>Criminal defendants demand to see FBI's secret hacking tool
>Courts are facing a decision: Expose the FBi's techniques or allow defendants to see the evidence against them
>A secret FBI hacking tool, used to compromise the Tor anonymous browser in one investigation, is facing challenges from criminal defendants, perhaps putting its future in doubt.
Will they get exposed this time?
Also
>2016
>Still using Tor
>>54662370
Yeah If you could post a link in the OP, that's be great mmm'kay
There's certainly a case for letting the specifics out, but if the process of obtaining the information isn't transparent then a case would traditionally get thrown out.
I don't see any way around it.
>>54662412
http://www.pcworld.com/article/3073165/criminal-defendants-demand-to-see-fbis-secret-hacking-tool.html
Its most likely a flash vulnerability it seems like something a dipshit looking for CP on tor would leave enabled
>>54662445
this. It's almost always been a flash or JS exploit, or plain old poor opsec.
>>54662603
The recent case of the pedo police officer disproves this XKCD retardation
>>54662797
what? what case are you talking about? How did it prove this xkcd is shit? legit curious here.
>>54663190
They did the first panel?
>>54662603
The thing is the police can't beat you with a wrench to get evidence in the civilized world.
>>54663631
didnt they imprison the guy indefinately
>>54662370
probs just owned all the nodes or something. or javascript + flash
>>54663793
it's not meant to be literal
