Evidence that the FBI obtained by hacking into a child pornography suspect's computer is admissible in court, a federal judge ruled this week.
In a decision unsealed on Thursday, US District Court Judge Henry Morgan rejected a bid to suppress evidence against Edward Matish, one of more than 100 defendants charged in the probe of the child pornography website Playpen.
Morgan's decision said that even though the FBI obtained a warrant to perform its hacking activities, a warrant wasn't required since Matish had no reasonable expectation of privacy while browsing the Internet.
The FBI took advantage of a vulnerability in the Tor browser to install malware on the computers of more than 1,000 visitors of the child pornography website (found on the Dark Web, only accessible using Tor). The malware helped the FBI track down those accessing the site, and it proceeded to bust as many people as it could, including Matish.
The Fourth Amendment, which protects against unreasonable search and seizure, does not apply to "Government actors who take advantage of an easily broken system to peer into a user's computer," the decision said. Morgan also noted that "traditionally, the privacy concerns embedded in the Fourth Amendment only applied to government actors' physical trespasses."
In a strongly worded blog post, the Electronic Frontier Foundation condemned the decision, calling it "dangerously flawed" and warning of "staggering" implications if it is upheld. The EFF had filed an amicus brief in the case explaining why the Fourth Amendment should apply, and considers Morgan's decision to be an error of law.
"Courts overseeing these cases have struggled to apply traditional rules of criminal procedure and constitutional law to the technology at issue," EFF attorney Mark Rumold wrote.
"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," he continued.