←back to thread

989 points heavyset_go | 3 comments | | HN request time: 0.001s | source
Show context
tptacek ◴[] No.45261951[source]
For whatever it's worth, the Reddit story here says that the federal courts used "fraudulent warrants to jail my husband again". Maybe! The other side of that story, via PACER, is a detailed parole violation warrant (you can hear the marshal refer to it in the video); the violations in that warrant:

1. Admitting to using cannabis during supervised release

2. Failing to make scheduled restitution payments and to cooperate with the financial investigation that sets restitution payment amounts.

3. Falling out of contact with his probation officer, who attempted home visits to find him.

4. Opening several new lines of credit.

5. Using an unauthorized iPhone (all his Internet devices apparently have keyloggers as a condition of his release).

These read like kind of standard parole terms? I don't know what the hell happened to get him into this situation in the first place, though.

replies(13): >>45261987 #>>45262004 #>>45262031 #>>45262032 #>>45262053 #>>45262096 #>>45262107 #>>45262359 #>>45262427 #>>45262489 #>>45262691 #>>45263190 #>>45263322 #
tptacek ◴[] No.45262053[source]
OK, I think I found the original thing Rockenhaus was convicted of.

Back in 2014, Rockenhaus worked for a travel booking company. He was fired. He used stale VPN access to connect back to the company's infrastructure, and then detached a SCSI LUN from the server cluster, crashing it. The company, not knowing he was involved, retained him to help diagnose and fix the problem. During the investigation, the company figured out he caused the crash, and terminated him again. He then somehow gained access to their disaster recovery facility and physically fucked up a bunch of servers. They were down a total of about 30 days and incurred $500k in losses.

(He plead this case out, so these are I guess uncontested claims).

replies(12): >>45262123 #>>45262144 #>>45262161 #>>45262367 #>>45262384 #>>45262386 #>>45262724 #>>45262818 #>>45262976 #>>45263837 #>>45263945 #>>45264601 #
heavyset_go ◴[] No.45263837[source]
Here's what the wife says about that[1], for the record:

> The Origins of a Retaliatory Prosecution (Texas, 2019-2022)

> Early 2019: Conrad Rockenhaus, a supporter of free speech, runs Tor exit nodes used by journalists and activists. Federal agents demand he assist them in decrypting traffic; he repeatedly refuses, asserting his constitutional rights.

> The Coerced Confession: The case against him began when he was forced to confess to a non-violent CFAA (computer crime) offense while under the influence of prescribed painkillers and not lucid following a major surgery.

> The Pretextual Arrest: Just months before the 5-year statute of limitations was set to expire, the federal government arrests Conrad on the CFAA charge. The family alleges this was a pretext for his refusal to cooperate on the Tor matter.

[1] https://rockenhaus.com/press-kit/

replies(1): >>45263873 #
1. tptacek ◴[] No.45263873[source]
All that is as may be, but the CFAA charge here isn't pretextual; what he's alleged to have done is pretty serious by any standard. I have no trouble believing that the prosecution was motivated by Tor drama, but all that tells me is that the DOJ had real cards to play, and they played them.

My guess is that things would have gone substantially worse for this person had he taken that case to trial.

replies(1): >>45264057 #
2. heavyset_go ◴[] No.45264057[source]
Having seen the system up close, I hesitate to draw conclusions from cases that don't go to trial. Doesn't really sound like they have the means to afford trial, or at least a chance at a fair one.
replies(1): >>45264101 #
3. tptacek ◴[] No.45264101[source]
That's a pretty good reason not to break into your former employer's data center to unplug a bunch of servers because you're mad they terminated your contract. That would not have been a difficult case to prove up.