Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Your Rights Online

In a First, Judge Throws Out Evidence Obtained from FBI Malware (vice.com) 158

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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

In a First, Judge Throws Out Evidence Obtained from FBI Malware

Comments Filter:
  • Mixed Feelings (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Jawnn ( 445279 ) on Thursday April 21, 2016 @12:31PM (#51957067)
    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.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward

      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.

      • Re:Mixed Feelings (Score:4, Insightful)

        by taustin ( 171655 ) on Thursday April 21, 2016 @12:56PM (#51957281) Homepage Journal

        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.

        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          But the three year old being raped isn't a concern while you're fapping away, right?

          • by Anonymous Coward

            So a three-year-old being raped while n (n>0) people fap to video of it is worse than n+1 people each raping a three-year-old of their own?

          • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

            by Anonymous Coward

            Maybe it should be a concern but the extremely low number of times that happens is absolutely not a good enough reason to give up any rights. Nor is his watching going to affect it's production. He didn't rape anyone. He didn't create anything. This content is going to be produced even if no one ever views it and it's naive to think otherwise. Focusing attention on stopping consumption is just diverting resources from where it might actually matter.

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by taustin ( 171655 )

            If you have evidence that is happening because of child porn, you should forward it to the authorities. Or, better yet, submit a paper to a peer reviewed journal. You'll be famous, and hailed as a hero for saving so many children.

            If they don't accept it, maybe it's not evidence at all, and maybe you invoking child rape is nothing but an attempt to generate hysteria for the purpose of confusing the issue.

          • Re:Mixed Feelings (Score:5, Insightful)

            by delt0r ( 999393 ) on Thursday April 21, 2016 @05:22PM (#51960187)
            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.
            • by rtb61 ( 674572 )

              The real problem with this case is by hacking that network, you have straight off the bat proven that in can be hacked and hence hugely weakened you evidence. Evidence obtained in this matter should only be used to further extend legal search warrants to obtain more untarnished evidence involving a direct connection between the persons being prosecuted and the evidence of their activity. This with a strong focus on those producing it, distributing it and of course funding it (not just purchasers of it but

        • by davidwr ( 791652 )

          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 you mean "no scientific, statistical evidence" that the availability of child porn leads to a net increase in future child abuse by people not involved in the original production, you are probably right. More study is probably needed.

          However, there is probably ample anecdotal evidence to support one-off cases where access to child porn led a particular individual down a path where he abused a child where it's pretty obvious that he wouldn't have even considered doing so otherwise ("I never even consider

          • by taustin ( 171655 )

            Anecdotal evidence isn't evidence. It's stories.

            And people who have been caught committing a serious crime do have a tendency to blame pretty much anything but themselves.

          • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

            by Anonymous Coward

            I think it's been fairly comprehensively shown that weight loss and footlongs are what lead to child abuse.

        • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

          by Anonymous Coward

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

          Bullshit. One theory is that demand for child porn drives creation of child porn. Another theory is that the child porn is created without (by definition) the legal consent of the child and is an abuse of the child's privacy. Another theory is that the production of the child porn is, in its self part of the abuse by the abuser and so you are complicit in the child abuse when you use the child porn. Not one of these is "the theory". The mostly seem to me to contain an element of truth, even the unlik

          • Re:Mixed Feelings (Score:4, Insightful)

            by taustin ( 171655 ) on Thursday April 21, 2016 @01:59PM (#51957857) Homepage Journal

            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.

        • Re:Mixed Feelings (Score:4, Insightful)

          by Dr. Evil ( 3501 ) on Thursday April 21, 2016 @01:49PM (#51957757)

          "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.

        • Re:Mixed Feelings (Score:5, Interesting)

          by MobileTatsu-NJG ( 946591 ) on Thursday April 21, 2016 @01:50PM (#51957765)

          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.)

          • by taustin ( 171655 )

            There is an argument there, but it's as weak as the bigger one. There have been prosecutions for virtual child porn, some successful, some not.

            • Re:Mixed Feelings (Score:4, Informative)

              by TheCarp ( 96830 ) <sjc@nOSPAM.carpanet.net> on Thursday April 21, 2016 @04:18PM (#51959469) Homepage

              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".

            • by delt0r ( 999393 )
              I depends on country. Some countries it is only what is depicted that matters. So even if all actors are of legal age it is still legal. However other countries only care that all actors are of legal age, and you can depict anything you like and have free rain with animated or CG content. Add to that that legal age does vary a bit between countries. Internationally it is a mess.
              • I think you meant illegal on the first one there, but I get your point. It is one that I have made before.
                I think the real problem is that a very large portion of people are completely incapable of rational thought when it comes to the safety of children, or women if we want to be truthful about things.
          • Same idea gets used elsewhere. As in, just because the elephant is already dead doesn't mean you can sell the ivory.

