It would appear that the defendant in this case is basically arguing Heisenburg’s Uncertainty Principle is at play, in that the use of a trojan to identify and spy on his machine may have resulted in the files they found there to have come from unspecified sources, just because the trojan was put there to look around. And the defendant is claiming this has an inherintly indefensible flaw regarding “chain of custody” of the data that was collected from the trojan.
It’s kinda like saying that undercover agents in a drug ring cannot be trusted simply because they were able to con the drug ring’s leaders into trusting them, and therefore cannot be trusted by anybody.
What they did could actually be accomplished with retargeting pixels / cookies and a little bit of snooping through the defendant’s browser history. It might take a little longer, but the evidence would probably be stronger that way … they’d basically be “triangulating” the computer from multiple sources based on known “salt” cookies (retargeting pixels) that show up passively based on browsing activities.
But I also believe the term “online privacy” is an oxymoron, encryption not withstanding. Use the interwebs at your own risk.
-David Schwartz
On Jul 10, 2016, at 11:14 PM, Tom Roche <Tom_Roche@pobox.com> wrote:
Apologies to those who've already seen this, but it was news to me:
Last month (Jun 2016), federal district judge Henry Coke Morgan, Jr[1] ruled that the Fourth Amendment[2] does not protect home computers. A criminal defendant has no reasonable expectation of privacy regarding an in-home personal computer, and the federal government does not need a warrant to hack one.[3] Particularly, "a computer afforded Fourth Amendment protection in other circumstances is not protected from Government actors who take advantage of an easily broken system"[4] to implant malware. The full decision is in this scanned PDF[5].
Gotta start hardening, Tom Roche <Tom_Roche@pobox.com>
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Coke_Morgan,_Jr. [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution [3]: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/06/federal-court-fourth-amendment-does-not-protect-your-home-computer [4]: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/06/fbis-use-of-tor-exploit-is-like-peering-through-broken-blinds/ [5]: https://www.eff.org/files/2016/06/23/matish_suppression_edva.pdf --------------------------------------------------- PLUG-discuss mailing list – PLUG-discuss@lists.phxlinux.org To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings: http://lists.phxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss