Slashdot Mirror
Three Privacy Groups Challenge The FBI's Malware-Obtained Evidence (eff.org)
In 2015 the FBI took over a Tor-accessible child pornography site to infect its users with malware so they could be identified and prosecuted. But now one suspect is challenging that evidence in court, with three different privacy groups filing briefs in his support.
An anonymous reader writes.
One EFF attorney argues it's a classic case of an unreasonable search, which is prohibited by the U.S. Constitution. "If the FBI tried to get a single warrant to search 8,000 houses, such a request would unquestionably be denied." But there's another problem, since the FBI infected users in 120 different countries. "According to Privacy International, the case also raises important questions: What if a foreign country had carried out a similar hacking operation that affected U.S. citizens?" writes Computerworld. "Would the U.S. welcome this...? The U.S. was overstepping its bounds by conducting an investigation outside its borders without the consent of affected countries, the group said."
The FBI's evidence is also being challenged by the ACLU of Massachusetts, and the EFF plans to file two more challenges in March, warning that otherwise "the precedent is likely to impact the digital privacy rights of all Internet users for years to come... Courts need to send a very clear message that vague search warrants that lack the required specifics about who and what is to be searched won't be upheld."
The FBI's evidence is also being challenged by the ACLU of Massachusetts, and the EFF plans to file two more challenges in March, warning that otherwise "the precedent is likely to impact the digital privacy rights of all Internet users for years to come... Courts need to send a very clear message that vague search warrants that lack the required specifics about who and what is to be searched won't be upheld."
The FBI should have kept this site running, announced a blanket amnesty that anyone in possession of child porn with a hash matching any of the images would no longer be considered guilty of any offense, and allowed free access to the server to anyone who wanted. In return, anyone caught in possession of NEW images, would be sentenced more severely than at present.
Those pictures have already been taken, the children involved already harmed, and that can't be undone now. The focus should be on preventing future production of images, and avoiding harm to future children. You do that by offering people who get their kicks from these images free access to a stock of them on the understanding they don't go looking for, or aid the ecosystem for new ones. Offer an amnesty like that? I bet 99% of child porn consumers would likely take up the offer, leaving resources free to focus on the 1% of people who, for whatever reason, would prefer to remain underground.
Think about it. Government offers a massive stock of child porn images along with a guarantee not to be prosecuted as long as you stick to it? Where's the incentive to go producing new ones any more, or go looking for them? At a stroke, future harm will be prevented, children will be saved. Logically, it makes total sense.