a broad concept, broader than self-incrimination, but not so broad as to encompass statements that do not at least acknowledge conduct that is illegal. Statements include written as well as oral communications. To be admissible, the statement must be shown to be that of the party against whom it is introduced. There are two reasons there is not a substantial body of case law on the introduction in evidence of posts made on an internet forum by a criminal defendant. One is the rather difficult matter of proving that the defendant did in fact post the post... that it was the defendant, not his roommate, mother, girlfriend, or some other internet poser. The second is that a statement indication someone other than the poster did a certain act, i.e., someone who isn't me-- is not a statement against penal interest.

Do not think that your identity is some sacrosanct, anonymous mystery to those in charge of the engines of government. It is not. I have spoken with a number of bees, chem headers, dreamers, synthers, and other who have found themselves the object of the government's wrath in criminal court... and a good number of them confirm that the discovery documents provided by the federal authorities indicated the feds knew who they were on line, what they posted on, and what statements were made. A couple of rather high profile posters have confirmed that the government even had copies of the posts made by them at the Hive and at two other boards. Were these items introduced as evidence? No. Why not? The two reasons given above.

There has been a good deal of thought put into the recommendations made to prevent members from finding themselves at a legal disadvantage because of posts made on boards of this nature. The consensus of opinion of those who are in fact involved in the legal profession boils down to a simple mantra we should all keep in mind, because it makes sound legal sense and requires little effort: 1) Keep your comments timeless. 2) Keep your comments impersonal 3) Keep your comments devoid of jurisdictional information, and 4) Never admit to committing any act illegal in the jurisdiction in which you reside.

These safeguards are simple, and rather effective. I do not suggest they are bulletproof, or fool proof. There are always bigger bullets, and there is no end to the things a fool can completely fuck up. But adherence to these simple rules is advised after much study by those skilled in the circumvention of the law. Sometimes its wise to take advice from someone schooled in the subject in which the advice is given, and its frequently wise to take the advice of your own lawyer. Whether you do is up to you, of course. I just hope I never have to tell you that you should have listened when this advice was being given.

Sedit · « **Reply #8 on:** November 19, 2009, 11:22:16 PM »

I understand your points clear as day Geez but I admit that I myself hate to see Swimming.

Can you honestly suggest from your years of legal work that saying "Swim made some Meth today" is any better then saying "I made some meth today"? I honestly feel that if they connect you to the crime then swim matters nothing as I doubt it would stop any jury from believing that you really didn't do it.

Take Geez advice on the timeless and impersonal or best of all do not talk about ANYTHING illegle. Drug synthesis has been done to death and the target of the DEA is to make precursors hard to get which by far is the hardest part of any psychoactive synthesis. Instead of discussions of making amphetamine from Benzaldahyde and Nitroethane why not worry more about getting the BnO and EtNO₂ first. Shut the hell up about the rest ONLINE and OFF and you may just be ok. Finding a simple and effective route to Red phosphorus and Iodine will put a much greater dent in the DEAs game plan then discussing Long wet reactions ever will. However if the reaction must be discussed im quite sure there are many other secondary alcohols that will follow the same reaction schematics you could substitute in ephedrines place.

Odds are if they take you down its not going to be because of something you said online. Say, Swim or I, if they know who you are there investigating already.

hypnos · « **Reply #9 on:** November 20, 2009, 04:18:09 AM »

thanx peoples this is EXACTLY the kind of information i was after--geez my man,so nicely put, a tad heavy but, concise, precise and highly informative

I find it most interesting what geez says

about 'swim'(or other online comments/assumed to be from swim) not being used because of the inability to prove "who wrote/posted what.." i fact this is a part of my concerns in that, what

IF someone steals/hacks/?(LE?)access'or impersonates you,,and i thank you mr geez for a wonderful answer

that said,,sedit thank you also for that piece of informed advice,,you make some highly vallid points re; circumventing "the diabolical system" which wishs to inhibit free thinking--i dont believe i

need to elucidate my disdain for anyone of this ilk :'(

once again my thanx ,, but hey!! dont let this stop anyone else from making a comment

nooooo!!!! this thread (and myself) are still open to to your opinion if you think ANYthing has been

excluded

go hard folks

hypnos