Privacy's gone when posting child abuse images to a P2P network, US judge rules

Filed Under: Featured, Law & order, Privacy

Silence. Image courtesy of Shutterstock.A US court has turned the tables on child abusers who use technology to share images of the abuse.

Specifically, a federal district judge in the US state of Vermont on Friday ruled that putting data up on a peer-to-peer (P2P) file-sharing network means you've made it publicly available and can't then turn around and claim it was private.

The case involves three men charged with possessing child pornography who had filed a motion to suppress the evidence collected from their computer systems, saying that the files were private and the searches violated their Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable search.

As Computerworld's Jaikumar Vijayan reports, District Court Judge Christina Reiss wrote in a decision released on Friday that the defendants had essentially given up privacy claims by making the data publicly available on the internet over a P2P network.

The three defendants - Derek Thomas, Douglas Neale and Stephan Leikert - had earlier this year asked that the evidence be suppressed, claiming it had been obtained illegally.

The men contended that law enforcement's use of the automated P2P search tool that collected information on private files held on their computers constituted a warrantless search.

Police used information about the files to obtain probable cause warrants. The defendants were later charged with possession of child pornography.

To collect the information, investigators used a software suite known as the Child Protection System that automatically searches P2P networks for query terms commonly used with child abuse content.

The police didn't need to access the files, per se.

As Vijayan explains it, if a query-hit message indicated that it had found a file matching the query term, the application recorded the IP address, the files' hash values, the actual file names, date and time of response, and other computer details.

The hit message identified the files on a particular computer that matched the query terms and were available for download by other users on the same P2P network.

The searches found that the three defendants' computers contained files with digital signatures that exactly matched files that were known to contain images depicting child abuse.

When rejecting the defendants' motion to suppress evidence collected in this manner, Judge Reiss noted that the police's automated search hadn't opened or downloaded anything.

All the tool did was to point out files that the defendants themselves had made publicly available for download via a P2P network.

She wrote:

The evidence overwhelmingly demonstrates that the only information accessed was made publicly available by the IP address or the software it was using. Accordingly, either intentionally or inadvertently, through the use of peer-to-peer file sharing software, Defendants exposed to the public the information they now claim was private.

The court's finding that privacy can't be expected when using a P2P network is nothing new; it only reiterates what many other courts have found, as a search on the legal blog FourthAmendment clearly shows.

The case in question was originally highlighted on the site, which is kept by John Wesley Hall, a criminal defense lawyer.

When I asked him about this finding, he said that it's "the same as probably 50 other cases."

He continued:

The only thing that's surprising to me is that people still raise that issue. It's a settled issue beyond peradventure as far as I'm concerned.

But while the P2P privacy ruling isn't ground-breaking, the increasingly sophisticated use of internet technologies to catch child predators is at the very least ground-altering.

As pointed out in a recent University of Massachusetts/Amherst research paper on measuring and analysing child porn on P2P networks, such networks are the most popular mechanism for acquiring and distributing such imagery.

It's a relief to find that the courts aren't allowing child predators to hide their P2P tracks behind claims of Fourth Amendment violations.

Likewise, it's encouraging that researchers are using sophisticated animation technologies to create a predator-detection tool such as Sweetie, the lifelike character used to seed 19 public online chat forums with convincing live-action motion that allowed researchers to identify 1,000 child webcam sex tourists.

Child predators are sophisticated users of technology. It's enabled them to carry out their abuse to a disheartening degree.

Now, thanks to the use of technologies to ferret them out, and thanks to the courts refusing to let P2P technology be used as a smokescreen, we can hope that the tide is turning.

Image of silence courtesy of Shutterstock.

, , , , , , , , , , ,

You might like

8 Responses to Privacy's gone when posting child abuse images to a P2P network, US judge rules

  1. Mark · 660 days ago

    This is all very good; but what's to stop them using similar technology to identify anything they want on p2p networks?

  2. Clive Varejes · 659 days ago

    How can you even question this?
    As stated at least 50 judgments have indicated the same results and come to the same conclusion.
    In any case anything that gets these scum out of society and into jail must be applauded.
    Bravo the police and the judges who realize these people for what they are, despicable remnants of humanity.

  3. mikeyjt · 659 days ago

    Where the exploitation, abuse or murder of children is involved, there is no law or "rights issue" to hide behind.

    One cannot hide behind supposed "rights" or "freedoms" while engaging in the act of denying those same "rights" or "freedoms" to others, especially for profit.

    Sometimes common sense and justice must overrule what is simply legal in favor of what is truly right.

  4. SumGuy954 · 659 days ago

    Its good they found an easier way to catch pedophiles. Unfortunately this case may have just set a president in the way information can be obtained to charge someone. It would appear the way this was worded it would broaden the scope on what can be filed. I am sure most of us have used torrents (P2P).

    Torrenting for the most part is a crime, unfortunately. I see it as freedom information to every one. So maybe I'm just paranoid, but I don't want end up like that waitress who got stuck for 20,000? a song on her computer.

    For the most part now, I don't use torrents, I found legit sources for almost everything.Netfilx, SoundCloud and pretty much fixed my media issue.

    Some movies and shows you can only get via torrents because its not available in the USA for sale even on websites, unless you know how to use vpns.

    All the people who download anything infringing off of the torrents is now at greater risk of being penalized. From what I have seen in the headlines when a torrenter gets caught, its a fine larger than most people make in 20 years.

    • roy jones jr · 658 days ago

      That "playground" known as torrenting is a crime. There are still rules to follow with "freedom information". People don't automatically have the authority to pass along any illegal data they want without consequence.

      If the information I share is legal & distributable, I send it to you all. If it isn't I shareable (via copyright or whatever reason) then I send you all a message "sorry I can't give it you :( "

      hate to use the cliche's but "it is what it is."

  5. 4caster · 658 days ago

    The end justifies the means when it comes to catching paedophiles, terrorists, murderers, violent robbers, wholesale illegal drug dealers, etc.
    Police and other public security agencies should always try to be ahead of the game. But there must be no opportunity for corrupt authorities to stitch innocent people up.

  6. Aaron · 645 days ago

    The basic flaw, as I see it, with "the end justifies the means" is that the government is the in control of defining the 'end', and the 'means'.

    While some information, such as exploited children, is difficult for any to defend, what about the information exchanged by honest citizens who disagree with the government's policies trying to use P2P to communicate?

    Laws work much like plastic wire ties, they only get tighter and more restrictive.

    "It is illegal because we say it is illegal", becomes a real possibility.

    What is to day seen as a solution, very well could become tomorrow's problem.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

About the author

I've been writing about technology, careers, science and health since 1995. I rose to the lofty heights of Executive Editor for eWEEK, popped out with the 2008 crash, joined the freelancer economy, and am still writing for my beloved peeps at places like Sophos's Naked Security, CIO Mag, ComputerWorld, PC Mag, IT Expert Voice, Software Quality Connection, Time, and the US and British editions of HP's Input/Output. I respond to cash and spicy sites, so don't be shy.