Re: Pascal Monet So the FBI has the right to hack the world
So while Matt Bryant seems to be somewhat correct and the ruling does seem to be a little more restricted than the click-bait headline El Reg foisted on us, I have to wonder if all it takes is for the FBI to say "hey, it might be child porn" for them to get a free pass on surveillance.
The actual bits of the ruling that I found relevant where:
(pg 52) "FBI agents who exploit a vulnerability in an online network do not violate the Fourth Amendment".
(pg 54) "while the Court FINDS that the Government did not need a warrant before deploying NIT, the Court recognizes the need to balance an individual's privacy in any case involving electronic surveillance with the Government's duty of protecting its citizens. Here, the balance weighs heavily in favor of surveillance."
So there is lip service paid to privacy, and the "here" seems to refer to "this case". Mind you, precedent being what it is, it probably opens up a very large hole in the whole "privacy rights" thing.
ps: US Fourth Amendment, for those of us who don't know: "[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause,". I don't know why it wasn't included in the original.