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.
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.
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.
>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.
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.