Keyloggers Now Classified Technology

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."

Comments

Abuse of power

[sourcehunter]

I'm sorry, I don't care WHAT kind of technology you use against a criminal to gather evidence, it should be open to scrutiny.

I believe the same to be true of the Carnivore system, even though I readily defend its use as legitimate.

What if they classified the tape and tape recorder they used to tape a conversation - no one would be able to check the tape to see if it was or could have been altered!

To future NYT link posters...

[brunes69]

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!

Evidence would not be admissable in UK courts

[new500]

. . .

Must make this short (as there's a god long debate behind what follows) but this would make inadmissable any collected evidence in a UK court.

This would be because there is then no person or other body of evidence available to question regards veracity.

Evidence rules here very tough, and the case would be almost immediately thrown out.

This is tantamount to claiming the Ivisible Man as witness and the prosecutor or plaintiff claiming they cannot bring him for cross examination because they cannot find him.

The anaology is the same, if something cannot be shown to court, it may not bear witness.

This is the first basic rule of civilisation and law over hearsay, rumour and superstition.

Kyllo v. United States?

[Jeremy Erwin]

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)