back to article Judge rules FBI can hack any time, any, place, anywhere

A federal district court in Virginia has ruled that the FBI has the right to hack into computers around the world without getting a local warrant, and without any review by courts. The ruling, by US District Judge Henry Morgan, comes during the prosecution of Edward Matish. Matish is one of the 100-plus suspects arrested …

Page:

  1. Pascal Monett Silver badge

    So the FBI has the right to hack the world

    Not really all that surprising, is it ?

    Still, the FBI may have the right - in the USA - but that right stops at my IP connection as far as I'm concerned.

    I wonder how Anonymous is going react to this.

    1. Ole Juul

      Re: So the FBI has the right to hack the world

      I don't think that this judge, nor the FBI, is clear on what actually constitutes "the world". Actually, come to think of it, they probably are clear but think it is us that have it wrong.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: So the FBI has the right to hack the world

        I think it means World as in "World Series".

    2. kellerr13

      Re: So the FBI has the right to hack the world

      The FBI lives in a glass house.

    3. Matt Bryant Silver badge
      FAIL

      Re: Pascal Monet Re: So the FBI has the right to hack the world

      "So the FBI has the right to hack the world....." Er, no. Despite the click-bait headline, the judge is clear that the FBI's rights only extended in this very narrow case due to the larger threat of child pornography to US Citizens. You may continue as you were (unless you're into child porn....?).

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Pascal Monet So the FBI has the right to hack the world

        Well that's the rub isn't it?

        "Terror" or "Child Porn" or "<insert horror here>" suddenly trumps all rights and freedoms. So basically if you are accused of a certain threat all rights and protections are removed.

        Patriot Act much??

      2. raving angry loony

        Re: Pascal Monet So the FBI has the right to hack the world

        So while Matt Bryant seems to be somewhat correct and the ruling does seem to be a little more restricted than the click-bait headline El Reg foisted on us, I have to wonder if all it takes is for the FBI to say "hey, it might be child porn" for them to get a free pass on surveillance.

        The actual bits of the ruling that I found relevant where:

        (pg 52) "FBI agents who exploit a vulnerability in an online network do not violate the Fourth Amendment".

        (pg 54) "while the Court FINDS that the Government did not need a warrant before deploying NIT, the Court recognizes the need to balance an individual's privacy in any case involving electronic surveillance with the Government's duty of protecting its citizens. Here, the balance weighs heavily in favor of surveillance."

        So there is lip service paid to privacy, and the "here" seems to refer to "this case". Mind you, precedent being what it is, it probably opens up a very large hole in the whole "privacy rights" thing.

        ps: US Fourth Amendment, for those of us who don't know: "[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause,". I don't know why it wasn't included in the original.

        1. Charles 9

          Re: Pascal Monet So the FBI has the right to hack the world

          The key word in the Amendment being "unreasonable", but in matters of protection of the most innocent of its citizens (children) or against threats of a potentially existential nature (terrorists who could be willing to pull off a suicide nuke), you're basically crossing the Godzilla Threshold, in which case anything is considered reasonable. At least by their way of thinking.

      3. MSLiermann

        Re: Pascal Monet So the FBI has the right to hack the world

        Bryant, you really *are* nothing but a shill for the surveillance state. Go away.

    4. This post has been deleted by its author

  2. Oengus

    Merkans throwing their weight around again

    "A federal district court in Virginia has ruled that the FBI has the right to hack into computers around the world without getting a local warrant, and without any review by courts."

    I wonder what courts around the world are going to do when they are told that Merkan law overrides their territorial laws.

    1. chivo243 Silver badge

      Re: Merkans throwing their weight around again

      Virginia is pretty close to DC... wouldn't surprise me if this judge was already in somebody's pocket?

    2. Someone Else Silver badge
      Pint

      Re: Merkans throwing their weight around again

      Might make a good test of how you on the right side of the pond respond to Brexit.

    3. kurios

      Re: Merkans throwing their weight around again

      ..."I wonder what...":

      Sorry to say, basically nothing. That's what they've done before, right?

