3 ms·
> Earlier this year, federal judges in Massachusetts and Oklahoma made similar rulings and similarly tossed the relevant evidence. Thirteen other judges, meanwh
by 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 agoI 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 agoGenerally 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 10y agoMaybe a "World Police"? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Team_America%3A_World_Police https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Team_America%3A_World_Police
- lallysingh 10y agoWell 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.
- gm-conspiracy 10y agoTo me, the slippery slope seems to be, how do you know that all the exploit did was obtain the IP address, and not add or alter files on the filesystem, or allow the system to be further compromised by other parties?
- Programmatic 10y agoI don't think a warrant for specific information changes that calculus; collecting additional information outside the scope of the warrant would be illegal regardless.