←back to thread

Man jailed for parole violations after refusing to decrypt his Tor node

(reddit.com)
989 points heavyset_go | 3 comments | 16 Sep 25 12:10 UTC | HN request time: 0.002s | source
Show context
tptacek ◴[16 Sep 25 13:26 UTC] 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 #
shagie ◴[16 Sep 25 14:26 UTC] No.45262691[source]▶
From reddit post, from transcript at https://rockenhaus.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/U.S.-v.-Ro...

     8 Q. Due to the nature of the offense charged being a
     9 computer-related crime, did he have specific
    10 restrictions on his pretrial release as it relates to
    11 his computer usage?
    12 A. Yes. One of the conditions was that he must
    13 participate in the Computer Restriction and Monitoring
    14 Program.
    15 Q. How is that program enforced?
    16 A. That program is enforced -- the defendant has to
    17 download a software program onto his computer or iPhone
    18 or whatever, any type of device that has access to the
    19 Internet. That information is -- the monitoring
    20 company, they monitor -- they are able to monitor what
    21 he is accessing on the Internet. And the Probation
    22 Officer has been allowed to review weekly reports about
    23 what sites he's accessing, things like that.
    24 Q. And is the defendant notified and made aware and
    25 provided with a document that states the terms of that
     1 agreement?
     2 A. Yes.
The use of an encrypted Tor node would likely be a violation of that restriction regardless of what is being accessed.

The chain would then appear to be: convicted of computer crime -> required computer monitoring software during supervision -> installed and used Tor -> supervision violation and revoked to prison.

replies(1): >>45262895 #
tptacek ◴[16 Sep 25 14:39 UTC] No.45262895[source]▶
As I understand it --- I haven't read deeply enough to confirm this, it's what I've pieced together from the Reddit thing --- the Tor stuff came long before any of this. What I gather is:

1. Back in 2014 this person committed a pretty grave computer offense, which was not at the time prosecuted.

2. Some time after that, he became a high-profile Tor relay operator.

3. Some time after that, he was asked to subvert those Tor relays by the DOJ.

4. In 2019 he was prosecuted for the computer offenses, and convicted.

5. In 2021, he was released on parole.

(I think there's a long string of parole issues after that, and then)

6. In 2025 he was accused by the probation office of violating his parole in a bunch of ways and taken into custody.

replies(2): >>45263684 #>>45266436 #
gtowey ◴[16 Sep 25 19:04 UTC] No.45266436[source]▶
If this is true then it sounds like the FBI targeted him specifically because they figured his previous crimes made for good leverage.

It seems his mistake was not realizing that he was caught between a rock and a hard place. More colloquially he's in the FO stage after FA.

It doesn't seem like anyone is morally in the right, but it also seems like the defendant here was in a legal grey area to begin with.

replies(2): >>45266724 #>>45266993 #
1. tptacek ◴[16 Sep 25 19:24 UTC] No.45266724[source]▶
I mean, no, the defendant was definitely not in a legal grey area. You might think it's a moral grey area? But he broke into a data center facility and unplugged a bunch of servers, and brought a company down for a month in the process, out of spite. That's a pretty normal crime. He was lucky not to have been prosecuted, and his luck ran out.
replies(1): >>45278903 #
2. gtowey ◴[17 Sep 25 17:36 UTC] No.45278903[source]▶
I called it a grey area because there were mentions in this thread that the statute of limitations to prosecute those crimes were close to expiring. That means it looked like he could have gotten away with it without major consequences if not for the fact that he was doing enough shady stuff to attract the attention of the FBI.
replies(1): >>45279241 #
3. tptacek ◴[17 Sep 25 18:06 UTC] No.45279241[source]▶
He was prosecuted within the statute of limitations for the crime, and probably not too far out of the normal bounds between a criminal act and a federal prosecution. Federal prosecutions are relatively rare compared to state prosecutions, federal prosecutors don't take nearly as many "flyers" as states do, and the feds very often wait a long time before pouncing; this is all consistent with their M.O.

In this particular case, I don't disagree that there was probably motivation to the prosecution! They probably did want something from Rockenhaus, and, when they didn't get it straight up, looked for leverage. Unfortunately for Rockenhaus, he had given them a lot of leverage. It looks like it was a lay-up case.

You can call that a moral grey area and I won't disagree, but my point is just, it's not remotely a legal grey area. Rockenhaus' experience of this prosecution is probably no different than that of a typical federal defendant.