Slashdot Mirror
FBI Must Reveal The Code It Used To Hack Dark Web Pedophiles (engadget.com)
schwit1 writes: A judge has ordered the Federal Bureau of Investigation to turn over the complete code it used to infiltrate a child pornography site on the Dark Web, Motherboard reports. The FBI seized the Tor-based site known as "Playpen" in February 2015 and kept it running via its own servers for two weeks -- during this time, the bureau deployed a hacking tool that identified at least 1,300 IP addresses of visitors to the site worldwide.
Playpen was "the largest remaining known child pornography hidden service in the world," according to the FBI. Roughly 137 people have been charged in the sting so far, Motherboard says. On Wednesday, a lawyer for one of the defendants won the right to view all of the code that the FBI used during the Playpen operation, apparently including the exploit that bypassed the Tor Browser's security features.
Playpen was "the largest remaining known child pornography hidden service in the world," according to the FBI. Roughly 137 people have been charged in the sting so far, Motherboard says. On Wednesday, a lawyer for one of the defendants won the right to view all of the code that the FBI used during the Playpen operation, apparently including the exploit that bypassed the Tor Browser's security features.
it would be interesting to find out if and how it was verified as *all*.
I think the bigger story here is that the FBI actually ran a child porn site instead of knocking it offline... WTF. We all understand the premise of why they did it but that can't be a legal way to catch those people. You can't break the law to uphold the law. That's an oxymoron right?
Can you imagine working for their I.T. department when that order came down? "You want me to do what?"
Submissions should preferably link to primary sources instead of sites that just repackage the story from the original, i.e. just link to Motherboard's article to begin with and give them the clicks instead of Engadget.
Let's say the FBI wanted to do some task with software, but didn't have the expertise in house. So they discuss what they want done with a third party, who decides they can do it but will only license the software to the FBI, not sell it to them outright. As part of their agreement, they supply a binary module (like a graphics driver blob file) to the FBI they can interface with.
Now, the FBI ends up being required to reveal its code to a defendant. The third party module ends up being key to the defendant's discovery. The FBI doesn't have the source code to the module, so they can't supply it -- in fact, they have a binding contract saying they can only have the binary module.
Does the third party have to reveal their source code? Can the FBI effectively hide behind their contract with the third party?
If yes, it seems kind of scary -- the FBI can basically outsource their techniques and then hide behind their contracts. Scary because I would imagine the defendants might be making a case that the evidence convicting them is false, but because the FBI could hide behind a third party contract, the defendant can't verify the claims. The FBI, could, in theory at least, use sham agreements to ensure their dirty work remains beyond discovery.
The similar kinds of things I can think of are the DWI cases that were challenged over the source code to breathalyzers and the contract language of at least one of the Stingray makers who forbid the details of their device being revealed.
1,300 seems a bit low for the "largest" child porn site. Makes me wonder if the exploit only worked on certain operating systems or older versions of the Tor Browser. If I recall correctly, the exploit they used a few years ago with Freedom Hosting sites used an exploit that was already patched, but many people still hadn't updated their Tor Browsers, or didn't use proper security settings, and were caught.
So I really wonder if that's the case here.
Submissions should preferably link to primary sources instead of sites that just repackage the story from the original, i.e. just link to Motherboard's article to begin with and give them the clicks instead of Engadget.
Which is to say, here: http://motherboard.vice.com/re...
"run major pedophile websites for a couple weeks without any consequences" The consequences was the arrest of over 100 pedophiles. They did not run the website. They basically created a honey pot to collect information on any visitors. Law enforcement agencies engage in undercover actions all the time. One example is when undercover agents buy a few kilos of cocaine to go after the dealer. Purchasing the drugs does not mean they are dealing drugs. Buys of this nature go right into the evidence lockers and are eventually destroyed when no longer needed. anymore. I imagine in this case that the entire website will be saved as evidence. Depending on where the site was hosted they will go after any server logs related to this site.
"it looks like they aren't really in that whole "following the law" business" Every thing they did in this investigation so far was perfectly legal. And you do realize you are actually support the suspected pedophiles? You are going after the FBI instead of the pedophiles. You are awarding the pedophiles the benefit of a doubt while giving none what so ever to the law enforcement agencies in this case.
