Where can I report criminal intent found on the dark web? I wasn't sure if I should ask this here or on the Tor site. I think it fits more here. I came across a Stack Exchange clone on the dark web. I won't go into too much detail or provide a link, but one question was someone requesting advice on how to commit a violent crime. (He has a specific target in mind already, and it looks like he's already cased the house.) I don't know if it would make any difference (because of Tor's anonymizing), but should I report it? (If so, where to?) Or should I assume that the proper authorities are already monitoring the site? I'm in the U.S., but I don't know what country the poster is in. If I can do anything to stop this from happening, I would really like to do so. CORRECTION: I've been conflating the terms "deep web" and "dark web." I'm actually referring to Tor services websites, so the dark web part of the deep web. Sorry if that caused confusion. I've updated the question to use "dark web" instead of "deep web."
1/06/17 update regarding comments and other answers: You can report criminal intent while reasonably remaining anonymous by using various methods, and this will let you do want to do: take an ethical step and make an effort to report the potential crime. Read below. First of all, using Tor is not illegal. Yes, there is illegal activity on Tor and the dark web it can access, and there is activity that promotes illegal things on Tor and IRL, but that doesn't make you a criminal by default by using a system that can be used by criminals. See Is it legal to use the Tor Network and Tor Software in the United States? The FBI and other law enforcement and intelligence agencies are well aware of Tor and the dark web; see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silk_Road_(marketplace) . (That may give you pause because some FBI agents were implicated in crimes when the agency investigated the broader crime.) Or should I assume that the proper authorities are already monitoring the site? I wouldn't assume they are already monitoring that particular site, but it's possible; the FBI at least is aware of its existence. It's a good idea to assume they run their own crawlers to index the site, and have agents who are members. Think of all the news stories your read about law enforcement posing as perps online to ensnare people; and then think about how much there is we don't know about these types of activities and their prevalence. If you really want to be paranoid and know that Tor is not perfect security, and that government agencies have serious power, know that the NSA is well-known to run many Tor exit nodes to packet sniff and store metadata and the full text of traffic (as well as clear, non-dark web traffic, too). And, it's an accepted fact that SSL has been cracked (SSL may or may not be in use in your case or technically relevant right now) by them, too, all re: Snowden. Deleting Tor from your PC/Mac means nothing; any 5th grader can do forensic analysis and discover the remnants of the Tor browser. Your local ISP may log Tor traffic, as such traffic has a signature. But again, simply using Tor doesn't not make you a criminal, but it could draw attention to you. And warrants get be gotten for ISPs and your PC. You remaining anonymous overall also assumes that you have not given out any information on that SE clone site that could identify you IRL. If you have, then you need to assess the risks to yourself; that could be your most serious privacy breach to other users beyond any technology (as well as to law enforcement if they for other reasons suspected you of illegal activity yourself.) That said, if you want to report the possible crime - for either legal or ethical reasons - you can remain mostly anonymous via email. Use the Tor browser from public wi-fi (try on a USB stick on a public PC and not from your laptop) and sign up for anonymous email with a fake name (breaking their TOS) at Yandex, which does not require phone verification. (Google, Yahoo, etc., require a phone number; this could be a burner or IP phone, but that's up to you). https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/11/tutorial-how-create-anonymous-email-accounts You could also use one of the various disposable email sites, as pointed out by another user, but some such email domains and services are often automatically flagged as spam or blocked by agencies due to their nature. Try Google for "disposable email". Ditto the anonymous phone call services or email-to-fax services. There are different methods with different anonymity pros/cons. And, you could use snail mail, as was pointed out by another user. Mail a printout in a plain envelope (with no fingerprints) in a public mailbox some distance from where you live and usually use the PO; the USPS records metadata on all mail, but this can be reasonably anonymous, with care. In any case, since you read that the person has already "cased the house" and