Ex-judge Gets 27 Months on Evidence From Hacked PC

netbsd_fan writes "A former California judge has been sentenced to 27 months in prison for possession of illegal pornography, based entirely on evidence gathered by an anonymous vigilante script kiddie in Canada. At any given time he was monitoring over 3,000 innocent people. The anonymous hacker says, "I would stay up late at night to see what I could drag out of their computers, which turned out to be more than I expected. I could read all of their e-mails without them knowing. As far as they were concerned, they didn't know their e-mails had even been opened. I could see who they were chatting with and read what they were saying as they typed."

Lousy summary

[StrongGlad]

The summary is misleading on multiple fronts... First, according to the 2002 story, the "hacker" spent considerable time writing the trojan used to access the judge's porn stash---he's hardly a "script kiddie," as the summary dubs him. And "anonymous"? The guy was identified by name in both of the TFAs: "Brad Willman, the Canadian hacker, forwarded the information to an anti-pedophile watchdog group, which then sent the information to Irvine police detectives." "Dubbed 'Citizen Tipster' by police, Brad Willman, spent night after night writing a Trojan Horse program that gave him complete control over every computer that downloaded it. "

Also...

[EmbeddedJanitor]

This was not the sole evidence. The hacker mearly tipped off the authorities. The judge also admitted that he stored the images.

On /. it used to be that you didn't RTFA, but now I think that it is now time you didn't RTFSummary! Editing and summarising are just crap!

Illegal evidence

[KiloByte]

And how the fuck you can convince someone on evidence that got obtained in an illegal way?

And why the script kiddie isn't in jail? Spying and breaking the privacy of many thousands of people (the blurb suggests it was way more than 3000) isn't something to shake a stick at.

Re:Illegal evidence

[TapeCutter]

"And how the fuck you can convince someone on evidence that got obtained in an illegal way?"

Yeah, like that doesn't happen in the "drug war". Besides in this case the cops obtained the evidence legally since the guy gave it to them volantarily, they could also drag his arse into court if they wanted to be politically "brave".

OTHOH: The politics of peodophelia makes this a very neat cover for anyone in the industrial espionage or black-mailing bussiness.

Evidence was labeled inadmissible

[zoftie]

http://www.irvineworldnews.com/Astories/oct30/klin e.htm [irvineworldnews.com]

Constitution is a good thing, even if it protect liberties, even in this case. However when government wants to overstep their boundaries its fair game anyway. However overstepping their boundaries won't work, because it won't let them successfully prosecute criminals, as it will fly in the face of the constitutional rights.

Re:I'm curious how you people think about this

[TACD]

A quick Google discovers that they are terrorists, drug dealers, kidnappers, and child pornographers [homelandstupidity.us].

Re:None of the cases he's uncovered will ever succ

[erroneus]

I have to agree with much of what you say... that future cases involving this guy should be abandoned by prosecution.

However, I think you didn't read the article. This matter is closed without appeal. He plead guilty. It's over.

Re:Shocking that this is allowed

[erroneus]

At the very least, this person should be sued into non-existance by the victims of the hacking. I'm quite certain that even in Canada, by his own admission, has has likely broken many laws associated with terrorism, breaking and entering, tresspassing and any number of laws associated with privacy and computer security.

It's not the pictures, it's the diary

[DrYak]

The judge kept a detailed diary of his actions.

Not only has the judge admitted the diary was genuine BUT ALSO a former victim came forward and spoke AND the police found the diary to seem real enough.
At no moment did the judge contest the fact and pretend to have been victim of some spyware/virus.

Therefore the ex-judge can be judged, even if the hacker will also be :
- Told (once more) to stop breaching into people's computers because it's illegal.
- Told to get an actual job at the police to be able to do it legally.

Re:This is a really old story...

[julesh]

Do you want to try reading the article. It's dated yesterday, and describes how the 'illegal search & seizure' conclusion of a lower court was overturned by the federal appeals court, following which the judge admitted the offence.

Re:Evidence was labeled inadmissible

[Aoreias]

According to TFA, the 2003 ruling deeming the evidence inadmissable was later overturned by a federal appeals court in 2004, and he later pleaded guilty in Dec 2005.

Re:Illegal evidence

[loopgru]

Evidence obtained illegally is admissible if the obtaining party is not a law enforcement agent or agency. The protection you're thinking of is via the 4th amendment (protecting you from illegal search and seizure); it applies only to law enforcement personnel (federal or state), not to individual citizens. See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exclusionary_rule [wikipedia.org]

Re:It's not the pictures, it's the diary

[dk.r*nger]

- Told to get an actual job at the police to be able to do it legally.

It's equally illegal for the police and private citizens to trespass. The only difference is that the police can get a court order to do it legally.
And such a court order can't usually include randomly spying on people, hoping something will turn up.

Re:US of A

[j-beda]

The age of marriage in some US states is as low as 12 years.

That seems a bit low. According to http://www.coolnurse.com/marriage_laws.htm [coolnurse.com] , the minimum age (without parental consent) is at least 18 in all states. With parental consent does seem to be significantly lower, though many states seem to require court approval or similar for people under 16.

I wonder how common such young marriages are?

Re:None of the cases he's uncovered will ever succ

[Prune]

Is it that hard to read the article, you cretinous imbecile? The judge ADMITTED WRITING THE MOLESTATION DIARY. Next time count to ten before exercising your itchy 'Submit'-clicking finger!

Why Evidence Resulting from Illegal Search OK Here

[Nit Picker]

If you Google "Ronald Kline" you will find a court decision on the matter. Because the hacker was not acting as an agent of the Government, the exclusionary rule on illegally obtained evidence didn't apply.

Re:Waits for it..

[Firethorn]

The crucial difference here was that the script kiddie was not a law enforcement officer nor under any contract with same. He was an independent operator.

Now, if he'd collected the information at an officer's request, that would be a different matter.

Re:Waits for it..

[Thansal]

Actualy there is a strong precedent that evidence is evidence, so long as it was neither the govn't, or some one working for them, it is 100% admisable no matter how it was obtained.

In all honesty I agree with this precedent. Of course I also think that they should try their hardest to find and prosecute the person that found the stuff in the first place.

Re:nor should you accept it without resitance

[Qzukk]

remember: this hacker only got access to a computer AFTER the target first sought out child porn

Or so he says.

Yet out of 3000 people's computers who he claims to control, he's only managed to find evidence on a handful of them? The numbers don't add up, unless the only child porn that the person ever sought to find was his trojan.

Re:Waits for it..

[mOdQuArK!]

Same thing that keeps most people from doing the same: the possibility of being caught & punished for such actions.

Re:Waits for it..

[nuzak]

> Do bounty hunters need a warrant?

In fact they do. It's called a bench warrant. Legitimate bounty agents are registered, licensed, and bonded.

Loopholes

[geek2k5]

The loophole is kind of like somebody seeing a major crime being committed while trespassing. While they are doing something illegal, it is a misdemeanor. If the crime they see is a felony, then their eyewitness testimony is valid.