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 Wednesday February 08 2017, @03:35PM
The police can't be sued for defamation, eh? But if you allege that I was responsible for the bone in the yard, and it is untrue, and I suffer harm because of it? I may not win, but you bet I have a prima facie case and can make you spend money on lawyers. Would I win? No, but I can.
While we digress, I am happy to educate you: http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2007-07-27/news/0707270325_1_search-warrant-mengel-detective [baltimoresun.com] The Maryland Supreme Court ruled that police can indeed be sued for libel for false statements as part of obtaining a warrant. Two cops were suing other cops for libel the other cops alleged in a search warrant against the first pair. That has nothing to do with this, other than to refute your claim that that defamation cannot exist during an investigation by officers' conduct. Did they get money? Dunno, don't care. It's enough to know in some jurisdictions officers can be sued for it. Five seconds on a Google search for that one, BTW.
And you make no mention of the fact that police will consider YOU the prime suspect in your example above, with the property owner certainly there but in second place. Nor have you provided any refutation that a defense attorney would have a heyday with hacker-obtained-evidence. Enough to free someone? That depends on the jury - and I can't see a defendant in that position where tainted evidence can be implied not wanting a jury trial - though a CP charge may be considered too hot for a jury so I dunno. But it sure can muddy waters that might have been clearer if the hackers had kept their mitts off.
And you are right that most attorneys don't know the Internet from an Innertube. BUT many-if-not-most attorneys are news junkies because that's a wonderful way to ambulance chase. And technical knowledge is a real handicap when it comes to formulating a defense strategy which involves technical things. Because it doesn't matter what you know. It even doesn't matter what you can prove. It only matters to a defense attorney what you can credibly Allege as alternatives. Tech-dumb attorney wants to convince tech-dumb jury of something technically impossible but plausible, hopefully bamboozling the tech-dumb prosecutor and tech-dumb judge as well.
So.... thanks and you're welcome.