This is all just a game.
FBI have no real interest in the sexual deviants, they only want the tools and to be allowed to use the tools for whatever they want. The entire stings are public pleasers, get whoever the public have decided to hate this decennial and get the tools to get EVERYONE (not only the sexual deviants), but eventually when they LEGALLY got whatever tools they want - so NO one is safe, regardless of belief, creed, sexual orientation or political beliefs - the point is they want access to whatever you do, think and consider, every opinion that you have - so this can be used against you in a world with more and more rules, the masses being ruled by the few that wants it all.
What this world is coming to - is for you and me to decide.
Nope. As stated, we no longer have to "think of the children". It's no longer a valid excuse for new draconian laws.
"Freedom in the USA is not the ability to do what you want. It is the ability to stop others from doing what THEY want"
The consequences was the arrest of over 100 pedophiles.
But are they really? Or are they just some people looking at pictures?
"Freedom in the USA is not the ability to do what you want. It is the ability to stop others from doing what THEY want"
That is the same thing - whether they molest anyone doesn't matter since the act of looking is also a crime.
That is the same thing - whether they molest anyone doesn't matter since the act of looking is also a crime.
Woah, that's a scary thing you just wrote there, anonymous or not... just the fact someone thinks like that is scary.
There's a HUGE difference between the act of molestation and looking at images interpreted as such, the only reason to stop images like that spreading on the net is to stop unscrupulous people from profiting on the misery of the victims.
The real scare here is where do we draw the line of what's okay to look at and what is not? Did you know that in some countries you can get arrested and jailed just for looking at drawn pictures? There's even a reason for that, and the alleged reason for this is that it's supposed to "normalize" actions depicted which is otherwise immoral and disgusting to most of us and to prevent real cases of molestations if the drawn material can arouse a potential abuser to want to commit an act of abuse in real life.
All good intentions - but the problem is - we don't actually know if it makes any difference, heck...we don't even know if drawings would KEEP offenders from offending since they could potentially get an outlet for their feelings on that. And in my book - it's better that there are no victims (drawn characters aren't real, so nuff said). But I shall digress.
The point is - if looking is a crime, what will you be looking at next that will be looked upon as a criminal act? Knowledge? What knowledge...
What this world is coming to - is for you and me to decide.
Unfortunately, that seems very, very likely. The very amorality of running the site for a time, when the DOJ's says that a main reason to make this type of content illegal is that it victimizes those depicted again is staggering. Only this time they were raped again by the FBI with official sanction. If that is not much, much worse, then I do not know what it. Hence I conclude that this is not about those targeted at all, and it certainly is not about protecting any victims.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
Too easy. How about ...
Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
In the eye of the law though, they are essentially the same thing.
"Freedom in the USA is not the ability to do what you want. It is the ability to stop others from doing what THEY want"
Motherless hosted CP and bestiality without any repercussions. Most obvious of all, initially its servers were located 20 minutes away from FBI's washington state headquarters.
It wasn't just doing a google image search using privacy mode either. It was using a software system specifically designed for the purpose of hiding your actions, location, and other identifying information from people monitoring you.
I agree with everything you said, right up to this:
And do you realize you are actually support the suspected pedophiles?
You're goddamn right I do, because the word "suspected" is different from the word "convicted". These people are innocent until proven guilty, and they ABSOLUTELY get the benefit of a REASONABLE DOUBT. The onus is always always always on the accuser to prove guilt, period.
Anything less than that is facism.
That is the same thing - whether they molest anyone doesn't matter since the act of looking is also a crime.
Depending on the jurisdiction it could be pics of 40 year old women in school uniforms...
In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
This would run smack into discoverability and the FBI would never be able to guarantee that the result of their research is valid. Furthermore a judge could simply require the source code to be shown under NDA, as is done with breathanalyzer, and if the company refuse, toss the evidence, potentially tossing the case.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
What a world.
'People shouldn't be afraid of their government. Governments should be afraid of their people.', V, 'V for vendetta', Alan Moore.
Corporations and government both, must be answerable to the people. Corporations must depend on the magnanimity of the government but not be part of the government.
