mimo2005

Hacker puts judge in jail. In other news, mouse eats cat


http://www.canada.com/topics/news/na...671931&k=22194

-=Rousseau=-

I'm pretty sure hacking a computer/writing Trojan Horses is illegal... That would technically be the same thing as searching without a warrant/illegally obtaining evidence (& while not being a cop). Therefore, the evidence was not lawfully obtained and must be dismissed in a court of law.

(Towards the end of the article even the vigilante said that he had been breaking laws by hacking the computers.)

Unless the judge knows nothing of the law, he won't be found guilty...

Exclusionary Rule: Evidence gained as the result of an illegal act by police cannot be used against the person from whom it was seized. (I assume that this applies to evidence illegally obtained by non-police as well).

This whole vigilante thing doesn't set right with me, though I am in no way siding with the judge.

mimo2005

but the judge is in jail !

-=Rousseau=-

Wow... Apparently they didn't go by that rule. According to Wikipedia:

Suppression of evidence, however, has always been our last resort, not our first impulse. The exclusionary rule generates "substantial social costs," United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 907 (1984), which sometimes include setting the guilty free and the dangerous at large. We have therefore been "cautious against expanding" it, Colorado v. Connelly, 479 U.S. 157, 166 (1986), and "have repeatedly emphasized that the rule's 'costly toll' upon truth-seeking and law enforcement objectives presents a high obstacle for those urging [its] application," Pennsylvania Bd. of Probation and Parole v. Scott, 524 U.S. 357, 364-365 (1998) (citation omitted). We have rejected "indiscriminate application" of the rule, Leon, supra, at 908, and have held it to be applicable only "where its remedial objectives are thought most efficaciously served," United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338, 348 (1974) -- that is, "where its deterrence benefits outweigh its 'substantial social costs

So I guess they really just pick and choose when to apply that rule......

mimo2005

i think first the hacker warned the authorities , then they used some kind of ruse to check his computer , specially if the computer belongs to the judiciary system , i believe they can ask the judge to bring it back for control .

I am sure they used some kind of strategy to get access to it once they were sure that he has child porno on it .

-=Rousseau=-

True... I guess they would have had to use the info from the hacker as just "Probable cause" for issuing a warrant or to ask him to bring it in.

mimo2005

well , the good news is : a bad guy is out of the streets (a pedo judge in jail)

And don't forget to update your antivirus to stop all trojans and worms :)

karusho

Follow mimo2005's advice if you're a pedophile, or you may be the next victim.

mimo2005

My advice is for all , not to pedophiles , in fact , i want peodphiles to get caught and pay their crimes .

If that what you meant , yes i am ok with it .

yustr

In this day and age, I don't understand how anyone - especially a judge - can be convicted of having CP on his computer. (Betcha didn't think I was gonna say that!)

My point is, if this guy can hack into the judges computer - how do the police know he didn't just plant the pics there? For that matter, how does anyone prove that their computer was clean before the FBI got it and put all those nasty photos on it? It seems to me there's got to be more involved than just jpg's for there to be proof of a crime - maybe a money trail showing he bought some CP, or email correspondence, or ???

mimo2005

yustr :

The hacker set up a website /ftp server that has a child porno picture embedded with a worm ..... then

The judge is surfing , googling or whatever , then stumble upon the hacker website , then he chose to save/downoad the picture .

when the police will check with hacker , they will see that the computer ( ip = judge) had download and saved a picture from server /website to its own laptop/desktop .

Ip and its owner can be given by the ISP company when the police or attorney subponea for that info .

I read once a while ago that police even setup their own website with child picture to bait pedophiles and give their credit cards informations .

yustr

Oh I know how it's done but who can you believe? Surely not the police.

My point is what if a hacker had it in for a judge, then set up a non-CP site to plant CP on his comp. Then told police - go look here.

Or more likely scenario, he had CP, though better of it and deleted it. The police look and find nothing. But wait, all of a sudden they "discover" that it did have CP after all. Except of course it was put there after the fact by the police.

It seems to me to be an easy way to get rid of people who you don't have anything else on...They used to do this all the with drugs..."oh look what I found in your pocket!"

mimo2005

Scary ..!

8210GUY

TBH they know so much about PC's these days it should be easy to prove who did what, so even if the evidence was planted they can investigate it and know who did what with the aid of isp logs etc, and I seriously doubt the images on the PC were the only evidence either.

I'm pleased to see someone using their talents to the better good for a change, and again it isn't true hacking, the judge had to download a Trojan first, and the hacker didn't force them to do that so he is as guilty as sin and that sentence is way to lenient, the bloke (the judge) deserves a brick clap for that, especially when you consider he's sposed to be setting the standard for people to follow, it shows a prime example of the double standards used by such people and why I have no respect for any of them because they are so out of touch with the real world.

The UK police have people employed to do exactly such things for a few years now, the only difference is that it's done without Trojans etc, so it takes ages to build up the evidence required to be able to pounce, and that means more people at risk, but at least it's something.