have a general geographic location, the FBI may take the information (and your tip) seriously and look into the possibility of a crime. If the FBI looks, they may not deem it serious enough - or see enough evidence - to do the work required to find the true IP or other digital forensics to locate the person. I don't know if it would make any difference (because of Tor's anonymizing)... But we don't know the other digital breadcrumbs the alleged perp has left; it's possible they could be tracked more extensively online - and then possibly located IRL - by the FBI. And, if you do send an anonymous tip by any method, you've done what is appears you want to do: take the ethical step and make an effort to report the potential criminal situation. 1/05/17 original answer: Take a look at FBI Forms — Tips - fbi.gov to submit an email tip: Please use this website to report suspected terrorism or criminal activity. Your information will be reviewed promptly by an FBI special agent or a professional staff member. Due to the high volume of information that we receive, we are unable to reply to every submission; however, we appreciate the information that you have provided. And/or there are phone numbers here: Submit a Tip — FBI
Some people seem to believe that just because something happens 'in the internet' it is somehow outside normal jurisdictions. Wrong. In may be harder to investigate and prosecute crimes in the internet, but the laws apply all the same. There are some problems when it is unclear 'where in the world' something did happen -- in the jurisdiction of the perpetrator, the victim, or the service provider? But problems of jurisdiction apply e.g. to international fraud cases in the non-web-world as well. In many jurisdictions, the informed and voluntary consent makes some things legal which would otherwise be illegal. For instance, if two boxers get into the ring, it is understood that each of them did consent to be hit by the other. But usually two fighters could not legally agree to a fight to the death, because even if there are laws on assisted suicide, they do not apply to a fight. Insults, libel, and slander are not on the same level as homicide. There are jurisdictions where they are not prosecuted without the request of the victim. But an insult might also violate other laws, e.g. disturbing the peace. So don't bet on such an app unless you know for sure which jurisdictions are involved.
It is the use of a "menace" which creates the crime, not the nature or validity of the demand. That's not correct. You've inadvertently missed the other element of the offence: that it's an "unwarranted demand". A person is guilty of blackmail if, with a view to gain for himself or another or with intent to cause loss to another, he makes any unwarranted demand with menaces; and for this purpose a demand with menaces is unwarranted unless the person making it does so in the belief— (a) that he has reasonable grounds for making the demand; and (b) that the use of the menaces is a proper means of reinforcing the demand. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1968/60/section/21 For example, I may have reasonable grounds under the Consumer Rights Act to demand a refund for a faulty good. It might be sensible to moderate one's language, e.g. "If I do not receive a satisfactory response from you within 30 days of the date of this letter, I intend to issue proceedings against you in the county court without further notice. This may increase your liability for costs." vs. "If I do not receive the money from you within 30 days of the date of this letter I'll take you to the f***ing cleaners, sunshine." But the language doesn't make the demand unwarranted.
If the operators of a site post them in such a way that anyone with a browser can access them, with no login or other security precaution required, and not even any notice that the files are confidential, they are implicitly inviting anyone to view them, and thus it is legal to do so. There was a case where a site owner gave specific notice to a user not to access the site, and blocked the user's IP. When the user hired a proxy service to get around the blockage, this was held to be unauthorized access, a crime under the CFAA (Computer Fraud and Abuse act). But in that case the individual notice was considered essential to the applicability of the act. That case was Craigslist, Inc v. 3Taps, Inc et al, 942 F.Supp.2d 962 (N.D. Cal. 2015). See also This Wikipedia article and thisJaxEnter article. As the Wikipedia article put it: Craigslist Inc. v. 3Taps Inc., 942 F.Supp.2d 962 (N.D. Cal. 2013) was a Northern District of California Court case in which the court held that sending a cease-and-desist letter and enacting an IP address block is sufficient notice of online trespassing, which a plaintiff can use to claim a violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. Note that in this case web scraping was apparently impacting the craigslist site.
