DOJ In Silk Road Case: The FBI Doesn't Need Warrants To Hack Foreign Servers
from the prosecuting-domestically-but-kicking-down-doors-all-over-the-world dept
The government has filed another document in response to discovery requests in the Ross Ulbricht/Silk Road case. Again, it argues that there's no Fourth Amendment concerns here, so Ulbricht's legal team isn't entitled to receive any more information about how the FBI accessed the servers central to the government's case.
Assistant US Attorney Serrin Turner, speaking for the DOJ, basically states that intelligence agencies can hack into foreign servers without obtaining a warrant. If Ulbricht can't successfully argue that his rights were violated, then he can't argue for the suppression of evidence, no matter how it was actually obtained.
The government's arguments [pdf link] put Ulbricht in an uncomfortable position -- explain why he has an interest in these servers or stop challenging the government's submitted evidence.
[T]he burden is on Ulbricht to allege facts that, if proven, would establish a violation of his Fourth Amendment rights. The Horowitz Declaration manifestly fails to satisfy that burden. As a threshold matter, the declaration does not establish that Ulbricht had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the SR Server, as required for him to have standing to move for its suppression in the first place. Indeed, a declaration from a member of Ulbricht’s legal team such as Mr. Horowitz would be insufficient for this purpose anyway. To establish standing, a defendant must submit an “‘affidavit from someone with personal knowledge demonstrating sufficient facts to show that he had a legally cognizable privacy interest in the searched premises at the time of the search...’”Basically: admit the servers are yours and we can start discussing your Fourth Amendment rights. This is the DOJ asking Ulbricht to do its work for it. These servers are only allegedly Ulbricht's at this point.
Ulbricht’s counsel would not have any personal knowledge of Ulbricht’s privacy interest in the SR Server; presumably, only Ulbricht would. Ulbricht’s assertion that he is not required to submit such an affidavit and that the issue of standing “must . . . be resolved through an evidentiary hearing,” (Reply Br. 18), is flatly wrong. Again, to merit a hearing, a defendant must first allege facts that, if proven at a hearing, would establish a violation of his personal Fourth Amendment rights – including facts sufficient to show the defendant had a protected privacy interest in the property searched. Without competently asserting such an interest, a defendant has no standing to bring a suppression motion at all, let alone demand a hearing on the motion.
Then the DOJ's lawyer moves on to say, "Actually, we don't really care what you do or don't assert. You have no Fourth Amendment rights to anything kept in that location."
Even if Ulbricht were to demonstrate that he has standing, which he plainly has failed to do, the Horowitz Declaration still would not warrant a hearing because it fails to allege facts that, if proven, would establish a violation of Ulbricht’s Fourth Amendment rights. The Horowitz Declaration nowhere alleges that the SR Server was either located or searched in a manner that violated the Fourth Amendment. It merely critiques certain aspects of the Tarbell Declaration concerning how the SR Server was located. The Horowitz Declaration fails to allege any alternative explanation of how the SR Server was located that, if proven, would establish that Ulbricht’s Fourth Amendment rights were somehow violated.Turner dismisses claims that the NSA was involved or that illegal wiretaps were used, simply stating that the government would have turned over the applicable evidence if these accusations were true. (Which is highly doubtful -- especially in the NSA's case -- but theoretically true.) But then he goes on to say that even if hacking were involved, it simply doesn't matter.
In any event, even if the FBI had somehow “hacked” into the SR Server in order to identify its IP address, such an investigative measure would not have run afoul of the Fourth Amendment. Because the SR Server was located outside the United States, the Fourth Amendment would not have required a warrant to search the server, whether for its IP address or otherwise.There's the message the DOJ is sending, at least in this case: if anything of yours resides in a foreign country, all protections are waived. All the government needs is to prove is that its search was "reasonable" and prompted by "legitimate governmental interests" -- not exactly the high bar the DOJ presents it as. Nothing is off-limits anywhere outside of this country. If the NSA hasn't already hoovered it up, the FBI's coming through the back door -- not exactly heartening news for citizens whose everyday lives heavily with extraterritorial entities like Internet services and cloud storage.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: 4th amendment, cfaa, doj, fbi, foreign servers, hacking, ross ulbricht, silk road
Companies: silk road
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Also it's yet another powerful message to the rest of the world: we couldn't care less about jurisdiction, you are all our back yard and we can do whatever we want.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Ruling the free world through the threat of fear
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
IIRC, in the not too distant past, the US gov proclaimed that hacking its infrastructure would be considered an act of war.
Not sure how these two items fit within the same framework, how is this rationalized?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Do as we say, not as we do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
IF you fail to understand the above then you also fail to understand the American Deceleration of Independence from Great Britain.
If the citizens of the United States are not subject to British law while in the US then British subjects are not subject to US law in the UK. Anything else in colonialism and totalitarianism.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Citation?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I agree. I suspect this is the same person who posted the claim on another story and failed to back it up then too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Does anybody expect different?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
coming through the back door
It's been said that FBI boss Hoover was indeed a "back door man" -- in more ways than one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rights end at the border?
I do understand and somewhat agree with the border crossing exception. Ensuring illegal things are not crossing the border makes the search there reasonable which is a valid exception.
But the rights are for the citizens of the USA, NOT the citizens only WITHIN the USA border.
