[thecrash]

By that logic why not also seize and do forensics on all the ISP's routers too then, just in case? After all, the ISP could be secretly in on the criminal plot, and how could you know without imaging every hard-drive in the data center? It would be negligent not to.

The truth is that police investigations normally are restrained based on the disruption that they cause the public. Police deviate from standard operating procedure when it comes to TOR exit node operators because they want to punish and intimidate them.

They want to punish operators because the authorities are frustrated by the effectiveness of these technologies in countering the pervasive surveillance environment which the authorities take for granted.

[lolinder]

> Police deviate from standard operating procedure when it comes to TOR exit node operators because they want to punish and intimidate them.

Citation needed. ISPs have entire departments dedicated to cooperating with law enforcement. Comcast has a whole portal with its own subdomain specifically for handling requests from law enforcement [0]. Cox has a page detailing exactly how to send them a subpoena [1]. These guys are clearly dealing with subpoenas just like the ones OP is describing all the time.

It only seems out of the ordinary this time because it's a random person who decided to play middle-man instead of an enormous corporation with a massive legal department.

[0] https://lrc.comcast.com/lea

[1] https://www.cox.com/aboutus/policies/law-enforcement-and-sub...

[aspenmayer]

> By that logic why not also seize and do forensics on all the ISP's routers too then, just in case? After all, the ISP could be secretly in on the criminal plot, and how could you know without imaging every hard-drive in the data center? It would be negligent not to.

Implying that they don’t have the capability to do this already and/or alternative means to accomplish the same thing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room_641A

> Room 641A is a telecommunication interception facility operated by AT&T for the U.S. National Security Agency, as part of its warrantless surveillance program as authorized by the Patriot Act. The facility commenced operations in 2003 and its purpose was publicly revealed by AT&T technician Mark Klein in 2006.

[gamblor956]

ISPs cooperate with law enforcement. Most even have dedicated staff for that.

So there's no need to seize their equipment.

[johnisgood]

They could be lying though, especially if they are in on it. Why not seize the equipment instead?

[johnisgood]

/s

[bongodongobob]

< By that logic why not also seize and do forensics on all the ISP's routers too then, just in case?

You think they don't!?