Slashdot Mirror


In a First, Judge Throws Out Evidence Obtained from FBI Malware (vice.com)

An anonymous reader cites an article on Motherboard: For the first time, a judge has thrown out evidence obtained via a piece of FBI malware. The move comes from a cased affected by the FBI's seizure of a dark web child pornography site in February 2015, and the subsequent deployment of a network investigative technique (NIT) -- the agency's term for a hacking tool -- in order to identify the site's visitors. "Based on the foregoing analysis, the Court concludes that the NIT warrant was issued without jurisdiction and thus was void ab initio," Judge William G. Young of the District of Massachusetts writes in an order. "It follows that the resulting search was conducted as though there were no warrant at all. Since warrantless searches are presumptively unreasonable, and the good-faith exception is inapplicable, the evidence must be excluded," it continues. Young's order came in response to a motion to suppress from the lawyers of Alex Levin, who was arrested as part of the investigation into the child pornography site Playpen. After seizing the site, the FBI ran Playpen from a government facility from February 20 to March 4, 2015, and used a NIT to obtain over a thousand IP addresses for US-based users of the site, and at least 3000 for users abroad, according to Motherboard's investigations.

21 of 158 comments (clear)

  1. Mixed Feelings by Jawnn · · Score: 5, Insightful

    On the one hand, I have little concern for those who traffic in anything that genuinely hurts children. On the other hand, the FBI abuses their position regularly, lying to the courts and ignoring the courts' orders when lying doesn't work, so seeing them told, "Sorry. Try again," when another questionable procedure is reviewed is welcome news.

    1. Re:Mixed Feelings by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Trafficking CP is a made up thing.
      It doesn't harm children any more than death pics harm dead people.
      The kid doesn't know who is fapping to it.
      The only people actually harming anyone are the sick fucks actually making and selling this shit, and that's who they should be going after.

    2. Re:Mixed Feelings by ledow · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If you're not beyond warrantless actions that you could apply for legitimate warrants for, or lying to courts, or ignoring court orders, who's to say you're beyond falsifying evidence?

      It's honestly that simple. Play the rules, or don't. But if you don't, you can then point at others and say "They weren't playing by the rules either".

      Unreliable witnesses before court should be dismissed out of hand. Whether FBI, Joe Bloggs, known mass-criminal or best-guy-in-the-world innocent.

      It's no different to saying you won't reveal how you got your evidence, or how you analysed it to come to a certain conclusion, or where you got it from, or what standards of accuracy and preservation you used to bring it to court.

      If your method of obtaining evidence was illegal, that evidence isn't evidence at all as it was not obtained or preserved to the necessary requirements of law. The FBI just gave a PROBABLE PAEDOPHILE a free pass, because they deliberately interfered with legal methods in gathering reliable evidence against him.

    3. Re:Mixed Feelings by Opportunist · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And it doesn't bother you that the FBI ran a kiddie porn site, exploiting those children in the name of protecting them?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    4. Re:Mixed Feelings by taustin · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The theory is that fapping to child porn makes you more likely to molest children. There's no evidence to support that theory - none at all - and what little research has been done suggests the opposite might be the case, but it's an internally consistent belief.

      If one is willing to punish people for what they might do in the future.

    5. Re:Mixed Feelings by Dr.+Evil · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "The theory is that fapping to child porn makes you more likely to molest children. There's no evidence to support that theory - none at all "

      I think the study got rejected by the ethics board.

    6. Re:Mixed Feelings by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I was of the understanding that the issue was that demand for child porn would mean more of it gets made, i.e. children being sexually abused. At least that was the defense for drawings of child porn being made legal. (I don't recall if that ever succeeded.)

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    7. Re:Mixed Feelings by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 3, Insightful

      On the one hand, I have little concern for those who traffic in anything that genuinely hurts children.

      Neither do I...

      On the other hand, the FBI abuses their position regularly, lying to the courts and ignoring the courts' orders when lying doesn't work, so seeing them told, "Sorry. Try again," when another questionable procedure is reviewed is welcome news.

      Yep, without the rule of law, why even bother with the courts and trials, why not just go around and shoot the 1,000 Americans in the head they identified and move on?

      Because if you don't respect the rules, then you might as well just go all in.

    8. Re:Mixed Feelings by taustin · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Those are all good reasons to prosecute those who produce child porn, but they are not the theory behind making it illegal to possess child porn.

      As evidence, I submit the repeated attempts to prosecute people for possession of virtual child porn - either photo quality cgi, or real porn using adults who are made to look like children - in which the prosecution acknowledges that no real children were involved,. Success attempts, in some cases.

    9. Re:Mixed Feelings by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Child molesters ARE terrorists.

      No. Just, no. People need to stop calling every crime an act of terrorism. It's because of people like you that we have FoxNews calling protesters terrorists and the Department of Defense calling protests "low-level terrorsim."

    10. Re:Mixed Feelings by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 3, Funny

      Well, probably.

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    11. Re:Mixed Feelings by meerling · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Of course the laws banning child porn aren't there to penalize the pedophiles, it's supposed to prevent the creation of it which is considered to be child abuse or molestation. To say things are going way beyond the original scope is an understatement. Also, it's not working very well, is it...