My government is prohibited from unreasonably searching me or my private possessions, end of discussion. Does not matter if I am on the moon or within the border since the supreme law of the land never makes such distinction.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Rights end at the border?
You'll be glad to hear that the rights don't end at the border then. It's only the pretense that you have any that ends.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Rights end at the border?
So you have no rights under the US Constitution when in Germany vis-a-vis, for example, German authorities. But you still have your rights vis-a-vis the US government.
Citizenship has nothing to do with it. Citizenship is only relevant for those rights being explicitly limited to citizens (voting, being elected etc.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Remember Ellsberg? The case against him was thrown out of court not because there was an inkling of a doubt he did what he was accused of but because the DOJ and State departments overstepped their line in building their case to a degree rendering a fair trial impossible.
In order to keep governmental and/or prosecutional abuse in check, the rule is clear: it is either a fair trial or none at all.
Ross' lawyer is trying to show that it certainly isn't a fair trial. And the DOJ's answer basically is "fuck you, loser".
That can backfire depending on how many illusions the judge entertains regarding the values the U.S. court system is supposed to be based on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I Don't Understand...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I Don't Understand...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The techs that work for these agencies are the modern day shock troops of our gov. They dont care what laws they destroy, or how much damage they do to the constitution. They just want to show off the porn they find like a bunch of little teenagers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It doesn't work like that. WE can hack into foreign servers, and WE will justify it however we like. WE will also intercept data and store data from users around the world, including foreign governments and their politicians.
If THEY hack into our servers, or otherwise intercept our governments data,it's an act of war.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
And this is exactly what makes us look like the hypocritical pieces of shit that we truly are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Odds are when 1 country starts a war against the US many others will join in.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
First off, that is a job for the NSA. Secondly the FBI still needs a warrant if they are going after an account of A US citizen. Scumbag prosecutors.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
As always, turnabout is fair play.
Just like - with more than 100 CIA "extraordinary renditions" from EU soil alone in the first couple years after 9/11 - the US has given tacit approval for its allies to kidnap and extract suspects from the US. Including US citizens. The extradition process is so last century.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Neat trick
The fallout from this if allowed to stand will be a big problem for everyone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Neat trick
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Neat trick
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Is there a short list anywhere of when a warrant IS needed?
Maybe that would be a much simpler way to look at things.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Times when a warrant is needed, according to DOJ interpretation of the law:
1. Whenever we feel like it.
2.
3.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The difference here being Americans still believe they have rights while ignoring the fact their government acts as if the citizens have no rights
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hypocrisy, thy name is the United States government.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The proof of this is easy. The Constitution lists (but does not fully enumerate) 'natural rights'.. rights that are inherent to every person. But the government doesn't apply these natural rights to foreigners. Ergo...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Shouldn't the defense be privy to the provenance of evidence for the sake of building a defense or calling said evidence into question at trial regardless of whether there is an actual 4th amendment question at all and regardless of whether said servers can be accessed without warrant or not?
If counsel can't actually determine where the evidence came from, how it was obtained, and what investigatory chain led to its capture and chain of custody, how is it possible to actually mount a defense? Particularly if the prosecution claims don't actually match what pieces of it have been made available?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Since MySQL has to be exposed to network for web applications to use it, it is vulernable to being hacked, and since the MySQL software, itself, does not keep logs, anyone who breaks into the MySQL will never be detected for years, if at all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Federal jurisdiction may end at the US border, but the powers and restrictions under our Constitution apply to the government itself no matter where it is located. Thus it does not matter if a search or seizure is conducted in a foreign land legally under that lands laws, the restrictions on the powers of the US government still apply. Iceland may search or seize servers however their laws permit, but the US government cannot use anything obtained as evidence that would violate the limitations imposed by the Fourth Amendment, e.g. obtained without a warrant or probable cause.
If the Bill of Rights does not apply to the government in this case, then neither do the powers granted to it under the Constitution.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If the Bill of Rights does not apply to the government in this case, then neither do the powers granted to it under the Constitution.
It would be great if the people in charge thought this way, wouldn't it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No Standing rule -- Catch 22 -- ruling against standing to challenge
Your ruling shocks the conscience and is manifestly unjust. It appears that the prosecutor has obtained evidence in a case illegally, and is using it to accuse Mr Ulbricht. Yet, he must claim an "ownership interest" in it to challenge the legality of the evidence?
Why doesn't the very fact that the evidence is being used against him give him standing to challenge its provenance? This looks like bad law from the drug wars, and I hope John Oliver will make it look silly in front of the whole nation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Catch 22 about the Catch 22
I'm sure the legal team has thought of this, but I would think there would be a legal maneuver to file early on that would establish that he doesn't need to claim ownership as long as the government is trying to prove the server WAS his, then they need to address his rights as owner since they are trying to establish him as the owner.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
DOJ never condoned hacking
After evaluating different potential scenarios, he merely pointed out that even if they really had hacked, the Fourth Amendment would not apply in this case.
Obviously it would be breaking international law, the FBI itself was very careful not to admit hacking: https://www.nikcub.com/posts/analyzing-fbi-explanation-silk-road/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: DOJ never condoned hacking
That's not how constitutional law works. The president cannot legally simply start a war with, say, Iran, using troops stationed outside US territory arguing that since they are outside US territory, the constitutional provisions that make it the prerogative of Congress to declare war do not apply.
A Constitution binds ALL government action.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]