> Earlier this year, federal judges in Massachusetts and Oklahoma made similar rulings and similarly tossed the relevant evidence. Thirteen other judges, meanwhile, have found that while the warrants to search the defendants' computers via the hacking tool were invalid, they did not take the extra step of ordering suppression of the evidence. The corresponding judges in the remainder of the cases have yet to rule on the warrant question.

It's nice to see checks/balances work every now and then. It's also refreshing to see public figures stand against "thinking of the children" when rendering judgements about our freedoms. My only concern is that it's still a narrow technical ruling, only invalid because the judge issuing the warrant did not have the authority to do so (it targeted people outside their jurisdiction), and while it's relatively easy in the physical world to constrain your search, it's much more difficult on the digital world unless the warrant is extremely narrow in scope. Once you've gotten access to someone's personal computer, you're going to get all the things, not just the child pornography. I would consider it the equivalent for getting a warrant (hand-wave the actual execution) to mount a GoPro your target and record their life, combing through the footage to find details relevant your case, but I fear a "hack their computer" warrant would be/is much easier to obtain.