SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The Dark Web is having a rough time right now... although the victims in this case won't earn too much sympathy. An Anonymous-linked hacker speaking to Motherboard brought down about a fifth of the Tor network's 'secret' websites (over 10,000 of them) in a claimed vigilante move. The intruder decided to attack a Dark Web hosting service, Freedom Hosting II, after discovering that it was managing child porn sites it had to be aware of -- they were using gigabytes of data each when the host officially allows no more than 256MB. Each site had its usual pages replaced with a message that not only chastised FH2, but offered a data dump (minus user info) and explained the nature of the hack.
Reportedly, the attack wasn't difficult. The hacker only needed to have control over a site (new or existing) to get started. After that, it was mostly a matter of modifying a configuration file, triggering a password reset and getting root access.
From early indications, the perpetrator is handling the data relatively responsibly. It's going to a security researcher who'll hand it over to law enforcement, which might just use it to bust the porn peddlers.
Source:
https://www.engadget.com/2017/02/05/hack-knocks-out-fifth-of-dark-web/
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 07 2017, @11:08PM
The rule isn't about evidence quality. Nor is it about chain of custody. No, the thing that might get this evidence tossed out of court is the 4th amendment. Namely that evidence gathered without a warrant, in general, doesn't stand in court. Fruit of the Forbidden Tree, I think they call it. The how and the why of the 4th amendment probably has more words written about it than I've read in my entire life, and like you, I'm not a lawyer, but I'm pretty sure that private citizens collecting evidence without a warrant is also likely to not be allowed in court.
Now here I'm on more firm ground. I am still not a lawyer, but Nathaniel Burney [lawcomic.net] is (albeit not your lawyer, each case has specific details, laws vary by state, disclaimer, disclaimer, etc).
The key point is to read that 2nd section of the linked chart, about who is violating the privacy. The 4th Amendment only applies to the State, not to private individuals. This is why the police can accept into evidence drugs that a person brings into a police station that they claim came from somebody else, among other things.
If the vigilante on their own, not solicited by the State, provides evidence to the police, it is valid. They acted on their own as a private individual. They can do it once, maybe twice... however, if it happens with any frequency, the Defense can argue that the vigilante was acting on behalf of the State and thus the 4th Amendment applies. As a result, they would need a warrant to use the evidence in court... probably...
Actually, that chart is very worthwhile to scan through (assuming you don't want to read the whole comic). The 4th Amendment is much more complicated and provides less protection in fewer circumstances than people think, and it's interesting to learn more about it. The same with the 5th Amendment [lawcomic.net]. There is also a chart in regard to eyewitness evidence, too, but that's a very specialized (albeit common) field and thus may not be as fun to learn about.
As a side note, upon reflection, I really wonder how the 4th Amendment interplays with the "Police are offering $50,000 for evidence leading to the arrest and conviction of ___." Clearly such things are legal (... I think?), but I don't see how that interplays with the 4th Amendment. Maybe evidenced provided during that type of warrant is not admissible, and thus police frequently don't need to pay? I do know that such rewards frequently end up with informant not actually being paid due to a variety of reasons.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 08 2017, @01:33AM
If the vigilante on their own, not solicited by the State, provides evidence to the police, it is valid. They acted on their own as a private individual. They can do it once, maybe twice... however, if it happens with any frequency, the Defense can argue that the vigilante was acting on behalf of the State and thus the 4th Amendment applies.
They're still acting as an agent of the government (even if they only do it once), whether official or not. Courts may accept this, but they are wrong in doing so.
The 4th Amendment is much more complicated and provides less protection in fewer circumstances than people think, and it's interesting to learn more about it.
You need to distinguish between what the 4th amendment actually protects and what judges say it protects; they are different things. If judges support tyranny, then they need to be ousted and replaced with judges who will actually follow the Constitution. Let's not get into the paradoxical 'The courts are always right.' argument, because it's stunningly, blatantly idiotic.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 08 2017, @06:30AM
At best you're chasing unicorns. At worst, you'll never be a lawyer.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 08 2017, @06:50PM
They're still acting as an agent of the government (even if they only do it once), whether official or not. Courts may accept this, but they are wrong in doing so.
So to be clear, from a moral perspective, you are holding the government responsible for the actions which they did not ask for and did not expect?
If a food bank was giving out soup to the hungry, and it turns out that one of the donators had (unbeknownst to the food bank) stolen the cans of food from a supermarket, would you hold the food bank responsible? Would you hold the hungry people responsible?
You need to distinguish between what the 4th amendment actually protects and what judges say it protects; they are different things.
You are correct, but have it exactly backwards. What the 4th amendment actually protects is what society (and by proxy, the courts... and by further proxy, the police) accepts it as protecting.
What you are describing is what it theoretically or nominally protects, and only what a non-legal-expert interprets it as protecting. That is laudable, and maybe "better" in an abstract sense based on numerous moral frameworks, but none of that matters when a person is facing time in jail. Even if Socrates was correct in the philosophical world, in the physical world he still drank the hemlock.