
Judge: child porn evidence obtained via FBI’s Tor hack must be suppressed - tetrep
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/09/judge-child-porn-evidence-obtained-via-fbis-tor-hack-must-be-suppressed/
======
tetrep
> Earlier this year, federal judges in Massachusetts and Oklahoma made similar
> rulings and similarly tossed the relevant evidence. Thirteen other judges,
> meanwhile, have found that while the warrants to search the defendants'
> computers via the hacking tool were invalid, they did not take the extra
> step of ordering suppression of the evidence. The corresponding judges in
> the remainder of the cases have yet to rule on the warrant question.

It's nice to see checks/balances work every now and then. It's also refreshing
to see public figures stand against "thinking of the children" when rendering
judgements about our freedoms. My only concern is that it's still a narrow
technical ruling, only invalid because the judge issuing the warrant did not
have the authority to do so (it targeted people outside their jurisdiction),
and while it's relatively easy in the physical world to constrain your search,
it's much more difficult on the digital world unless the warrant is extremely
narrow in scope. Once you've gotten access to someone's personal computer,
you're going to get _all the things_ , not just the child pornography. I would
consider it the equivalent for getting a warrant (hand-wave the actual
execution) to mount a GoPro your target and record their life, combing through
the footage to find details relevant your case, but I fear a "hack their
computer" warrant would be/is much easier to obtain.

~~~
Programmatic
I think that a warrant that allows the exposure of your IP address through
intrusive software that exploits a security weakness is valid, assuming that
you receive the software after visiting a site and performing a criminal
action. It's suitably narrow, and allows further (appropriate) searching.

The alternative (that I can't say that I mind too much, either) is to prohibit
ever catching Tor users no matter what online criminal activities they
perform, assuming you can't get their real IP through other means.

~~~
lallysingh
Generally I'd like to see something like an "Internet District" court with
technically trained judges that have jurisdiction over warrants on the
internet.

~~~
gm-conspiracy
Maybe a "World Police"?

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Team_America%3A_World_Police](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Team_America%3A_World_Police)

~~~
lallysingh
Well we're already that :-). But leave the internet-level stuff to judges who
focus on that, instead of the one closest to some random fbi office. At least
that way the judges can see & learn how these things play out, and give some
informed judgement that has a chance of setting good precedents.

~~~
bblough
Of course we'll have to call them "cyberjudges"

------
tyfon
"As a way to ensnare users, the FBI even took control of Playpen and ran it
for 13 days before shutting it down."

Shouldn't the agents running this site be charged with child pornography
distribution? Or are they above the law?

This would be a full blown investigation against the police in this country
(Norway), but here entrapment is illegal too.

~~~
tallanvor
Unfortunately we've seen that law enforcement in the US is able to get away
with doing some rather despicable things in the name of fighting crime.

Personally, I don't believe it's moral or ethical for law enforcement to
commit crimes in order to catch criminals. After all, how can we defend our
own morals and ethics if we're willing to ignore them for "reasons"?

~~~
afarrell
> Personally, I don't believe it's moral or ethical for law enforcement to
> commit crimes in order to catch criminals.

I think you want to look at systemic effects and the potential for bulger-
style corruption. Distribution of child porn does not do direct harm. It does
harm by being a system that supports child abuse and we have collectively
decided that child abuse is harmful enough to the fabric of our society that
it is worth dismantling the systems that support it.

So here, the ends justify a certain scoped set of means, but also impose a
duty of competence in deploying those means and a duty to stay within their
scope.

Note that We don't currently have any penalties for crossing the bounds of
that scope.

~~~
pbhjpbhj
> Distribution of child porn does not do direct harm. //

IMO it does, both to the user and the subjects of the pornography.

It's most likely the lesser harm compared to the original creation; though I'm
not sure you could certainly say that in absolutely all situations.

------
pilif
easy fix for the prosecution: Use parallel reconstruction. I'm sure they're on
this as we're commenting here.

Once the information has been gathered, it's out there. You can't unsee it. It
will always be there. Now, I don't think we should protect child porn users,
but this is a general issue with mass surveillance. Laws change and suddenly
somebodies actions that were once legal and are now illegal will be useful for
the investigators as a basis for parallel reconstruction or just plain
extortion or blackmail.

~~~
acveilleux
Parallel reconstruction is not so easy when the case is already at trial as
you can bet the defendant will not be doing whatever it is law enforcement
need to now find evidence of. Time machines are still not available.

~~~
pilif
No. But they can find other means of proving that the defendant has done what
you know they have done.

~~~
onlycommenting
I agree with everything you've said thus far, however, I'm still curious as to
how the Π would go about reconstruction w/out using their already gathered
knowledge to get warrants/subpoenas.

They could hope the ∆ was using BT and had their IP logged for downloading
copyrighted material. Then maybe request a warrant for their computer that way
but that seems like a stretch.

