Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Keyloggers Now Classified Technology

Posted by michael on from the trust-us-we're-the-government dept.

general_re writes: "The New York Times (free reg required blah blah blah) is reporting that the Department of Justice is still refusing to turn over details of how the keystroke loggers used against Nicky Scarfo worked, claiming that revealing how it works "would render it useless in future investigations" as well as claiming that it is classified information. Nevermind that this also prevents his lawyers from evaluating or attacking the credibility or accuracy of the evidence arrayed against him. One interesting question raised is whether it's always been classified, or if they're retroactively classifying it in order to avoid revealing how they work."

2 of 212 comments (clear)

  1. To future NYT link posters... by brunes69 · · Score: 5, Informative


    Just replace the "www" in the link with "archive".

    For this link, it is
    http://archive.nytimes.com/2001/08/25/technology /2 5CODE.html.

    It
    a) Saves all the "No reg link" posts, and
    b) Saves all the "Anonymous login" posts, and
    c) just makes the world a better place in general.

    Thanks!

  2. Kyllo v. United States? by Jeremy+Erwin · · Score: 5, Informative
    I have a feeling that the Supreme Court may not look upon this too favorably. In Kyllo v. US, the court ruled that use of a thermal imaging device to detect IR radiation (evidence of indoor marijuana cultivation) leaking from an apartment constituted a search, and thus required a warrant.

    The standard the court promulgated is as follows: Where, as here, the Government uses a device that is not in general public use, to explore details of the home that would previously have been unknowable without physical intrusion, the surveillance is a "search" and is presump-tively unreasonable without a warrant.

    The slip opinion (99-8508) is available in pdf format

    Although the government did have a warrent to search thus supects home in this case, they did not have permission to wiretap. Since the bug could concievably be used to wiretap, the government has the responsibility to provide evidence that the device did not go beyond the scope of the existing warrant.

    Kyllo suggests that, since the device's capabilities are secret, such a device is presumptively not in public use, and requires the most expansive of warrents for legal use. Since the feds did not have a wiretap warrent, and such a device could be used for such activity, the placement of the device is illegal. (IANAL)