Yes. Government agency has to provide data for the defense's case (to among other things, prove that they didn't use illegal methods or those that might get the wrong guy).
Non-government agency cannot be compelled by government to product a product for them (or break their own product).
See where this is going?
Or cartoons.
There are XKCD cartoons where applying a different descriptive label would turn them into child porn in the UK.
The law really is that fucking stupid.
Easy to understand if you actually know about the case - there were no special code used.
It looks like this boils down to an argument about whether the ends justify the means. While I appreciate the desire to catch the dirt bags who prey on children, the justice department crossed the line.
That the police can lie is quite well established, not just in the US legal system, but in most of them. When they are out trying to do their jobs they have no requirement to tell the truth to suspects. For that matter, neither do you. You can lie to people in your day to day business and it isn't illegal. The requirement to tell the truth only happens in court, when you are under oath, same as the police.
However the police aren't allowed to commit crimes, felonies in particular, in the course of their work. They can't break the law to uphold the law, otherwise the law loses its meaning. But that is precisely what happened here: They distributed illegal material, they broke the law.
Now you might think that's no different than a drug sting, however the big difference there is they don't actually distribute drugs. When the bug goes down, the person doing the buying gets arrested. The drugs, even if they were real (usually not) never go out of police custody. Same deal with hitman stings. They take a person's money in a presumed murder for hire, but they don't then actually go and kill the intended victim, rather they arrest the person who tried to hire them.
Hence why people are worked up here.
Methinks the AC doth protest too much...
Why weren't they forced to do this for the Silk Road case?
Silk Road's ip address was discovered thru examining a bunch of on-line records, as was the email identity of the founder. No hack was involved. Once they had a target, social hacking occurred.
The consequences was the arrest of over 100 pedophiles.
And according to the official rationale, the re-victimization of thousands of abused children.
They did not run the website.
They absolutely did. They seized control and moved the site to their own servers, where they continued full operation. Their servers managed by their IT staff served abuse pics, accepted new members, accepted and distributed new pictures... everything.
They basically created a honey pot to collect information on any visitors.
They had to serve existing content and allow new content to do this? Never been an issue before with just not serving the real deal.
Law enforcement agencies engage in undercover actions all the time. One example is when undercover agents buy a few kilos of cocaine to go after the dealer. Purchasing the drugs does not mean they are dealing drugs. Buys of this nature go right into the evidence lockers and are eventually destroyed when no longer needed. anymore
But that's not what happened here. Imagine the officers bought those few kilos and sold it to thousands of men, women, and children, then just turned around and arrested 1% of them, long after they had consumed the content and in all likelihood sold it along to more people.
I imagine in this case that the entire website will be saved as evidence. Depending on where the site was hosted they will go after any server logs related to this site.
Which is what they should have done exclusively instead of becoming the administrators of a large scale child exploitation site.
Every thing they did in this investigation so far was perfectly legal.
According to a single low level judge. It's far from clear and far from resolved. There's material omissions in the warrant application alone that could invalidate the whole thing, like not mentioning they planned to take up serving images for 2 weeks (and it's pretty damn close to one of those 'general warrants' our founders hated so much; broad discretion to hack into and search an unspecified number of unknown people many of which were even outside US jurisdiction). *If* this practice stands, it's only because the clearly illegal nature was ignored for the benefit of catching pedophiles.
And you do realize you are actually support the suspected pedophiles? You are going after the FBI instead of the pedophiles. You are awarding the pedophiles the benefit of a doubt while giving none what so ever to the law enforcement agencies in this case.
And you're saying it's perfectly legal and ok for the FBI to victimize children in pursuit of people who viewed images. You've misstated their actions in clear bias towards being an authoritarian assclown who thinks any means are justified if the government says so, damn the implications, damn the victims, damn the victims families, damn due process, damn the law, damn the constitution, damn the doctrine of 'innocent until proven guilty', and damn the children whose records of horrific abuse were distributed to even more people by their very own government. Piss off. And nice job hiding behind AC.
Buys of this nature go right into the evidence lockers
And you know this how? Probably at least half goes into the pockets of the LEOs in question to be sold eventually.
Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
Ya, I know, it was just an easy joke to make. :)
Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.