Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

To keep Tor hack source code secret, DOJ dismisses child porn case

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 142 posts

Re: To keep Tor hack source code secret, DOJ dismisses child porn case

#121

Post by CapitalistCartr »

knieveltech wrote: post #53
CapitalistCartr wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not if the victim of torture can afford our legal system. A (most likely Federal) judge would deny qualified immunity to those responsible, and they'd be held accountable at least in civil court, possibly criminal, although doubtful, given the way state prosecutors crawl up the police butt.

A federal judge deny qualified immunity? I'm struggling to contain my incredulity. There are instances where cops shot people who were unarmed and attempting to comply, where filmed doing it from multiple angles, and the cops still walked.

Federal courts do this routinely on cases brought before them. But most victims can't afford the court system. Here is a recent, typical one:

"New Brunswick, N.J., police drive their patrol car into fleeing suspect. Officers: We parked in his path, and he rode his bike right into us. Third Circuit: Video inconclusive. No qualified immunity.

Re: To keep Tor hack source code secret, DOJ dismisses child porn case

#122

Post by BearGoesChirp »

Almaviva wrote: post #42
moomin wrote: post #9

So, let's see now: a man is going free who should probably be going to jail for a long time, because the state doesn't want to disclose the methods of gathering evidence against him, which we can speculate are because they are illegal or sourced from non-law-enforcement agencies. A case with near-identical facts and the same judge _is_ going to trial and, not content with tapping your email, the state now wants to pu…

If the site mentioned in the article had 150,000 members as they say, that's a lot of people to lock up for years for pointing a browser at a url.

I don't quite get why it is illegal.

Banning production I understand fully. But viewing, under the argument it promotes it? The TOR developers have done far more to promote it than any single viewer, especially if we consider those who never paid any money and use ad blockers. Would we say the TOR developers should face some sort of punishment for not working with governments to develop a version that works to stop this (such as integrating something which causes it to drop off the TOR network as soon as it detects an illegal file, probably biases the algorithm against false positives)?

At the very least, I think they should be using all the resources to go after producers and those paying for it.

Re: To keep Tor hack source code secret, DOJ dismisses child porn case

#123

Post by hydrogen18 »

tptacek wrote: post #26
Huffers2 wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've never understood this. If I gather evidence against somebody illegally, and it proves their guilt, shouldn't we both go to jail?

You're getting a lot of huffy responses to this question, but it is an entirely legitimate one. In fact, many (maybe most?) western countries don't have the same exclusionary rules the US has. There are other remedies to police misconduct. If you were starting a nation from first principles, it's not an iron law of justice that your courts have that rule. The reason we believe the exclusionary rule works so well is t…

You're actually missing a huge point in this, it gives the police the ability to selectively block the justice system.

If a police officer sees a defendant that they wish to let off the crime, all they have to do is testify to some trivial mishandling of the evidence.

Re: To keep Tor hack source code secret, DOJ dismisses child porn case

#124

Post by BearGoesChirp »

jemfinch wrote: post #70
bsder wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This actually bothers me greatly. Not carrying through once charges are filed should be equivalent to "not guilty".

So, in a timeline this: * "We have an eyewitness! File the charges." * "Our eyewitness recanted, dismiss." * "We now have DNA evidence, refile the charges." You actually think the trial should not be allowed to go forward?

Should've waited for the DNA evidence. The idea we convict with just eyewitness testimony alone is enough of a nightmare.

Also, this is how it happens already if they go through the entire trial.

* "We have an eyewitness. File the charges!"

* "Jury finds the defendant not guilty because they didn't think the eyewitness' testimony was proof beyond a reasonable doubt."

* "We found DNA evidence and even a video that someone recorded but didn't admit to just now."

Double jeopardy means they can't go ahead, no matter what evidence they find. This is just extending that a little further, which I see as a good thing.

Re: To keep Tor hack source code secret, DOJ dismisses child porn case

#125

Post by Almaviva »

camus2 wrote: post #84
Almaviva wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the site mentioned in the article had 150,000 members as they say, that's a lot of people to lock up for years for pointing a browser at a url.

> If the site mentioned in the article had 150,000 members as they say, that's a lot of people to lock up for years for pointing a browser at a url. You don't stumble on "kiddy stuff" on TOR accidentally. You actively seek it. 150.000 is a lot of pedos in the wild.

Lots of people visit links on the clear web showing illegal and horrific acts. If the full extent of a crime is filling out an http form with a fake email to see some pictures and video, it's still not clear that this is so far beyond the pale that years of prison for hundreds of thousands of people is the best solution.

Re: To keep Tor hack source code secret, DOJ dismisses child porn case

#126

Post by sandworm101 »

wheelerwj wrote: post #117
sandworm101 wrote: post #8

I think they want to to disclose. I think prosecutors expected that they would be allowed to do so by now. They probably assumed the exploit would have been patched away, or that some better tool would have come allong by this point in time. Id bet good money that this tool is still in active use by some three-letter agency. Should it be discovered or patched before the SOL, its intel value will drop and prosecutions…

SOL?

Statute of limitations. The period of time during which charges can be brought.

Re: To keep Tor hack source code secret, DOJ dismisses child porn case

#127

Post by hasenj »

sanswork wrote: post #65
gpm wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's still evidence, just less credible evidence. Hopefully the prosecutor has other evidence as well. It could also be the case that it's evidence that was collected by someone who didn't commit the crime, but would currently be excluded by the fruit of the poisoned tree doctrine.

The only proof you have that it IS evidence is the word of someone who you know is willing to break the rules to secure a conviction.

I thought an evidence was an objective piece of data, not someone's word.

Re: To keep Tor hack source code secret, DOJ dismisses child porn case

#128

Post by hasenj »

bsder wrote: post #19
hasenj wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How so? In general if a criminal goes free despite having evidence against him just because the evidence was not obtained legally ... it sounds rather wrong to me.

> In general if a criminal goes free despite having evidence against him just because the evidence was not obtained legally ... it sounds rather wrong to me. Then you are terribly shortsighted. It is "innocent until proven " guilty" for many very good reasons. We have only the word of the government that this man is guilty. The government has ALL the cards and power, the innocent need protection from it more than we…

I said "in general" for a reason.

I'm not talking about _this_ particular case. (I'm not sure that accessing a dubious website is in itself a crime; obviously the police accessed the site too).

Presumably the police _can_ prove it, but the court simply refuses to even _see_ the evidence.

Re: To keep Tor hack source code secret, DOJ dismisses child porn case

#129

Post by tptacek »

mirimir wrote: post #94
tptacek wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're getting a lot of huffy responses to this question, but it is an entirely legitimate one. In fact, many (maybe most?) western countries don't have the same exclusionary rules the US has. There are other remedies to police misconduct. If you were starting a nation from first principles, it's not an iron law of justice that your courts have that rule. The reason we believe the exclusionary rule works so well is t…

> The reason we believe the exclusionary rule works so well is that it strikes directly at the incentive structure for the police. That's debatable. Parallel construction seems pretty common. The NSA shares information with the FBI, DEA etc, and then they exploit that information to collect clean evidence. So there's never any mention of NSA help. Of course, that arguably involves perjury. But judges seem pretty OK w…

By "pretty common", you mean, "I've heard of it", right?
Post reply on HN