Judge Rejects Defense That FBI Illegally Hacked Silk Road, on a Technicality
> Ulbricht hadn’t sufficiently demonstrated that the server belonged to him, and thus can’t claim that his privacy rights were violated by its search.<p>Wait, wait, wait. Hold the phone.<p>So any property which, at the time of a search, hasn't been "sufficiently demonstrated [that it belongs to you]" isn't protected, according to this judge, by the fourth amendment?<p>So for one example, if you sign up to gmail or Facebook using anything other than your real name, they can break it, conduct a search and then whatever they find is totally admissible in court just because they didn't know who it belonged to?<p>Isn't it now in the best interests of the police to avoid finding out who something belongs to since without knowing the fourth amendment doesn't exist and warrants aren't a requirement?<p>Here's what I don't get about this case: The FBI is obviously lying about how they got the information they have. They clearly broke into the Silk Road servers. However they could have certain got a warrant to do so had they just presented what they knew at that time about the enterprise. So why didn't they? Laziness? Incompetence? Or just because they knew they'd get away without it (per this)?<p>Honestly I hope they fight this case on that matter of law and it gets thrown out. We cannot have the fourth getting chucked out any time someone invokes anonymity, that's not how it was meant to work.