            • That's true, and that fact keeps the price of ivory extremely high. Which, of course, makes more incentive for poachers to kill more elephants for that ivory.
        • Re:Mixed Feelings (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Rakarra ( 112805 ) on Thursday April 21, 2016 @04:42PM (#51959785)

          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.

      • Made up? How about "well defined by federal and international law", or "a term describing a specific set of activities that do in fact occur"?

        As for liability, it hardly matters if the accused was never within a thousand miles of the child if they paid someone else to do it.

      • by spleck ( 312109 )

        Watching and trading CP improves the PC economy. The more kiddie porn being watched, the more lucrative it is to make it. Supply and Demand.

        Source: I watch a lot of Law and Order: SVU.

      • Actually, they DO know that people are fapping to their abuse pics some of the time, because the FBI helpfully informs known victims when their pics are found on a suspects computer.
      • Especially when they lump in CG and drawings with it. How the hell do they justify saying that a child is hurt when there was no child involved in the first place?
    • Re:Mixed Feelings (Score:5, Insightful)

      by ledow ( 319597 ) on Thursday April 21, 2016 @12:39PM (#51957145) Homepage

      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.

      • by taustin ( 171655 )

        Unreliable witnesses before court should be dismissed out of hand.

        The reliability of witnesses if a question of fact, and the trier of fast is the jury, not the judge. And juries do often find witnesses too unreliable to believe. More and more, in recent years, they apply this to the cops, too.

        • Due to a significant amount of testing, including by the police, witnesses are known to be pretty much worthless. Also, the longer since the event has occurred, the less value they have. If I recall right, even an hour after an event, they are something like 80% wrong.
          Yet we still rely on witnesses, not because of some magical ability to get it right when it counts, but rather because that's just about all we've had for thousands of years.
          If you don't believe me, just do some research on it, and I'm not eve
      • You are forgetting a very important part here.
        The cops violated the law.
        It is their turn to be prosecuted, and they should have no leniency.
        These are not cops who broke the law on accident, breaking the law is standard procedure for these people.
    • Re:Mixed Feelings (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Opportunist ( 166417 ) on Thursday April 21, 2016 @12:41PM (#51957159)

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

      • by Jawnn ( 445279 )

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

        Of course it does. What part of "...seeing them told, 'Sorry. Try again,' when another questionable procedure is reviewed is welcome news..." did you not get?

      • That part doesn't bother me in the slightest. For one, they didn't produce the content, they seized it. Second, it was a sting operation not a business. I have no problem with properly conducted stings. It was too late to prevent those children from coming to harm, but not too late for others so it makes sense to turn the product of a criminal network into a weapon against it.

        I just wish they had been more careful and thorough with the warrant.

        • Then why don't we use kids as bait to catch some of those bastards that hijack and rape kids?

        • Good grief, NO! (Score:5, Insightful)

          by s.petry ( 762400 ) on Thursday April 21, 2016 @02:18PM (#51958083)

          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.

          • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

            by sabbede ( 2678435 )
            What exactly is your point? That the FBI are pedophiles? That child pornography charges are sometimes misused by corrupt officials or unfairly pursued by overzealous prosecutors?

            What do you want to do about it? Strike down every law that might be misused? Decriminalize child pornography because someone might be erroneously accused? Legalize rape so nobody can have their reputation tarnished by false charges?

            We're talking about a site that catered exclusively to pedophiles being turned into a honey

            • Re:Good grief, NO! (Score:4, Insightful)

              by s.petry ( 762400 ) on Thursday April 21, 2016 @03:45PM (#51959153)

              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.

              • OH.

                Well, then I guess the FBI, DEA, and most large municipal police departments are guilty of drug trafficking. The ATF is clearly guilty of gun running and bootlegging as well. After all, they possess contraband, they move it from place to place, and sometimes they even pretend to sell it. Who cares if they do so in perfectly legal undercover operations, or they are holding it as evidence for an upcoming trial? They have it, they must be guilty. Even if the law explicitly permits all such activity.

    • Good. (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Etherwalk ( 681268 ) on Thursday April 21, 2016 @12:44PM (#51957197)

      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.

