Eric Eoin Marques Extradition (Freedom Hosting) - See Mod warning in first post

drunkmonkey

Link to story,
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/fbi-bids-to-extradite-largest-childporn-dealer-on-planet-29469402.html

FBI bids to extradite 'largest child-porn dealer on planet.

Eric seems to be running Freedom hosting one of the biggest hosts in the dark (hidden) web.

As he has not being arrested under Irish law, or has he even committed a crime here do we have to hand him over to the FBI? He is an Irish citizen, should he not be prosecuted here if it's found that he's broken the law.

I think the article in the independent doesn't really get to grips with what Freedom Hosting is about and the talk if tor and onion would go over a lot of people's heads. The Pedo headline is an attention grabber but it's taking from the larger story

How do you see this playing out, have we another snowden on our hands? Should we be protecting him? His company is Irish registered as far as I'm aware.

A little more info on freedom hosting
https://blog.torproject.org/blog/hidden-services-current-events-and-freedom-hosting


Mod:

Please note that Eric Eoin Marques was unsuccessful in his petition to have the DPP prosecute him here, he has not been charged with any offence by the DPP and he has not been convicted in any court.

He is entitled to be regarded as innocent until proved guilty. Likewise, other people and companies who have not been convicted are entitled to be regarded as innocent until proved guilty.

Although the charges against him may be mentioned and discussed, it is not acceptable that this man should be spoken about in terms of having committed a crime.

Posts which do not observe the above will have to be deleted, redacted or amended as necessary.

This is not intended to stifle discussion but posters are asked to consider their words carefully.

Ken.

,hand him over to the FBI and hope they waterboard the bastard to death.

drunkmonkey

ken wrote: »

,hand him over to the FBI and hope they waterboard the bastard to death.

Should we not be doing it though? Why hand him over? He's lived here since he's 5

Ken.

If they put in the leg work they should get to nail him.

drunkmonkey

They should be nailing the owners of the websites, shutting down the host won't do much to stop kiddy porn might upset things for a few weeks but the websites will be back up and running shortly even if Eric is locked up. A new host will just pop up.
The FBI seem to have attacked an Irish based business and broken Irish law. They've also taken data from people who would have used other tor sites which were in no way porn related. We can't allow foreign governments to do that on our soil without permission.
We make such a big deal about data protection then we allow this.

Pro Hoc Vice

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Link to story,
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/fbi-bids-to-extradite-largest-childporn-dealer-on-planet-29469402.html

FBI bids to extradite 'largest child-porn dealer on planet.

Eric seems to be running Freedom hosting one of the biggest hosts in the dark (hidden) web.

As he has not being arrested under Irish law, or has he even committed a crime here do we have to hand him over to the FBI? He is an Irish citizen, should he not be prosecuted here if it's found that he's broken the law.

I think the article in the independent doesn't really get to grips with what Freedom Hosting is about and the talk if tor and onion would go over a lot of people's heads. The Pedo headline is an attention grabber but it's taking from the larger story

How do you see this playing out, have we another snowden on our hands? Should we be protecting him? His company is Irish registered as far as I'm aware.

A little more info on freedom hosting
https://blog.torproject.org/blog/hidden-services-current-events-and-freedom-hosting

He will go through the extradition process, which will involve a hearing in the High Court and in this case an appeal to the Supreme Court. The USA will have to show not only has he broken a criminal law in America but that there is a corresponding offence here. It will be an interesting case, but I would guess it will take a year or more before a decision. He will more than likely spend that time in custody unless he can get bail.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Pro Hoc Vice

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Hence why he was refused bail.

Cody Pomeray

How much involvement with the content would a "facilitator" have had, and would he necessarily have been aware of its presence?

The whole point of the deep web is secrecy, I presume. Surely this guy knew that this content was likely to be on his servers, and would have been (easily?) able to find it if it were?

