In finding no Fourth
Amendment violation, the Western District of Washington noted that "in order for  prospective
user[s] to use the Tor network they must disclose information, including their IP addresses, to
unknown individuals running Tor nodes, so that their communications can be directed toward
their destinations." Id. at *2. The Western District of Washington noted that under "such a
system, an individual would necessarily be disclosing his identifying information to complete
Sounds like it makes sense to me
Thus, hacking resembles the broken blinds in Carter. 525 U.S. at 85. Just as Justice
Breyer wrote in concurrence that a police officer who peers through broken blinds does not
violate anyone's Fourth Amendment rights, jd. at 103 (Breyer, J., concurring), FBI agents who
exploit a vulnerability in an online network do not violate the Fourth Amendment. Just as the
area into which the officer in Carter peered - an apartment - usually is afforded Fourth
Case 4:16-cr-00016-HCM-RJK Document 90 Filed 06/23/16 Page 52 of 58 PageID# 1134
Amendment protection, a computer afforded Fourth Amendment protection in other
circumstances is not protected from Government actors who take advantage of an easily broken
system to peer into a user's computer. People who traverse the Internet ordinarily understand the
risk associated with doing so
Well yeah if you don't patch your system, you know you're going to get hacked right? So, boohoo, you got hacked by the gov should have been surfing kiddy porn
"Furthermore, the Court FINDS suppression unwarranted because the Government did not need a warrant in this case. Thus, any potential defects in the issuance of the warrant or in the warrant itself could not result in constitutional violations".
This language is particularly specific and narrows the ruling to this case and only this case. The fact that the FBI got a warrant to allow them to run remote exploit code on an individual's computers that had downloaded the exploit (which was only available on PlayPen) means that they didn't need a warrant.
The individual was exposing himself to this exploit of his own actions, and thus didn't require a warrant. Let me put it this way, the FBI takes over a drug dealer, and has him continue sale, but under the new watchful eye of cameras that collect identifying photos of individuals who purchase drugs. (Not only that, but the person has to go into a room that specifically says, “illegal drugs” on it in order to even end up on camera.)
Do law enforcement REALLY need a warrant when the person is incriminating themselves?
This is like arguing that law enforcement had no right to put a tracker in the cash bag of a bank that they took. It's BS. It required active agency in acquiring the exploit code, and a clear intent to obtain child pornography.
a) You do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy when you're committing a crime, and b) if you walk into someone else's house and demonstrate direct intent to commit a crime without knowing that you're identifying yourself to police, well, TOO BAD
The site was actually protected by the Tor network (and despite an error in configuration allowing it to be accessed outside of Tor for a bit) was only available through the Tor network.
They then attached the callback program to trigger upon downloading known child porn, and voila your computer happily reports to the FBI that you've just downloaded child porn.
This is actually pretty solid law, and entirely reasonable warrant and execution of that warrant
It looks like (so far, I'm only part way through the actual ruling) one of the chief objections is that the warrant identified the website with the wrong type of logo. The text on that logo, had however stayed the same. This is not a good argument for why a warrant shouldn't be valid
Nothing ever becomes real till it is experienced -- even a proverb is no proverb to you till your life has illustrated it. -- John Keats