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.

5 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 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.

    2. 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.
    3. 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."

    4. 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?