Obviously if it had never been brought to his attention and he was verifiably unaware of the content, you're into e-commerce territory.

LowKeyReturn

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

How much involvement with the content would a "facilitator" have had, and would he necessarily have been aware of its presence?

The whole point of the deep web is secrecy, I presume. Surely this guy knew that this content was likely to be on his servers, and would have been (easily?) able to find it if it were?

Obviously if it had never been brought to his attention and he was verifiably unaware of the content, you're into e-commerce territory.

TOR distributes requests for information across many nodes (the users) therefore making it very difficult to track where information is going to/coming from. The actual content is easily found and accessed in a very similar way to the world wide web. People forget that the world wide web is only a small fraction of the 'internet' as the terms are used interchangeably, if somewhat inaccurately.

It would have been very easy for him to know what was on his servers.

Personally I find the entire thing a bit ridiculous, he owned the hosts, I think its a very slippery slope to start holding the host owners responsible for content, even when it's a vile as content that was on FH. Lets not forget it wasn't the only thing FH/Tor was/is used for; some are worse, but some are also of great benefit especially in countries with a lack of free speech.

drunkmonkey

Anonymous called out freedom hosting a few times over Lolita City so he was aware it was being hosted by his company.
Agree with the above though there's freedom at stake and the dark web has its place. FBI want an end to the private internet.
Silk Road is next in the firing line but there's already a few new upstarts trying the same thing. Think its a case of whack a mole with the FBI.
I wonder how long before the value of bitcoins takes a hit.

gctest50

Would it be easier since he was USA born ?

and

The court heard Marques, who has both Irish and US citizenship

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/fbi-name-irishman-as-largest-facilitator-of-child-porn-on-net-29468433.html

drunkmonkey

Maia Nervous Peanut wrote: »

A lot of people wont know what TOR is. From what little I have read yes its possible he was aware of what sites he was hosting then again maybe he was not. Can they prove he was aware?
If a clearnet host company had such sites would they be held responsible for their content? Yes/no?

As for should we hand him over to the FBI - what is he actually being charged with? The FBI have done some messed up stuff themselves, they ran a CP website themselves to catch pedos out. I cant find the link right now but Ill have a looksy.

The FBI didn't run the website, they just kind of cloaked it I think to capture all the user data.
What they've done with freedom hosting though was infected their servers with a virus that spread it's way to good and bad users of the hosted websites, now that's the FBI maliciously and illegally attacking a European/Irish business, The FBI have broken our laws.
Is the host responsible for the content? I think lawmakers want them to be, it's easier shut down the hosts rather than going after the criminals who actually run and populate those bad websites. Does shutting down the host do much, no.

The Gardai shouldn't be snoozing on this and it looks like they are, that irish user data is seriously valuable in catching pedo's here and across europe and they should be working with Eric not letting the yanks drag him away.
Due to the nature of the sites he hosts, does he know who the users are? Possibly not but he probably knows how to find them.

Boombastic

Hand him over to the fbi, the gardai would probably put the wrong date on the warrant

gctest50

drunkmonkey wrote: »

The FBI didn't run the website, they just kind of cloaked it I think to capture all the user data. ..

Looks like they had one of those extra good evenings
- seems their bit of code looks like it checks its on the right OS, right browser and checks the ip address and MAC address of the pc its run on

So ...... when the lads in the dominos van pull up and knock on your door, its no good saying it was the exchange student you had staying for the weekend.

Probably guess the manufacturer

http://www.coffer.com/mac_find/

http://pastebin.com/pmGEj9bV

You'd want to be half-witted if you think you can do stuff anonymously

blatantrereg

Interesting. The first article I saw about this was on the Irish Times and didn't mention anything other than he was called the biggest child porn facilitator in the world.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/irish-man-called-world-s-largest-facilitator-of-child-porn-remanded-1.1488181

I think it would be incorrect to view him as any sort of champion for Internet freedom rights. he is anything but.

