8 ms·

Judge: child porn evidence obtained via FBI’s Tor hack must be suppressed

48 points by tetrep 10y ago

pilif 10y ago
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 10y ago
  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 10y ago
    No. But they can find other means of proving that the defendant has done what you know they have done.
    - okwhatthe2 10y ago
      > you know Ignorance like this is a large part of the problem with the world.
    - onlycommenting 10y ago
      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.
tyfon 10y ago
"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.
- chrischen 10y ago
  You could argue that the FBI's use case does not harm, perpeutatue, or endorse the exploitation of children any further. It would be a different story if the FBI also commissioned new content to run the site.
  - kiproping 10y ago
    It's really surprising the faux moral outrage. Children will continue to be exploited because of technicalities.
  - Lawtonfogle 10y ago
    Since distribution and even possesion are crimes because they hurt children this argument does not hold up.
  - aw3c2 10y ago
    You could argue that "mere" possession of such material does not either, yet that is not how the law is interpreted.
    - vlehto 10y ago
      Could there be some kind of "allowed CP database"? I'm asking because I might donate my old childhood photos to such database. I really would not mind if someone jacked of to that stuff. If that could help to prevent some pedophile acting out their urges, it would be really great. Is this too weird idea for HN?
    - chrischen 10y ago
      But possession drives demand. The FBI's case wouldn't drive demand from the producers.
tetrep 10y ago
> 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 10y ago
  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 10y ago
    Generally I'd like to see something like an "Internet District" court with technically trained judges that have jurisdiction over warrants on the internet.
    - 10y ago

48 points by tetrep 10y ago

pilif 10y ago

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 10y ago
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 10y ago
  No. But they can find other means of proving that the defendant has done what you know they have done.
  - okwhatthe2 10y ago
    > you know Ignorance like this is a large part of the problem with the world.
  - onlycommenting 10y ago
    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.

tyfon 10y ago

"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.

chrischen 10y ago
You could argue that the FBI's use case does not harm, perpeutatue, or endorse the exploitation of children any further. It would be a different story if the FBI also commissioned new content to run the site.
- kiproping 10y ago
  It's really surprising the faux moral outrage. Children will continue to be exploited because of technicalities.
- Lawtonfogle 10y ago
  Since distribution and even possesion are crimes because they hurt children this argument does not hold up.
- aw3c2 10y ago
  You could argue that "mere" possession of such material does not either, yet that is not how the law is interpreted.
  - vlehto 10y ago
    Could there be some kind of "allowed CP database"? I'm asking because I might donate my old childhood photos to such database. I really would not mind if someone jacked of to that stuff. If that could help to prevent some pedophile acting out their urges, it would be really great. Is this too weird idea for HN?
  - chrischen 10y ago
    But possession drives demand. The FBI's case wouldn't drive demand from the producers.

tetrep 10y ago

> 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 10y ago
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 10y ago
  Generally I'd like to see something like an "Internet District" court with technically trained judges that have jurisdiction over warrants on the internet.
  - 10y ago