Judge Rejects Defense That FBI Illegally Hacked Silk Road, on a Technicality

Re:Judge Rejects Defense That FBI Illegally Hacked Silk Road... by gear54rus on Friday October 10, 2014 @07:25PM (#8440571)

Thank you and others, I think I see now. Though I think retaliation (fines or maybe some jail time) would be more effective measure to prevent abuse than passive dismissal.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Judge Rejects Defense That FBI Illegally Hacked Silk Road... by cheald on Friday October 10, 2014 @07:56PM (#8440673)

Fines against the police department are just fines against the taxpayers. Fines and jail time for individual officers are not possible because of qualified immunity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualified_immunity

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Judge Rejects Defense That FBI Illegally Hacked Silk Road... by pbhjpbhj on Saturday October 11, 2014 @12:17AM (#8441233)

That Wikipedia article doesn't say you can't prosecute, it just says that government workers are immune unless they reasonably should have known they were violating the constitution. The FBI know they need warrants, it's got to be FBI 101.

When you take the stand in court you are an individual giving testimony though. The rule of law means that if you perjure yourself you should be tried.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Judge Rejects Defense That FBI Illegally Hacked Silk Road... by yxhuvud on Saturday October 11, 2014 @05:30AM (#8441698)

In practice, it is hard to get prosecutors to go after other prosecutors and/or police though.

/lives in Sweden, where all evidence is admissible, but where the prosecutors should, but don't, go after their own on transgressions.

[ Parent | on HN ]