It seems straightforward enough, if it's correct he's already been called on what was happening. No way he should be protected or supported. He should not just be thrown to the wolves, but seasoned and served on a platter to them.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

asdf1234

Amazing how a headline writer can overpower thousands of minds with one stroke of his pen.

blatantrereg

asdf1234 wrote: »

Amazing how a headline writer can overpower thousands of minds with one stroke of his pen.

That's a non-sequitor.

asdf1234

blatantrereg wrote: »

That's a non-sequitor.

Really? Without a premise? I must be good.

blatantrereg

asdf1234 wrote: »

Really? Without a premise? I must be good.

It's irrelevant. It's true in general that headline writers can do that. Not relevant here - it would be a mistake to sympathise with him for the reasons I've mentioned in my first post on this thread.

asdf1234

blatantrereg wrote: »

It's irrelevant. It's true in general that headline writers can do that. Not relevant here - it would be a mistake to sympathise with him for the reasons I've mentioned in my first post on this thread.

Ah sorry, it becomes irrelevant based on your disagreement with its relevance, i'm beginning to understand now. For the reasons you mentioned in your first post on this thread, of course.

Pro Hoc Vice

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

According to RTE news his mother is Irish, he was born in the US but has resided in Ireland since he was 5. Not really a flag of convenience.

welkin

Thought he looked the head off Nidge from Love/Hate

drunkmonkey

2 more private services shut down, these guys wiped there servers..


http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/08/08/two-providers-of-encrypted-e-mail-shut-down/?_r=0

"Two Providers of Secure E-Mail Shut Down"

The worlds got a lot more like 1984 in the last week.

steowel123

how can u make comments to waterboard somebody before he has been convicted of a crime he has a us passport because his parents were living in the us at the time he was born a lot of what the papers have printed about finding pics of children are untrue to only thing he done was to trust that people using his servers did so in a legal way

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

steowel123

would u if u done nothing wrong

LowKeyReturn

steowel123 wrote: »

how can u make comments to waterboard somebody before he has been convicted of a crime

Torturing people after conviction is okay, I take it? :pac:

steowel123

LowKeyReturn wrote: »

Torturing people after conviction is okay, I take it? :pac:

he hasn't been convicted. Innocent until proven guilty or do we burn him at the stake

BognarRegis

steowel123 wrote: »

he hasn't been convicted. Innocent until proven guilty or do we burn him at the stake

It will be worth noting if after he might be handed over, will he be charged with the offence that is on the extradition request, or something different.

Senior counsel Remy Farrell, for Mr Marques, said he intends to apply for bail as the basis of his detention has changed.

Mr Marques had earlier been arrested and detained on foot of a provisional extradition request by the FBI, which claimed he is involved in the distribution of online child pornography.

Mr Marques was arrested on foot of a warrant that recorded charges of distributing and promoting child pornography on the internet.

dalta5billion

I sincerely doubt that anyone else gets prosecuted as a result of this. The default Tor browser has NoScript and the "virus" targeted a zeroday in Firefox and executed code on only windows machines.

Proving that he knew will depend on whether or not he automated the purchasing of hosting space (which I thiiinnk he did, not sure), and any communications they find from him.

If they didn't message him (in good faith) to let him know he was hosting something bad, he may have plausible deniability.

Then again, hosting on Tor unfortunately carries with it a certain environment (of dodgy sites) that he would have to be aware of.

I'm sure AWS also unknowingly host Tor content, yet they wouldn't be prosecuted, having a policy against that content, whereas Freedom Hosting said anything goes.

mollybolly

Some people are ridiculous yous read articles in papers an believe every word let's be honest paper won't refuse ink I know personally how papers can twist things to make it sound like they have the inside scoop... Here's 1 for yous if I own an apartment an lease it out to some1 and they get caught with drugs in it r using it as a brothel say does that mean I'm responsible even though I had no idea what was going on in that house??

dalta5billion

mollybolly wrote: »

Some people are ridiculous yous read articles in papers an believe every word let's be honest paper won't refuse ink I know personally how papers can twist things to make it sound like they have the inside scoop... Here's 1 for yous if I own an apartment an lease it out to some1 and they get caught with drugs in it r using it as a brothel say does that mean I'm responsible even though I had no idea what was going on in that house??

