Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment Re:You missed a couple of sections (Score 1) 309

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

Comment Re:You missed a couple of sections (Score 1) 309

"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

Comment Re:The message is clear: (Score 1) 309

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

Comment Re:What Constitution? (Score 1) 309

Even though the warrant authorized the FBI to deploy the NIT as soon as a user logged
into Playpen, SA Alfin testified that the Government did not deploy the NIT against Mr. Matish
in this particular case until after someone with the username of "Broden" logged into Playpen,
arrived at the index site, went to the bestiality section - which advertised prepubescent children
engaged in sexual activities with animals - and clicked on the post titled "Girl 11YO, with dog."
In other words, the agents took the extra precaution of not deploying the NIT until the user first
logged into Playpen and second entered into a section of Playpen which actually displayed child
pornography. At this point, testified SA Alfin, the user apparently downloaded child
pornography as well as the NIT to his computer. Thus, the FBI deployed the NIT in a much
narrower fashion than what the warrant authorized.

I dunno, that's pretty compelling reasonable suspicion there for a warrant which is what they actually had

Comment Re:We need a penalty for retarded judges (Score 1) 309

The Court FINDS, for the reasons stated herein, that probable cause supported
the warrant's issuance, that the warrant was sufficiently specific, that the triggering event
occurred, that Defendant is not entitled to a Franks hearing, and that the magistrate judge did not
exceed her jurisdiction or authority in issuing the warrant

So you think supporting the validity of a warrant that was issued prior to the search to be subversive?

Comment Re:What Constitution? (Score 1) 309

To any sane person, if they need a warrant to come through your door to seize the data, they need a warrant to seize the data over the wire.

Let's examine that, let's see

The Court FINDS, for the reasons stated herein, that probable cause supported
the warrant's issuance, that the warrant was sufficiently specific, that the triggering event
occurred, that Defendant is not entitled to a Franks hearing, and that the magistrate judge did not
exceed her jurisdiction or authority in issuing the warrant

Oh, they did have a warrant.

Comment Re:why qualify the nightclub as "gay"? (Score 1) 224

The problem with your argument is that the possession of arms is a constitutional right. Driving a car is a privilege not a right.
When you remove people constitutional rights they have to already have done something (due process you know) or it's unconstitutional. Privacy is a constitutional right. Requiring a license to use encryption because you may or may not be a terrorist is unconstitutional. This is not rocket science you know. Arguing for the government to take away people constitutional rights without due process on the 2nd amendment and vigorously arguing for them to preserve those rights on the 1st amendment is at the very least hypocritical. If you don't like certain rights granted by the constitution then argue for a constitutional convention to take away those rights.

Comment Erm Guys... This Judge writes code.. (Score 5, Informative) 436

This judge is not clueless
Judge Alsup writes code

Quote from this judge from this same case before the appeal I believe
I have done, and still do, a significant amount of programming in other languages. I've written blocks of code like rangeCheck a hundred times before. I could do it, you could do it. The idea that someone would copy that when they could do it themselves just as fast, it was an accident. There's no way you could say that was speeding them along to the marketplace. You're one of the best lawyers in America, how could you even make that kind of argument?

Comment Re:Nah (Score 2) 364

I'll bite....

it seems that these documents were leaked from a prestigious law firm no? So that being the case it seems that you would be better served to hire them to deal with hiding your money. Now I'm not sure that the people that used this law firm "did the paperwork" themselves. And so there is a financial barrier to entry obviously

so your arguement falls flat on its face hard

Slashdot Top Deals

Brain off-line, please wait.