You are mistaken: they deny you on your act When you use Tor, your browser is not sending a lot of information. That makes Tor browsers hilariously easy to detect: nobody knows where the real browser is, but it is hilariously easy to block all Tor users for using Tor, or at least those that the server knows are Tor IPs. Using Tor is an action, not how you look. The closest Brick and mortar equivalent would be &quot;Show me your ID please&quot; and you show them a paper cutout of something that has Sample stamped over it. &quot;No shirt, no shoes, no service&quot; in the united-states Yes, most places can deny service based on how you dress or your state of hygine. These two would in most cases not extend to the protections under the Civil Rights Act, which protects some characteristics like race and sex, but not visual factors like &quot;being dressed&quot; or &quot;smelling of cow&quot;. There can be a fine line where religious dress code is concerned, but in general and broad strokes, the restaurant can deny you for wearing the wrong clothes. Actually, the slogan is much broader than it appears: as long as an establishment's dress code is not violating discrimination law (like the CRA), they can enforce it under their freedom to contract.
Probably not. Let us take the case US v. Lowe where the evidence seems even more damning. Lowe was convicted, because his computer actually did contain hundreds of child porn images. Police had IP logs that indicated that someone at Lowe's address was hosting a porn-sharing network and they downloaded some porn from the network. After a raid, illegal images were found on one computer, and forensic evidence provided a bit of evidence regarding when some of the files were downloaded, which was also connected with a person opening an invoice file containing the defendant's address 40 minutes before one of the porn files finished downloading. Lowe moved for acquittal and did not enter any evidence. The court denied the motion. Even so, the court commented that I have to say, in this case, it has been particularly difficult, even though it’s my job to do so, to discern where that line [between speculation and reasonable inference] is and where what might be a reasonable inference that can be drawn from the record evidence becomes nothing more than an invitation for the jury to speculate as to what the evidence may be or what it may show Lowe was convicted. On appeal, the court concluded that no rational juror could find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt based on the evidence presented at trial. A juror could conclude that there was porn on the computer and that the defendant occasionally used the computer. But without improperly stacking inferences, no juror could infer from such limited evidence of ownership and use that James knowingly downloaded, possessed, and distributed the child pornography found on the laptop. The court noted that there were two other individuals in the house who also had access to the computer. In particular, no evidence was presented to prove that defendant's wife had not accessed the computer at the relevant time. There is a long list of things that the prosecution failed to prove (e.g. they provided no evidence regarding what the defendand and wife did for a living, which was relevant to the evidence regarding &quot;opening an invoice&quot;. The court sums up by saying the evidence presented here fell well short of what we have found sufficient to convict in other cases involving multiple possible users of a single device. (Citations include US v. Oufnac, 449 F. App’x 472; US v. Mellies, 329 F. App’x 592. The court also found that the evidence did not permit a juror to conclude that James knew the HP Pavilion laptop contained child-pornography files and permitted them to remain on the computer. since the files were buried in a Shareaza file-sharing library, and no evidence was introduced to prove that the defendant had opened the file-sharing program. If you apply the findings in this case to your hypothetical, you could not possibly get a conviction that would not be overturned by a reasonable appeals court. The details of Lowe's trial are not clear from the appeal, but it appears that Lowe (or his attorney, if there was one) failed to create doubt regarding the government's case. Legally speaking, the defendant is not required to create doubt, but the instruction on reasonable doubt may have contributed to the problem. The jury is told that &quot;Possible doubts or doubts based purely on speculation are not reasonable doubts&quot;, but since there was porn on the computer, a juror would have had to speculate that someone else downloaded it. The jury is told that &quot;it may arise from the evidence, the lack of evidence, or the nature of the evidence&quot;. We do not know to what extent defense failed to make the argument that the government's evidence was severely lacking.
Ark. Code 5-60-120 is very clear that the act of intercepting is a crime. Not just &quot;recording and using&quot;, not just &quot;recording&quot;, but intercepting in any way. Specifically: It is unlawful for a person to intercept a wire, landline, oral, telephonic communication, or wireless communication, and to record or possess a recording of the communication unless the person is a party to the communication or one (1) of the parties to the communication has given prior consent to the interception and recording. Intercepting is illegal, therefore it is not &quot;okay&quot;. Perhaps the &quot;sort of a lawyer&quot; was speaking of the probability of getting caught doing it.
According to Julian Assange, CNN committed a crime violating § 135.60 of the New York criminal code "coercion". Reddit, while being a private company, is still considered a public forum. Anything said on these sites can be used against you if your actually identity is discovered.