content: then this judge did not justify his ruling with proof or even evidence, and that is anathema to the purpose of our court system.  Which opens it up for appeals.  This is how our system works, like it or not. Usually when Judges take stands on something as significant as this they make very thorough statements for their reasoning and back it up with any history with it -- this Judge did it but in a way that would allow the defense to go to appeals and say the Judge entirely misunderstood what was going on and here's why. The problem is you can't expect a Judge to know everything about *everything -- that'd be idiotic. You can't expect a panel of Judges or even a set group of Judges for each area of expertise for everything in existence that can find itself in court. Further, it'd be laughable to expect them to do their job and stay on top of new stuff coming out. That's what prosecution and defense attorneys are for -- to articulate the situation to the Judge. Along the lines the defense failed, somehow, to communicate in a language the Judge understood to get the point across. I might be able to guess how the Judge came to the, wrong, conclusion though. TOR is just layers and stuff passed around. It's possible and, indeed, has been shown in the past that TOR is traceable, that his IP address could have been deduced given time. TOR is simply one level of security one should use. The problem here is that's tantamount to saying that since you didn't lock your doors at night you have no expectation of privacy since you knew better. I can see how the Judge got mislead. Judges tend to be older and not very tech savvy, so defenses attorneys need to be VERY diligent in talking to Judges to make sure they have an understanding. Either way, this probably has a wide open door for appeals... Digging deeper the Judge was confused and here's a quote from a linked article inside:  The word “hack,” is never used, and neither is “malware” or “exploit,” for that matter. Instead, the procedure of malware being downloaded to a target's computer is largely obfuscated in vague terminology.  Referring to NIT. So let's be clear: The conversation between the Judge and everyone else was likely vague. This is why I hate ELI5 on things complicated and multi-layered. At some point I have to assume a basic knowledge or build you up to that basic knowledge to begin even to communicate the start of what I'm about to speak. (e.g. How do magnets work? - Feynman). I dunno.. I'm not sure I trust this story much. There seems more than meets the eye. When the ACLU dude is confused -- I bet there's more to this and we'll find out later.