21–30 of 46 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Parallel reconstruction is not so easy when the case is already at trial as you can bet the defendant will not be doing whatever it is law enforcement need to now find evidence of. Time machines are still not available.
No. But they can find other means of proving that the defendant has done what you know they have done.
Ignorance like this is a large part of the problem with the world.
"As a way to ensnare users, the FBI even took control of Playpen and ran it for 13 days before shutting it down." Shouldn't the agents running this site be charged with child pornography distribution? Or are they above the law? This would be a full blown investigation against the police in this country (Norway), but here entrapment is illegal too.
Here [1] is a case from April where the police imported 12 kg of cocaine as part of a deal with a man trying to smuggle the cocaine. The result was that they got the whole cell of Albanian smugglers and not just their german scapegoat.
[1] http://www.dagbladet.no/2016/04/28/nyheter/innenriks/kokain/...
> Earlier this year, federal judges in Massachusetts and Oklahoma made similar rulings and similarly tossed the relevant evidence. Thirteen other judges, meanwhile, have found that while the warrants to search the defendants' computers via the hacking tool were invalid, they did not take the extra step of ordering suppression of the evidence. The corresponding judges in the remainder of the cases have yet to rule on…
I think that a warrant that allows the exposure of your IP address through intrusive software that exploits a security weakness is valid, assuming that you receive the software after visiting a site and performing a criminal action. It's suitably narrow, and allows further (appropriate) searching. The alternative (that I can't say that I mind too much, either) is to prohibit ever catching Tor users no matter what onl…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Parallel reconstruction is not so easy when the case is already at trial as you can bet the defendant will not be doing whatever it is law enforcement need to now find evidence of. Time machines are still not available.
No. But they can find other means of proving that the defendant has done what you know they have done.
They could hope the ∆ was using BT and had their IP logged for downloading copyrighted material. Then maybe request a warrant for their computer that way but that seems like a stretch.
"As a way to ensnare users, the FBI even took control of Playpen and ran it for 13 days before shutting it down." Shouldn't the agents running this site be charged with child pornography distribution? Or are they above the law? This would be a full blown investigation against the police in this country (Norway), but here entrapment is illegal too.
You could argue that the FBI's use case does not harm, perpeutatue, or endorse the exploitation of children any further. It would be a different story if the FBI also commissioned new content to run the site.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think that a warrant that allows the exposure of your IP address through intrusive software that exploits a security weakness is valid, assuming that you receive the software after visiting a site and performing a criminal action. It's suitably narrow, and allows further (appropriate) searching. The alternative (that I can't say that I mind too much, either) is to prohibit ever catching Tor users no matter what onl…
Generally I'd like to see something like an "Internet District" court with technically trained judges that have jurisdiction over warrants on the internet.
"As a way to ensnare users, the FBI even took control of Playpen and ran it for 13 days before shutting it down." Shouldn't the agents running this site be charged with child pornography distribution? Or are they above the law? This would be a full blown investigation against the police in this country (Norway), but here entrapment is illegal too.
1) Law enforcement agents are allowed to participate in illegal activity in order to catch criminals. Otherwise it'd be pretty damn easy to root out undercover cops. 2) Honeypots are not entrapment, which has a very specific legal definition. The person needs to be "normally law-abiding" and can't be otherwise already disposed to commit the crime in question. Not only that, but in most states (not sure about Federal…
> Earlier this year, federal judges in Massachusetts and Oklahoma made similar rulings and similarly tossed the relevant evidence. Thirteen other judges, meanwhile, have found that while the warrants to search the defendants' computers via the hacking tool were invalid, they did not take the extra step of ordering suppression of the evidence. The corresponding judges in the remainder of the cases have yet to rule on…
I think that a warrant that allows the exposure of your IP address through intrusive software that exploits a security weakness is valid, assuming that you receive the software after visiting a site and performing a criminal action. It's suitably narrow, and allows further (appropriate) searching. The alternative (that I can't say that I mind too much, either) is to prohibit ever catching Tor users no matter what onl…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
1) Law enforcement agents are allowed to participate in illegal activity in order to catch criminals. Otherwise it'd be pretty damn easy to root out undercover cops. 2) Honeypots are not entrapment, which has a very specific legal definition. The person needs to be "normally law-abiding" and can't be otherwise already disposed to commit the crime in question. Not only that, but in most states (not sure about Federal…
They didn't just take it over though. They made major improvements which caused the traffic to increase 8x during the time they operated it.
"As a way to ensnare users, the FBI even took control of Playpen and ran it for 13 days before shutting it down." Shouldn't the agents running this site be charged with child pornography distribution? Or are they above the law? This would be a full blown investigation against the police in this country (Norway), but here entrapment is illegal too.
1) Law enforcement agents are allowed to participate in illegal activity in order to catch criminals. Otherwise it'd be pretty damn easy to root out undercover cops. 2) Honeypots are not entrapment, which has a very specific legal definition. The person needs to be "normally law-abiding" and can't be otherwise already disposed to commit the crime in question. Not only that, but in most states (not sure about Federal…
Surely though if the site was shut down then the likelihood of the crimes being committed, that were recorded in those 13 days of operation, approaches zero? Would be interesting to see how many of these criminals when caught belong to more than one group.
A cop being undercover inside a criminal operation seems to me like a different category to a whole criminal operation being run by a department of police.
It seems close to entrapment; perhaps like going to an alcoholic rehab centre and offering alcohol around. Sure they could get it somewhere else but cutting off their supply should have been helping them reform already.
Surely that's the rationale behind targeting suppliers of illicit goods. If the argument is "the users will just get it elsewhere" then you should target the users and remove the demand.