SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Rather than share the now-classified technological means that investigators used to locate a child porn suspect, federal prosecutors in Washington state have dropped all charges against a man accused of accessing Playpen, a notorious and now-shuttered website.
The case, United States v. Jay Michaud, is one of nearly 200 cases nationwide that have raised new questions about the appropriate limitations on the government's ability to hack criminal suspects. Michaud marks just the second time that prosecutors have asked that [the] case be dismissed.
"The government must now choose between disclosure of classified information and dismissal of its indictment," Annette Hayes, a federal prosecutor, wrote in a court filing on Friday. "Disclosure is not currently an option. Dismissal without prejudice leaves open the possibility that the government could bring new charges should there come a time within the statute of limitations when and the government be in a position to provide the requested discovery."
https://threatpost.com/doj-dismisses-playpen-case-to-keep-tor-hack-private/124102/
Intent on keeping details private about how it hacked the Tor browser, prosecutors with the U.S. Department of Justice on Friday asked to dismiss a case involving a suspect who visited the Playpen dark web child pornography site in 2015.
"The government must now choose between disclosure of classified information and dismissal of its indictment," Annette Hayes, a US attorney, wrote in a court filing (.PDF) on Friday. "Disclosure is not currently an option."
Hayes asked the court to drop charges around the case without prejudice, insisting the government has "simply acted to protect highly sensitive information from criminal discovery as was its obligation." There's a chance, if the exploit is unclassified later down the line, the government could reopen its case, she claims.
"Dismissal without prejudice leaves open the possibility that the government could bring new charges should there come a time within the statute of limitations when and the government be in a position to provide the requested discovery," Hayes wrote.
News the government is unwilling to disclose the exploit–something the FBI refers to as a "Network Investigative Technique" (NIT)–has seemingly been a long time coming; the DOJ has remained resolute to keeping the exploit under wraps. Last April the FBI refused to comply with the judge's request to describe how it compromised the Tor browser.
Previously: FBI Let Alleged Pedo Walk Free Rather Than Explain How They Snared Him
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Tuesday March 07 2017, @06:22PM (3 children)
Also very very relevant: What exactly was the evidence that he did anything at all? If all they have is something they aren't willing to let him confront, then for all we know this guy was completely innocent and didn't do what the FBI says he did. For all we know, the source of evidence they aren't willing to tell us about is a system in which somebody using Tor to browse a completely legal website that .gov has decided is Really Bad gets something injected into the page HTML when passing through FBI-controlled Tor nodes that instructs the browser to download some kiddie porn while alerting authorities as to its source. Which would mean that the kiddie porn is there because of the FBI, not because of the defendant.
A lot of people have a hard time with the whole "innocent until proven guilty" thing.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday March 07 2017, @06:51PM (2 children)
True - the FBI could have planted the images. It's within their capability, I'm sure. But, why? Why snag some innocent fool, and set him up? If this man is innocent of the charges against him, then he is still crosswise with the FBI for a reason. If they set him up, they had some reason for putting forth the effort, however minimal that effort may have been. So - let's dismiss the likelihood that he's a terrorist, because the FBI has no problem framing people for terrorism.
Hell, maybe I've answered my own question. If they are willing to frame ignorant hicks for terrorism, just to boost their case rates, then they would be just as willing to frame another ignorant hick for child pornography.
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Tuesday March 07 2017, @08:01PM (1 child)
People can end up crosswise with the FBI for reasons that have absolutely nothing to do with whether they've committed a crime. People have become targets because they wrote a letter to the editor expressing opposition to official government policies. Anti-Iraq War groups can and have been targeted for infiltration. Occupy Wall Street was targeted, and a few people were set up and framed for terrorism as you mention. I'm going to guess that they're also going after various right-wing and libertarian activist groups as well. Basically, they have a very long history of not being politically neutral in the slightest, and definitely not being dispassionate arbiters of the law.
So in the example I used, the FBI would be framing people because (a) they don't want people using Tor because it makes them a bit harder to track, and (b) they don't want people viewing certain legal websites, both of which are very plausible.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by butthurt on Tuesday March 07 2017, @11:36PM
> People have become targets because they wrote a letter to the editor expressing opposition to official government policies.
The FBI opened its file on Pete Seeger after he wrote a
[...] letter protesting and criticizing the California American Legion's resolution advocating deportation of all Japanese, citizens or not, after the war, and barring all Japanese descendants from citizenship.
--/article.pl?sid=15/12/23/1524255 [soylentnews.org]
...something that never became an official policy.