Clearly you've never used Tor Hidden Services.

drunkmonkey

dalta5billion wrote: »

I'm sure AWS also unknowingly host Tor content, yet they wouldn't be prosecuted, having a policy against that content, whereas Freedom Hosting said anything goes.

Freedom hosting had a policy that stated users of the service are responsible for their content.

The hosting service's terms and conditions had stated that illegal activities were not allowed on the sites it supported, but added that it was "not responsible" for its users' actions.

That's not saying anything goes, it's passing the responsibility to the users.

Is that illegal?

dalta5billion

drunkmonkey wrote: »

The hosting service's terms and conditions had stated that illegal activities were not allowed on the sites it supported, but added that it was "not responsible" for its users' actions.

That's not saying anything goes, it's passing the responsibility to the users.

Is that illegal?

That's like saying that the Cayman Islands doesn't consider itself an offshore banking destination.

Freedom Hosting was set up to cater to clients' needs:

a) that the identity of the person running the site could be known by no one.

b) that users of the site could be anonymous

c) that the site could not be taken down as with the "clear" internet.

I'd definitely agree with you about difficulty proving guilt, but in reality he knew exactly what type of stuff would be hosted on his servers.

He also reacted to the DDoS attack by making it invite-only. (Most small hosting providers would investigate such attacks and adjust infrastructure for certain sites for example. Such evidence of his proactiveness will be crucial evidence).

aidan_walsh

DPP will not press charges on alleged child porn facilitator

The High Court has heard a man the FBI describes as the largest facilitator of child pornography on the planet would plead guilty if tried in Ireland.

However the DPP has decided not to prosecute Eric Eoin Marques (22) who is fighting his extradition to the United States.

Marques of Mountjoy Square, Dublin, appeared in court in a grey hooded top and jeans.

He was arrested at his flat last August and remains in custody after two failed attempts to secure bail.

A federal court in Maryland issued a warrant on charges of conspiring to distribute and advertise child pornography.

The allegations relate to images on over a hundred "anonymous websites" described as being extremely violent, graphic and depicting the rape and torture of pre-pubescent children.

The court previously heard that if convicted Marques faces spending the remainder of his natural life in prison as the four charges could result in a sentence totaling 100 years.

Marques, who holds dual US and Irish citizenship, wants to be tried in Ireland.

His barrister Remy Farrell SC today told the court that his solicitor wrote to the DPP in November indicating that the 28-year-old would plead guilty if prosecuted in this jurisdiction.

A file was submitted to the Director Claire Loftus in the autumn.

Today it emerged she has decided not to press charges against Marques.

One less stumbling block to extradition.

MadPat

aidan_walsh wrote: »

One less stumbling block to extradition.

Or rendition.

If he did not commit a prosecutable offense here, then his extradition might turn on whether or not he committed an offense in the US, for which there is an equivalent in our law?

aidan_walsh

Has it ever been found whether the Freedom Hosting servers were in Ireland or the US? It seems he had a hosting company based here, but whether FH was here as well or not seems to remain up in the air (at least as far as I have been able to find out from my searches).

Holsten

It's stupid going after him, what will that accomplish? Nothing.

They were in France I think, he just paid through an American bank account.

MadPat

aidan_walsh wrote: »

Has it ever been found whether the Freedom Hosting servers were in Ireland or the US? It seems he had a hosting company based here, but whether FH was here as well or not seems to remain up in the air (at least as far as I have been able to find out from my searches).

Be careful what you search for...

