4 ms·

"all computers that access the website" seems the polar opposite of "particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized".

rudimentary 12y ago
Except, these agencies are quick to retroactively redefine terms. Maybe data isn't "seized" until you classify it as evidence. And if all else fails, "think of the children" usually works.
- higherpurpose 12y ago
  That argument should never hold in a Court. I'm still hoping one of these surveillance cases goes to the Supreme Court.
  - fnordfnordfnord 12y ago
    The trick is to shop around for the most loathsome defendants you can find until you get a precedent established, then you can expand the technique's use more broadly.
trhway 12y ago
applying the same principle of "2nd amendment was written when AK-47 didn't exist", the 4th was written when Internet (with its immense capabilities for child pornographers in particular) didn't exist. You did let that happen to 2nd, now it happens to the 4th and the 1st will come next (Twitter isn't just like AK-47, it is more like small WMD)... Slippery slope isn't just an argument, it is a physical law of Nature (known as 2nd law in other branches of sciences).
tedunangst 12y ago
Is there no precedent for a warrant like "this whorehouse, address blah blah, and all the whores found therein"?
- dublinben 12y ago
  It would be more like "this motel, known to be frequented by prostitutes, and every guest, regardless of their purpose for being there."
  - tedunangst 12y ago
    Would it? Did the FBI plant the malware on general purpose sites that happened to have some child porn, or on specific sites dedicated to child porn?
    - AlyssaRowan 12y ago
      Everything hosted by FreedomHosting, including Tormail, which was most probably the true purpose of their op (it had been used by Snowden and others, but all the mail was GnuPG encrypted).
      - tedunangst 12y ago
        The initial Operation Torpedo seemed rather strictly targeted ("Pedoboard"), and those are the cases working their way through court. The Freedom Hosting malware came later, and it's not clear whether there even was a warrant or not, since it all appears to be still secret. To argue whether the warrant was sufficiently particular is impossible to say. I can concede that was too large a scope, but that defense can't really be made until there's a defendant. Was it even the same malware in both operations?
        AlyssaRowan 12y ago
        Same C&Cs. :)
        tedunangst 12y ago
        That would have been a good detail to include in the article.
anigbrowl 12y ago
It's different where you have prima facie evidence of guilt. Think of it as the digital equivalent to (perfectly legal) dye packs: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dye_pack http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dye_pack

rudimentary 12y ago

Except, these agencies are quick to retroactively redefine terms. Maybe data isn't "seized" until you classify it as evidence. And if all else fails, "think of the children" usually works.

higherpurpose 12y ago
That argument should never hold in a Court. I'm still hoping one of these surveillance cases goes to the Supreme Court.
- fnordfnordfnord 12y ago
  The trick is to shop around for the most loathsome defendants you can find until you get a precedent established, then you can expand the technique's use more broadly.

trhway 12y ago

applying the same principle of "2nd amendment was written when AK-47 didn't exist", the 4th was written when Internet (with its immense capabilities for child pornographers in particular) didn't exist. You did let that happen to 2nd, now it happens to the 4th and the 1st will come next (Twitter isn't just like AK-47, it is more like small WMD)... Slippery slope isn't just an argument, it is a physical law of Nature (known as 2nd law in other branches of sciences).

tedunangst 12y ago

Is there no precedent for a warrant like "this whorehouse, address blah blah, and all the whores found therein"?

dublinben 12y ago
It would be more like "this motel, known to be frequented by prostitutes, and every guest, regardless of their purpose for being there."
- tedunangst 12y ago
  Would it? Did the FBI plant the malware on general purpose sites that happened to have some child porn, or on specific sites dedicated to child porn?
  - AlyssaRowan 12y ago
    Everything hosted by FreedomHosting, including Tormail, which was most probably the true purpose of their op (it had been used by Snowden and others, but all the mail was GnuPG encrypted).
    - tedunangst 12y ago
      The initial Operation Torpedo seemed rather strictly targeted ("Pedoboard"), and those are the cases working their way through court. The Freedom Hosting malware came later, and it's not clear whether there even was a warrant or not, since it all appears to be still secret. To argue whether the warrant was sufficiently particular is impossible to say. I can concede that was too large a scope, but that defense can't really be made until there's a defendant. Was it even the same malware in both operations?
      - AlyssaRowan 12y ago
        Same C&Cs. :)
        tedunangst 12y ago
        That would have been a good detail to include in the article.

anigbrowl 12y ago

It's different where you have prima facie evidence of guilt. Think of it as the digital equivalent to (perfectly legal) dye packs: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dye_pack http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dye_pack