Child pornagraphy is a particularly heinous crime is today's society. So don't ever expect the courts to be lienent.
When you have a police force that sees itself as above the law, then you have a very big problem.
They got a warrant. It's exactly what they're suppose to do.
I understand that they got a warrant for the server, but can it really be so broad so that it gives them the legal right to hack into any computer that visits the site?
From the article:
> But Fieman said that the warrant “effectively authorizes an unlimited number of searches, against unidentified targets, anywhere in the world.”
That blatantly isn't a warrant. It's a new form of unlimited government surveillance and hacking. Half the comments on here are falling for the all-too-obvious: but it's for a good cause, spin. Hey, just leave your doors unlocked, and invite in the police to search every inch of your home and electronics any time they like, we'll catch far more criminals that way.
You're telling me your opinion. I would like to know how you don't think it's a warrant by the definition of the law.
One of the primary complaints of the founding fathers was the abuse by the British when it came to general warrants. They specifically attempted to limit warrants just for this very reason, so abusive agents of the government couldn't turn them into general warrants.
The fact that this example warrant allowed for infinite targeting (ie had no actual specific targets in mind), means that it is not a warrant by the definition set over the prior 200 years in the US. It is an obvious general warrant, and non-constitutional.
The warrant in question might have a vague list of targets, but in practise it applies to any and all people that connect to these services. And it's not like you can stumble upon them by googling...
It's that you can issue such a warrant and target massive numbers of people regardless of whether or not you specifically suspect them. The point of the warrant system is to prevent LEOs from searching (you|your property) without knowing what you supposedly did. The warrant issued here allows arbitrary attacks against arbitrary targets, and that's not good, regardless of technology.
I would have the same objection if the FBI had been given information about a string of armed robberies and decided to just catch the criminals after the fact. Protecting innocents and preventing that lives are ruined should take precedence of catching criminals. I can't understand how the people working on this case can live with the knowledge that criminals might have used the Firefox vulnerability to defraud elderly with ransom-ware, or steal information which are later used for identity theft.
Why not just have a judge sign a warrant that gives the police the right to search the homes of "all bad guys?"