      • by Anonymous Coward

        That is the status quo, but why? Only because no laws exist to directly punish law enforcement. With a simple law, congress or individual states could make it a like kind felony to lie in court or violate a suspects constitutional rights, covering everyone, including law enforcement. I believe they should also make it illegal for law enforcement to lie during interrogations, as this has led to many false confessions, often later proven false by DNA evidence. We have a far from perfect justice system in

        • That is the status quo, but why? Only because no laws exist to directly punish law enforcement. With a simple law, congress or individual states could make it a like kind felony to lie in court or violate a suspects constitutional rights, covering everyone, including law enforcement. I believe they should also make it illegal for law enforcement to lie during interrogations, as this has led to many false confessions, often later proven false by DNA evidence. We have a far from perfect justice system in this country, but we are still by far the most fair system in the world. but as technology improves, we need to rely less on browbeating and "human" methods and more on forensics, surveillance etc. I am a firm believer that there should be surveillance on every public street, public park and other public areas, and all businesses should be required by law to monitor their internal and external spaces via looped surveillance. You should not have any expectation of privacy when you leave your property. The concern with incidental surveillance could be addressed by applying digital blackouts to any private property or private homes on fixed surveillance of roads etc. This type of camera network does nothing other than force multiplying the eyes of law enforcement, and provides a cold, objective eye to the behavior of everyone, private citizen and law enforcement. Drive by shootings would become a thing of the past overnight, as the shooters could be observed real time, tracked and intercepted by police, and it is damn hard to fight video in court.

          Because the system isn't set up for it--prosecutors rely on police and as a practical matter generally can't take a position to department will hate. The department forms a blue wall of silence. And both police and prosecutors see criminality through the lens of law enforcement, which makes it impossible for them as a practical matter to take on the role of people who go after law enforcement for excess.

    • Re:Mixed Feelings (Score:4, Insightful)

      by FlyHelicopters ( 1540845 ) on Thursday April 21, 2016 @01:56PM (#51957823)

      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.

    • The FBI hacks a computer -- it is to "get" evidence, or to "plant" evidence? How can you be sure what happened?
    • Re:Mixed Feelings (Score:4, Insightful)

      by TheCarp ( 96830 ) <sjc@nOSPAM.carpanet.net> on Thursday April 21, 2016 @04:06PM (#51959351) Homepage

      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.

    • Why is it only "sorry, try again", when it was abundantly clear what they did was against the law and greatly exceeded the authority they had been granted?

      The penalty is what, being paid to waste their time trying to get these convictions? Some bad PR for the agency?

  • So who exactly does have jurisdiction over the Internet? It doesn't have an established location. It probably needs a special court. Maybe we can add it to our collection of trade and military courts- the Internet Court. Just a thought.
    • Yeah! Because "on the internet" hasn't already been a phrase legally exploited and abused enough.

    • If I carry out an action sitting in the UK that has serious effects in America, the USA will attempt to extradite me, and the UK courts won't raise a jurisdictional issue. So the conclusion is that it's the location of the server that constitutes the location of the crime. For accessing child porn, it will be the local jurisdiction - where the material is viewed - that will have jurisdiction. So yes, there is an established location even if the crime is 'over the internet'.
    • 16-4-20-Order-Motion-to-Suppress.pdf [documentcloud.org] The order notes that a district judge may have the authority to issue the NIT warrant. "The jurisdiction of district courts is usually defined by subject matter and parties rather than strictly by geography." Magistrate judges (such as the one who actually issued the warrant) must follow additional rules which confine their authority essentially to within their own district.

      IANAL, but this was not a slam dunk for privacy. If a sharp U.S. Attorney had reviewed the reques

  • by OverlordQ ( 264228 ) on Thursday April 21, 2016 @12:36PM (#51957123) Journal

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

    • by Anonymous Coward
      Holy fuck, Prince is dead. I have some old CD's to listen to.
      • Look on the bright side. He was pulling a Salinger. Now you can look forward to hearing the last 20 years of work.

    • In some areas it doesn't even need to involve a KP accusation. get caught taking a pee in an alley after an evening at the pub and you will end up on a sex offenders list, and that will kill your chances at any kind of decent job.
  • It comes as no surprise, that cases to defend civil liberties or other constitutional transgressions by the state will involve unsavory characters. No one wants this guys to go free if he actually did what he is accused of, however, a society HAS to ignore evidence that has been illegally obtained. Before the defenders say "you let this scum free on a technicality" I'd say if you couldn't catch this guy with legal evidence, you didn't catch him at all. They got a warrant, so they can't complain that time
  • by cloud.pt ( 3412475 ) on Thursday April 21, 2016 @12:55PM (#51957277)

    As someone said already, it is with great regret that real offenders get away with doing something that is universally unethical at the highest order (if you take into account some religions are pretty unethical...). Yet the fact they have to resort to such "techniques" is the pinnacle of hypocrisy - they are, ultimately, helping these offenders TWO-FOLD. They are running the site creating conditions to prosecute for one, and now there's evidence exclusion... I don't fancy a state using easy-to-through-out-of-court measures that will pretty much question the next case against the individuals. They will play it safe afterwards - they know they're watched now - and that's bad for us all as they won't get caught so easily. They are pretty much making a case to DEFEND sexual offenders with these techniques and that really hits my nerves.

    With that said, I will transpose this to something much less important, yet more broad: online piracy. There are currently tens, maybe hundreds of websites run by the MPAA, the RIAA, and their henchmen, who will eventually use collected data for the sake of their business. They are obviously supplying, tampering with but also gathering the torrenting habits of all unsuspecting users. Two actual examplea comes to mind: PopcornTime's original domain, which was part of a deal struck between the prosecuted operators and effectively found to be owned by the MPAA; and of course a lot of torrent trackers and usenet aggregators also "seized" with such types of deals. So the question is: will the same principle the judge used apply here? I mean, this won't probably even go to court, and that's an issue - harbored by the DMCA et al, the MPAA/RIAA/henchmen can just directly affect the offender by notifying him or his ISP, who has to comply. And they don't even need a court order to "run" the illegal service, as they can defend themselves the same way the original operators could, with the added fact they won't sue themselves over it!

    I know it was a big rant, and ultimately pointless as I just state facts. But it does make one guy think of the nuances around the orthodox American habit of MAKING CONDITIONS TO PROSECUTE, as opposed to, you know, finding evidence of wrongdoing, and then prosecuting. John Woo's Minority Report also comes to mind...

  • Just release the child porn visitors information to pastebin or something, say it was a hacked data leak, and call it a fuckin day. Society will do the rest.

  • -Nelson Mandela Muntz

  • This is from the article:

    UPDATE: Peter Carr, a spokesperson for the Department of Justice, sent a statement.

    “We are disappointed with the court’s decision and are reviewing our options. The decision highlights why the government supports the clarification of the rules of procedure currently pending before the Supreme Court to ensure that criminals using sophisticated anonymizing technologies to conceal their identities while they engage in crime over the Internet are able to be identified and apprehended.”

    When I read this I understand that the criminals don't play by the rules so the rules need to change for enforcement. I'm happy to see this judge challenge the FBI but I'm worries it's become the popular thing to do. I tried to find the first name of this Judge Young but could not. I wanted to see if this guy is showing interest in going into politics. It wouldn't be the first time one uses his power to enhance one's public image (since it's the popular thing to do).

    • by gweihir ( 88907 )

      The real problem is that as soon as they get away with such underhanded techniques against CP, they will apply them to other things, and eventually to political dissenters and people they simply do not like. This is not about protecting children at all or they would invest all that effort into finding the people that actually made the material in question, instead of going for the easy targets. Law enforcement must be regularly and strongly reminded that the law applies to them as well and they must be limi

      • by Anonymous Coward

        The real problem is that as soon as they get away with such underhanded techniques against CP, they will apply them to other things, and eventually to political dissenters and people they simply do not like. This is not about protecting children at all or they would invest all that effort into finding the people that actually made the material in question, instead of going for the easy targets. Law enforcement must be regularly and strongly reminded that the law applies to them as well and they must be limited in what they can do.

        Of course, an alternative here would be to allow the evidence and to send the FBI agents in question to prison for, say, 2-3 years each for the misuse of the warrant.

        Jeezus, you don' know anything about this other what you read in the summary, do you?

        Underhanded technique? Shortcut, maybe. But the FBI's violation came down to procedural rule limiting the territoriality of a magistrate's jurisdiction under the Federal Magistrates Act. And even the judge says there's an argument that could be made to leniently interpret that rule that would have validated the NIT, but he wasn't persuaded by it nor did he think the FBI acted in good faith in order to get the evidence in un

  • ...we're the FBI... ...and we've been tapping your phone for ten years and feel your appreciation for the canine species(*) would be appreciated by the world's media unless you reconsider.

    (*) Replace eith tge actual non-conformist freakery.

  • IANA US Lawyer, but most jurisdictions explicitly ban entrapment. Does serving an illegal web content from government facility count as one?

% "Every morning, I get up and look through the 'Forbes' list of the richest people in America. If I'm not there, I go to work" -- Robert Orben

Working...