Federal Judge's Ruling Says The Fourth Amendment Does Require the FBI to Obtain a Warrant Before Hacking Your Home Computer

w2c says vice articles are no longer allowed here, so I'm resubmitting this article from better sources. I admit that Vice is not a great news agency.

Federal Court: The Fourth Amendment Does Not Protect Your Home Computer

By Mark Rumold

June 23, 2016

In a dangerously flawed decision unsealed today [PDF warning], a federal district court in Virginia ruled that a criminal defendant has no "reasonable expectation of privacy" in his personal computer, located inside his home. According to the court, the federal government does not need a warrant to hack into an individual's computer.

This decision is the latest in, and perhaps the culmination of, a series of troubling decisions in prosecutions stemming from the FBI's investigation of Playpen--a Tor hidden services site hosting child pornography. The FBI seized the server hosting the site in 2014, but continued to operate the site and serve malware to thousands of visitors that logged into the site. The malware located certain identifying information (e.g., MAC address, operating system, the computer's "Host name"; etc) on the attacked computer and sent that information back to the FBI. There are hundreds of prosecutions, pending across the country, stemming from this investigation.

Courts overseeing these cases have struggled to apply traditional rules of criminal procedure and constitutional law to the technology at issue. Recognizing this, we've been participating as amicus to educate judges on the significant legal issues these cases present. In fact, EFF filed an amicus brief (PDF warning) in this very case, arguing that the FBI's investigation ran afoul of the Fourth Amendment. The brief, unfortunately, did not have the intended effect.

The implications for the decision, if upheld, are staggering: law enforcement would be free to remotely search and seize information from your computer, without a warrant, without probable cause, or without any suspicion at all. To say the least, the decision is bad news for privacy. But it's also incorrect as a matter of law, and we expect there is little chance it would hold up on appeal. (It also was not the central component of the judge's decision, which also diminishes the likelihood that it will become reliable precedent.)

But the decision underscores a broader trend in these cases: courts across the country, faced with unfamiliar technology and unsympathetic defendants, are issuing decisions that threaten everyone's rights. As hundreds of these cases work their way through the federal court system, we'll be keeping a careful eye on these decisions, developing resources to help educate the defense bar, and doing all we can to ensure that the Fourth Amendment's protections for our electronic devices aren't eroded further. We'll be writing more about these cases in the upcoming days, too, so be sure to check back in for an in-depth look at the of the legal issues in these cases, and the problems with the way the FBI handled its investigation.

source: EFF.org

Or the Reuters version

FBI did not need warrant to hack child porn suspect's computer -court

Thu Jun 23, 2016 | 7:07pm EDT

By Nate Raymond

The FBI did not need a search warrant to hack a suspect's computer during an investigation of a large child pornography website, a U.S. judge has ruled, in a decision one group of private advocates called "dangerously flawed."

In a decision unsealed on Thursday, U.S. District Judge Henry Morgan in Newport News, Virginia, rejected a bid to suppress evidence against Edward Matish, one of at least 137 defendants charged in the probe of the website Playpen.

Morgan upheld the legality of a warrant investigators obtained that allowed them to use what Matish called malware to identify him as a user of Playpen, which operated on the Tor network, which is designed to protect user privacy.

But Morgan said the warrant was not needed in the first place to deploy the malware, which the government calls a "network investigative technique," as Matish had no reasonable expectation of privacy in his IP address.

Morgan noted the widespread nature of hacking today, and compared the hacking of Matish's computer to a police officer looking through someone's broken window blinds, which the Supreme Court has said does not violate the U.S. Constitution.

As a result, he said, a computer normally afforded protection in other circumstances against unreasonable searches "is not protected from Government actors who take advantage of an easily broken system to peer into a user's computer."

The ruling drew sharp criticism from Mark Rumold, a senior staff attorney Electronic Frontier Foundation, who in a blog post called the decision "dangerously flawed."

"To say the least, the decision is bad news for privacy," he wrote.

Matish's lawyer and a Justice Department spokesman declined comment.

The ruling stemmed from the Federal Bureau of Investigation's seizure in February 2015 of the server of the 214,898-member child porn website Playpen.[nL2N17O039]

The FBI subsequently obtained a warrant that allowed it to deploy the "network investigative technique," which caused a user's computer to send back data any time that user logged onto the website while the FBI operated it for two weeks.

Thousands of people domestically and abroad have come under investigation in the probe. At least 137 people in the United States have been charged.

Critics of the investigation have questioned the ethics of the FBI's decision to effectively become a child pornography distributor itself to catch offenders.

The probe has recently also ran into legal trouble, as some defendants secured rulings suppressing evidence against them.

(Reporting by Nate Raymond in New York; Editing by Alan Crosby)

What these articles failed to mention that Vice article did is that "the FBI's malware actually grabbed more than just suspects' IP addresses. It also beamed their username and some other system information to the FBI; information that is undoubtedly within a user's computer--no two ways about it."


Comments


[9 Points] None:

The judge didn't want the FBI hacking into his secret porn collection. Self preservation almost some could say.


[6 Points] coachfortner:

Why does the post headline imply that a warrant is required when the articles linked actually state otherwise? Am I right in thinking that's misleading?


[3 Points] None:

[deleted]


[2 Points] unknown_baby_daddy:

Why aren't we discussing police cams being publicly accessible if we consider private citezens home computing devices as fair game?

Just tap into the other Internet folks, it's way more engaging and free to all. That's right... jesus Christ ladies and gentlemen. Bring back celebrity death match and put cameras in all the toilets. Yoda for prez 2020


[1 Points] ROADTRAVELEDLESS:

good news


[1 Points] darkswizzly:

That's insane... I mean, ok, everybody on those subreddits can watch for himself and what's going on... but here are already a bunchload of Feds. On one site they try to takeover or eleminate every dnm on the otherside the they destroy the subreddits with their sockpuppies as long as no reasonable opinions are visible... on the dnmnoobs they use those sockpuppies even to strengthen those noobs in their goals. And now I watch even a legal framework which legitimate that gigantic crime.

That cannot be true? Tell me please that this can't be true... that's just insane madness... Could at least one of those fucked up sockpuppies explain what the aim of this operation is? Is it some envy on the CIA with iran-contra? Do they really think that would change something? ... thats sick... just sick and disgusting...


[1 Points] cryptictryptich:

Critics of the investigation have questioned the ethics of the FBI's decision to effectively become a child pornography distributor itself to catch offenders.

Wait. What the fuck did I just read? Is this serious? Is the FBI gonna offer to sell me drugs next? Seems illegal.


[1 Points] jocq:

Good thing they still have parallel construction.


[1 Points] iamfrankfrank:

Good old Commonwealth of Virginia never disappoints.