      And before the moron squad gets to slinging accusations, no, I am not one of them, and actually find the concept rather disturbing. Those people need psychiactric care, not being thrown in a cell with a gangbanger and ignored.

    12. Re:Mixed Feelings by TheCarp · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Mixed feelings? None here. The FBI FUCKED UP.

      Their JOB is to collect evidence for the court. That is really the job, right there. Collect the evidence, find the people, present both to the court.

      There is no justification for them to use evidence gathering techniques of ANY KIND that results in evidence that courts cannot use. There is no justification AT ALL for them to EVER attempt to subvert or circumvent the pervue of the courts.

      Ther ONE AND ONLY JOB IS TO PROVIDE EVIDENCE FOR THE COURT.

      They failed. This is 100% on them that they took steps that resulted in this result.

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    13. Re:Mixed Feelings by TheCarp · · Score: 3, Informative

      Not only that but, there was a great article about how the whole issue was a lot more black and white when the laws were made; back when cameras were so expensive few people owned really decent ones and could print copy to distribute.

      Back then, pretty much ALL child porn was, indeed, exactly the evil stuff we think of... adults raping children for financial profit. Certainly, there is no denying that this still happens..... but it is no longer the whole story.

      Now, we even have 15 year olds being threatened with child porn because their same age girlfiend shared some nude pix.

      Hell, we don't even have to come all the way to modern day to see abuses. Who remembers child sex performer Tracy Lords, who lied about her age, hit 18, did one more movie, then revealed her age; causing all previous movies to be exposed as child porn and illegal to posess, making the new one the only legal one on the market. Yah.... that was exactly what the law was intended to "protect".

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    14. Re:Mixed Feelings by Rakarra · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The theory is that fapping to child porn makes you more likely to molest children.

      The theory is that fapping to child porn is creating a market for child porn which facilitates and encourages the production of more child porn.

    15. Re:Mixed Feelings by delt0r · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The problem with this is that law enforcement just doesn't care about the children. They don't go after the creators of this porn and they don't try and find the victims. And yes some of this stuff is made in first world countries. Also the rate of victims is very low compared to the media frenzy. Estimates as low as one or two new victims a year on the "standard" websites. Clearly hard to measure, but much lower that the total number of child victims of sex crimes.

      --
      If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
  2. Court of Public Opinion by OverlordQ · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Doesn't really matter how guilty (or innocent) he is, being charged for kiddy porn is a good life killer.

    --
    Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
  3. Good. by Etherwalk · · Score: 3, Insightful

    On the one hand, I have little concern for those who traffic in anything that genuinely hurts children. On the other hand, the FBI abuses their position regularly, lying to the courts and ignoring the courts' orders when lying doesn't work, so seeing them told, "Sorry. Try again," when another questionable procedure is reviewed is welcome news.

    The people who most defend our liberties are the scum of the earth, because they are the people against whom it is easiest to justify the departure from the rights and privileges we recognize in or grant to all human beings.

    Because Courts have no other practical way to censure law enforcement for violation of rights, they exclude evidence produced in violation of the Constitution. There are other ways you could work the system in practice--you could fine law enforcement, fire police officers, and have good, responsible, and accountable culture in law enforcement. But that's not something the courts can do effectively or without unwavering support from the law enforcement community and the community's true acceptance of neutral judgment. So the courts let the guilty go free as the only way they have to protect the rights of the innocent. It makes law enforcement be much more careful about at least following a script that reminds them what someone's rights are.

  4. Re:This is so stupid. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    >Evidence. Is. Evidence. No matter how it was obtained.

    Cops beat you until you confess to crimes you didn't commit. Evidence?

    Cops entrap you in a crime you would never otherwise commit. Evidence?

    Cops enter your house without permission and ransack your belongings until they find a poem you wrote in college about how beautiful two-year-olds are, with which they frame you on child porn charges. Evidence?

    You, sir, are an idiot who has obviously never read any history about what government and the law will do unless their actions are carefully restrained and confined.

  5. Good grief, NO! by s.petry · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The definition of pedophile under the law is NOT restricted to people creating content. The definition of pedophile under the law is that you possess material which can be called child pornography. Law enforcement does not care how the material got into your possession, nor do they care if you were aware of the material. They care that the material exists so that they can prosecute you, and that is the extent of it.

    If a guy on the bus slips pictures of naked children into your shopping bag and calls the police, you WILL be arrested. A prosecution may not stick, but your life will be ruined regardless of the outcome.

    Look, we all have this vision which comes to mind when we hear the word. We all know what it should be, but that's not what it is. Just like many drug charges today it's a State weapon to attack people as often as it is a valid case of what we think of when we hear the word pedophile. We also know that depending on who you are, you will never face charges for it. (See The Franklin Cover-up).

    Yes, I personally know and have known many Police officers who left Public Law because they did not want to be used as political hammers for shifty thugs holding office.

    --

    -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    1. Re:Good grief, NO! by s.petry · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The point is that you are using fallacious logic. You attempted to claim that the FBI was clean because they did not produce material. Production of material is not relevant to Law (currently), only Possession. You further implied that the FBI having the ability to bust this person would prevent further harm to children. Impossible to prove or claim, but also bad logic because this guy was not producing material.

      Everything you claim justifies the FBI also justifies the suspect the FBI was forced to release.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.