Judge orders FBI to reveal whether White House launched 'Tor pedo' torpedo exploits A US judge overseeing an FBI “Playpen case” has told agents to reveal whether or not their investigative hacking was approved by the White House. The case is one of several the Feds are pursuing against more than 100 alleged users of the child sex abuse material exchange network called the Playpen. The prosecutions have become …
Either the FBI will reveal their legality of these investigations or they'll drop the case. If the courts start forcing a "reveal" of the appropriate paper trail and accountability, there's a win for Constitutional law. Any bets on which way they'll go?
As I write this, I am torn between the FBI getting knocked about and forced to do the legal and right thing, but also wondering about how many alleged miscreants will walk free if the FBI drops the case. Not just in this one but any where they've hacked into computers of suspects.
The problem in many cases is the feral's use of entrapment techniques and hacking. If they hacked the box who is to say they did not plant some of the evidence. The ferals are known to use some rather sleazy if not criminal tactics to get a conviction.
Relying on someone visiting a site is always problematic because of the reasonable possibility of fat-finger syndrome coupled with erratic-spelling syndrome. Plus, finding something on a computer does not absolute prove who did it only that someone did, see several of the rulings in the various Prenda cases.
Other than a confession, I doubt only a few online child pornography cases are all that solid. IP addresses only point to account owner not a specific user. Evidence on a hard drive only proves someone did visit a site but still who visited is not absolutely provable especially when multiple people have access to the computer. An having access to a computer does not mean you know what is in every file on the system especially in multi-user situation. Sad but I think realistic assessment. Also, remember Blackstone's comment "It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer". Make sure the person is actually guilty and do not engage in a witch hunt.
"Also, remember Blackstone's comment "It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer"."
Except that in this case, if they are pedophiles, it's potentially innocent children that suffer. It's a pure catch 22. Slavish devotion to a mantra like that can yield very strange and illogical results. There is a balance to be struck, and Law enforcement needs to (as it's title suggests) enforce the law.
There have several infamous pedophila cases in the US were the "evidence" only existed in the minds of the prosecutors, the press, and their lackeys. Many innocent people were convicted in the hysteria. I am wary when prosecutors seem to be looking out for their careers and not justice.
For the record, the only information I have on these cases is from news reports. So I have real idea if the defendants are actually guilty.
"Witch Hunt"
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1196112/
A very scary film because it really happened. 36 innocent people people convicted and sentenced in one of California's biggest child abuse/pedophile cases. 20+ years later 34 of them had been released, the last two died in prison after serving 14+ years of their sentences.
Whether I want it or not, it's out of my hands isn't it? That's how the system works...jury of your peers, in an idealism fashion. But this devotion of "Better 10 guilty men go free, than 1 innocent man be convicted" holds no water with the US conviction rate.
"In the U.S. federal court system, the conviction rose from approximately 75 percent to approximately 85% between 1972 and 1992. For 2012, the US Department of Justice reported a 93% conviction rate. The conviction rate is also high in U.S. state courts." United States Attorneys' Annual Statistical Report for Fiscal Year 2012.
The key here seems to be if you go in front of the Court, there is a 93% chance (in 2012) you will be convicted. I do not believe that US Law enforcement is that much better than anyone else. So this whole "All presumptive evidence of felony should be admitted cautiously; for the law holds it better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent party suffer" ideal that many US citizens cling to doesn't seem to hold much water in the light of such a high conviction rate.
Blackstone was commenting that a respect justice system tries to only convict the guilty and never the innocent. He realized that one faces either a high rate of false negatives (guilty getting off) and a high rate of false positives (innocent being convicted). He said on should opt for a system that produces many more false negatives than false positives. This is implied in the US Bill of Rights. It does not matter what the crime is this should still be true.
Also, while possessing child pornography is a crime one is overlooking that the website is operated by someone. Often these cases go after the low level people because the cases are easier to build and prosecute. One sees a similar pattern with drug cases, users and minor distributors are often busted but the major dealers often are not touched for years.
I think you missed an item from your list.
If the Feds hacked the computer this demonstrates there was outside access to the computer over the Internet so ownership of or physical access to the computer is not absolute proof that anyone actually accessed the site.
This seems more of a get out clause than proof.
Just shows how hard it is to police the Internet.
"Fat finger syndrome"
So I'm pretty sure everyone has mistyped at some point in their life and landed on a site they didn't expect. But I'll bet they didn't spend the next hour surfing that site, especially if it was something potentially criminal. While this remains circumstantial evidence, it is still useful when added to an already strong case.
yes, no, maybe so...
easy enough to think of any of a number common -not to mention uncommon, but real- instances where some combination of events conspire to give that appearance...
you click a link without realizing what it was, you have a mouse spasm and click a link next to a link, etc, etc... *then* you get called away by a pet at the door, a tea kettle singing, or remembering to change the washer, and next thing you know, *you* have been *visiting* that pron site for *ages*...
throw in a cat who plays with your mouse, and, well, c'mon, cats are hopeless pron addicts...
"(VEP): the system by which the US government decides whether to disclose and fix a computer vulnerability or keep it secret and use it offensively" link
Obviously if the White House knows about it, then it isn't or won't remain a secret much longer. We can assume such vulnerabilities are already known to the FSB and Mossad. Why the White House needs to be involved in computer security is beyond me.
even more amusing that these people are trying not to say they didn't do it, but to challenge the methods in which the evidence was gained.
We need to sort out some sort of malware that causes your screen to explode in your face when you access these kind of sites. There are no excuses for it - not even journalistic or research. (the classic, "I'll start writing a paper on it so I can use it as a defence as to why I had all those pictures." scenario)
even more amusing that these people are trying not to say they didn't do it, but to challenge the methods in which the evidence was gained.
They may well also be saying that they are innocent, but a statement of innocence isn't proof of innocence. The defense has to destroy the supporting evidence in the case, so how else would you expect them to do so?
Personally, I'm not at all amused by paedophiles walking free, but I'm also not amused at the thought that any accusation seems to stick whether there's evidence to support it or not. In US law, a defendant used to be considered innocent until proven guilty. That doesn't really seem to be true at all any more.
Would you also like malware to cause the screen to explode in the face of anyone who tries to access a video of an innocent person being beheaded? After all, child abuse is terrible, but murder is even worse. Maybe those who look at websites that show how to make explosives or cultivate marijuana could simply be tortured a bit.
"... screen to explode ..."
I have to assume that you have never found a disgusting pop-under when closing some "discount electronics" site, or dropped onto a witchcraft supply site when looking for foundry supplies.
Or maybe you always wear a welder's helmet while web-surfing.
should have to obey the law so hard (for some) to grasp ?
Because the alternative is "the end justifies the means" - and I'm not sure we want to go down that route.
I write this from the UK, by the way. Our legal system does not require adherence to the law as a prerequisite to enforcing it.
Due process that's so 20th century, or 11th century!
Which every century people thought due process was important, it isn't the 21st century where "evidence" can be created or collected and then those methods hidden by "parallel construction" which will have it appear legitimate to all including Judge and Defense lawyers.
If that doesn't work trial by media or mob has also returned as a popular form of justice.
See, if *I* was establishing, say, a network for those who appreciate models wearing shiny man-made textile clothing, and were that sort of thing illegal, I would call it something like TaxCodesOfVenezuala or TensileBoltProperties, not Shinymaids on account of the giveaway factor when emails get grepped by The Nice Men In The Bunker.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
