News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Judge Rejects Defense That FBI Illegally Hacked Silk Road, on a Technicality. Parent comment

Re:Judge Rejects Defense That FBI Illegally Hacked Silk Road... by trhway on Friday October 10, 2014 @07:40PM (#8440620)
> And continuing on your point about best interests, this would amount to rolling up to random cars parked in a parking lot and having a drug sniffing dog walk around until they find something, then trying to arrest everyone parked around the car.

But that pretty much exactly that FBI and other agencies are doing right now in the Internet. And this ruling puts a legal precedent footing under such behavior.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Judge Rejects Defense That FBI Illegally Hacked Silk Road... by rosser on Friday October 10, 2014 @07:50PM (#8440651)
This ruling doesn't establish a precedent. If it's appealed and upheld, that would establish a precedent.

In the US, trial courts find rulings of fact, and appellate courts find rulings of law. Only the latter create precedents.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Judge Rejects Defense That FBI Illegally Hacked Silk Road... by pdabbadabba on Friday October 10, 2014 @10:15PM (#8441006)
Half right. Trial court judges make rulings of law, juried make findings of fact. An appellate court can then correct the trial court's legal errors, if necessary. But you're right that trial courts' legal rulings aren't precedential.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Judge Rejects Defense That FBI Illegally Hacked Silk Road... by rosser on Friday October 10, 2014 @11:04PM (#8441092)
Yeah, "finding of fact" is a more apt phrasing than "ruling of fact". I thought of that after posting my comment, but felt it was a probably bit fine a distinction for the point I was making. Thanks for the clarification.
[ Parent | on HN ]