These days, to be a web hosting service, you don't need to physically posess an actual machine on an actual rack in a physical premises. You buy capacity which is served from the cloud. The data may be present spread across many locations in the world, encrypted in a way that means the physical owners don't know what's on them.

These may be the 'complex issues' referred to in the reports. The nature of 'posession' could be at issue.

Peregrinus

Maia Nervous Peanut wrote: »

Why arent they prosecuting him, the DPP? They don't want to? They cant? Or they just want america to deal with it?

The DPP rarely gives reasons for why someone isn't prosecuted. But the usual reason is that they don't think they will secure a conviction.

Corkbah

Peregrinus wrote: »

The DPP rarely gives reasons for why someone isn't prosecuted. But the usual reason is that they don't think they will secure a conviction.

just my opinion but I think its more got to do with the resources - they simply think it'll be too difficult to understand and complete an investigation - and would require input from several countries - while the Americans have already done most of the work at their end so if extradited….then … work away.

if the servers are in France (as mentioned earlier) then its possible that any of the alleged "crimes" happened outside this jurisdiction.

Peregrinus

Corkbah wrote: »

just my opinion but I think its more got to do with the resources - they simply think it'll be too difficult to understand and complete an investigation - and would require input from several countries - while the Americans have already done most of the work at their end so if extradited….then … work away.

if the servers are in France (as mentioned earlier) then its possible that any of the alleged "crimes" happened outside this jurisdiction.

Well, yes. The Americans are prosecuting him because they believe he has committed a crime in the US. Even if that is so, it doesn't follow that he has also committed a crime in Ireland, and could be successfully prosecuted here. We can't assume that the Irish authorities have a good case, but for political or financial reasons have chosen not to pursue it.

aphex™

I'd imagine it might damage the cloud computing sector in Ireland if they were to pursue this guy. All of a sudden they might be responsible for any old encrypted filth on their servers. Would damage the business case for settling in Ireland or at least leave a question mark.

Bogan

Holsten wrote: »

It's stupid going after him, what will that accomplish? Nothing.

It will deter others from doing it in future and warn hosting companies who provide services to perverts that they are just as responsible for allowing things to continue knowing full well what was there.

Holsten

Oh really?

Have you any evidence to back that up? Any at all? I doubt you do.

It will deter not one single person.

Good example would be things like the pirate bay, you take one down and two pop up in it's place, there is no stopping it.

Corkbah

Holsten wrote: »

Oh really?

Have you any evidence to back that up? Any at all? I doubt you do.

It will deter not one single person.

Good example would be things like the pirate bay, you take one down and two pop up in it's place, there is no stopping it.

just because another pops up doesn't mean that its stopped - the new websites may not have the name or ability to perform in the same way, may not have the same client database, many people these days are aware of how easy a website can get their information and access to their computer and are sceptical of joining/signing up to websites which do not have recognisable names (like pirate bay etc)

Do you have any evidence to back up your claim that two websites pop up immediately after one is shut down …I doubt you do !! (just making the point that your request for proof is not possible)

Holsten

Just one small example - Silk Road, online drug heaven that was taken down a while ago and....

http://www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2013/12/06/new-silk-road-drug-market-backed-up-to-500-locations-in-17-countries-to-resist-another-takedown/

The pirate bay was taken down then hundreds were added. It is blocked in Ireland but you can access it through two clicks on Google.

Bogan

Holsten wrote: »

Oh really?

Have you any evidence to back that up? Any at all? I doubt you do.

It will deter not one single person.

Good example would be things like the pirate bay, you take one down and two pop up in it's place, there is no stopping it.

Common sense rather than evidence would say yes. Of course it will deter some people if they knew they risked being sent to the USA and imprisoned for the rest of their lives. It's nothing like Pirate Bay at all.

Holsten

People know they risk being put to death in the electric chair yet people still murder.

Only a fool would think that putting this man in prison for 100 years (which is what the Americans want) would have any effect on the stuff that was on his servers.