現在地 HOME > 掲示板 > IT1 > 188.html ★阿修羅♪ |
|
米高裁が犯罪捜査のツールとしてトロイの木馬の使用を黙認
(出典)
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/55/32151.html
(日本語訳の出典)
http://www.idefense.co.jp/service/ialert/new.html
米連邦高等裁判所は7月末、ネット犯罪の捜査ツールとして「トロイの木馬」の使用を黙認する判断を下した。
今回の決定の背景には、あるハッカーが幼児ポルノのニュースグループに対して不正ファイルをアップロードした事件がきっかけとなった。
このファイルには、ダウンロード先のコンピュータを追跡できるSubSevenウイルスが含まれており、ハッカーはこのウイルスを使って違法入手したダウンロード先のユーザー情報を警察などに通報していた。
今回のケースで焦点となったのは、トロイの木馬を使って違法に入手した情報が合衆国憲法に抵触するかどうかであった。
バージニア州の地方裁判所裁判官は入手方法が被告人の権利を犯したとの判決を下したが、今回の連邦高裁では一転して「警察が第三者からの事実情報を活用する場合は区別すべき」との見解が示された。
US court okays malware in hunt for Web paedos
By John Leyden
Posted: 04/08/2003 at 17:29 GMT
A US appeals court last week gave tacit approval to the use of Trojan horse viruses as a tool in investigating crimes on the Net.
The federal appeals panel ruling stems from a case in which a hacker "uploaded a file to a child porn newsgroup that made it possible to track who downloaded files from the service", News.com reports.
The uploaded file contained the SubSeven virus, which enabled the cyber vigilante to root around suspect computers. He then tipped off the police, who used this information in subsequent investigations.
It's difficult to see how "evidence" obtained in this way could be seen as anything but hopelessly tainted. After all, if someone has gained control of a suspect's computer couldn't incriminated material be planted? Certainly any shrewd defence autorney would suggest so, injecting doubt into what could otherwise be a clear cut case.
However the legal arguments in this case focus on whether or not this behaviour violated US constitutional protection against illegal search and seizure.
A US District Court judge in Virginia thought the tactic violated a defendant's rights - but the appeals panel disagreed. It reversed the decision, even though judges said law enforcement operated "close to the line" in the case.
The appeal court drew a distinction between the police using information from a third party after the fact and encouraging the vigilante's' actions in the first place.
"In order to run afoul of the Fourth Amendment, therefore, the government must do more than passively accept or acquiesce in a private party's search efforts," the judges wrote. "Rather there must be some degree of government participation in the private search."