4 ms·

Based on this ruling, why wouldn't the suspect's defense now be "well, my computer must have been hacked, it wasn't me downloading the questionable content. Se

Based on this ruling, why wouldn't the suspect's defense now be "well, my computer must have been hacked, it wasn't me downloading the questionable content. See, look, even the courts have ruled that my computer, for all intents and purposes, is publicly available for all kinds of hackers to utilize for nefarious purposes."

ikeboy 10y ago
They tried that, and it was rejected in the same ruling. More specifically, they claimed that someone might have MITM'ed the FBI's program to send different information since it didn't use encryption, and that the program may have weakened security settings allowing someone else to plant child porn on their computer. The first was rejected as implausible, as the program sent all its information back quickly (less than a second) and any attacker would need deep knowledge of the program to know what to send. The second was rejected as not supported by evidence (no evidence that the FBI's program changed security settings and a declaration by an agent that it didn't, and also the charges weren't based on the files found on the computer).
- ambulancechaser 10y ago
  And the NIT program didn't give them anything about the person except for some identifying info. They went to the ISP located in florida to find out information on this and then got a traditional warrant to search the house which resulted in them finding the material. They waiting to install the NIT until the person went into a forum and tried to access the pornography. Everything about this to me makes sense with one exception. The judge handled that the warrant was topical and specific, which I agree, and argued that the issuing magistrate could issue it seems like a reasonable interpretation of the rules but I wish they would update those instead of let precedent twist the words a little. But I disagree with the finding that despite all of these hoops the judge finds that a warrant wasn't necessary in the first place. That to me is a stretch. Seems like a better thing was that the system worked. There was suspicion, description of what information to seize, and a triggering event. These were all met and a judge had allowed the deploying of the NIT in these circumstances. Why say that despite all of the checks being satisfied they weren't necessary in the first place, especially with the argument that there can be no expectation of privacy simply by being on the internet.
  - ikeboy 10y ago
    I'm inclined to agree that there's no expectation of having your IP be secret even when using Tor, but there's an expectation of not having other people run code on your computer. The judge considered this distinction and rejected it. The IP not being secret is supported by precedent from other cases, it seems reasonable that if the government can trace it back without hacking the computer it should be fine.

ikeboy 10y ago

They tried that, and it was rejected in the same ruling. More specifically, they claimed that someone might have MITM'ed the FBI's program to send different information since it didn't use encryption, and that the program may have weakened security settings allowing someone else to plant child porn on their computer. The first was rejected as implausible, as the program sent all its information back quickly (less than a second) and any attacker would need deep knowledge of the program to know what to send. The second was rejected as not supported by evidence (no evidence that the FBI's program changed security settings and a declaration by an agent that it didn't, and also the charges weren't based on the files found on the computer).

ambulancechaser 10y ago
And the NIT program didn't give them anything about the person except for some identifying info. They went to the ISP located in florida to find out information on this and then got a traditional warrant to search the house which resulted in them finding the material. They waiting to install the NIT until the person went into a forum and tried to access the pornography. Everything about this to me makes sense with one exception. The judge handled that the warrant was topical and specific, which I agree, and argued that the issuing magistrate could issue it seems like a reasonable interpretation of the rules but I wish they would update those instead of let precedent twist the words a little. But I disagree with the finding that despite all of these hoops the judge finds that a warrant wasn't necessary in the first place. That to me is a stretch. Seems like a better thing was that the system worked. There was suspicion, description of what information to seize, and a triggering event. These were all met and a judge had allowed the deploying of the NIT in these circumstances. Why say that despite all of the checks being satisfied they weren't necessary in the first place, especially with the argument that there can be no expectation of privacy simply by being on the internet.
- ikeboy 10y ago
  I'm inclined to agree that there's no expectation of having your IP be secret even when using Tor, but there's an expectation of not having other people run code on your computer. The judge considered this distinction and rejected it. The IP not being secret is supported by precedent from other cases, it seems reasonable that if the government can trace it back without hacking the computer it should be fine.