      Until somebody has the stones to say "no" to Merka and live with the consequences, nothing will change.

  3. scrubber
    Unhappy

    Team America

    So once again "won't someone think of the [pictures of] kiddies" outweighs the rights that the country was founded upon. How very British of you.

  4. cyberdemon Silver badge
    Devil

    Planting of Evidence?

    If these Merkins (sic) can go round "hacking" anyone they please without a warrant, then what's to stop them from remotely planting evidence on whomsoever they choose, before having them burned as paedos/terrorists/witches?

    1. Someone Else Silver badge

      Re: Planting of Evidence?

      If these Merkins (sic) can go round "hacking" anyone they please without a warrant, then what's to stop them from remotely planting evidence on whomsoever they choose, before having them burned as paedos/terrorists/witches?

      A: Nothing. Happens all the time. Say, you're not from around here, are you?

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Meh

        Re: Planting of Evidence?

        A: Nothing. Happens all the time. Say, you're not from around here this solar system, are you?

        Fixed..

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Planting of Evidence?

      That's just the tip of the iceberg. All of this is designed to "discover" "terrorist" plots/material/whatnot so that they can put them on a no fly list that will revoke the 2nd Amendment rights of US citizens if they catch the eye of the US gov., i.e. the are using their 1st Amendment rights to speak unfavorably of said gov...

    3. CaitlinBestler

      Re: Planting of Evidence?

      That is exactly the grounds on which some lawyer will demand the right to review the NIT code.

      There is a very simple test that judges should be applying to these cases. If law enforcement is

      doing something that would get someone else arrested then they need a warrant.

      I don't have the right to sabotage any web client that visits my site with malware. Neither does

      the FBI. Requiring a warrant limits the scope and volume of such infections, and therefore cuts

      the risk of collateral damage to lhe computers of law abiding citizens.

    4. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Planting of Evidence?

      Whats to stop any authoritative figure from planting evidence @ any time in any country?

      1. Charles 9

        Re: Planting of Evidence?

        A: Nothing. That the thing about sovereignty. "My domain, my rules" basically.

    5. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Planting of Evidence?

      Like the Russians have supposed to have done in a case in the English courts?

  5. D@v3

    Is this how Samaritan plans to spread itself around the world?

    1. VinceH

      All will be revealed in season 5, I guess. Started airing at the start of last month in Overpuddle, I believe.

      1. Sven Coenye

        It's all done already, CBS rushed the schedule to get rid of it.

        Sad, the end of one of the better documentary series as of late.

  6. Sir Runcible Spoon
    Mushroom

    Logical Human reaction

    If the logical human reaction to something like Oculus linking DRM to their headsets caused a backlash that weakens their position in terms of protection against piracy, I can just imagine what the net reaction to this will be if the FBI are given carte-blanche to break all their own laws (and everyone else's) on the misuse of computers etc.

    Open season doesn't even come close. People will only put up with the powerful having sway over them if it is *reasonable*. This goes to far beyond reasonable and they can expect an *unreasonable* (and probably exaggerated) response.

    1. Charles 9

      Re: Logical Human reaction

      "Open season doesn't even come close. People will only put up with the powerful having sway over them if it is *reasonable*. This goes to far beyond reasonable and they can expect an *unreasonable* (and probably exaggerated) response."

      You overlook the appeal to emotion. The average joe reacts more to emotion than to reason, and "Think of the children!" is an emotion play. Showing someone is a child molester basically blackmarks you in the eyes of society: usually forever since even clearing your name is usually seen as a lie.

  7. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    As it should be

    FBI should hack Tor, Tor should secure against that. If FBI wasn't allowed to try to hack it, how would we know it was backdoored?

    The act of hacking it, shows its backdoored.

    What use would it be if a Chinese dissident couldn't speak freely because he's not sure if his government is hacking his communications? What use would it be if a British dissident couldn't speak freely because Theresa May is listening in?

    The problem here is Tor foundation is tainted and Tor needs to be forked and fixed by someone with credibility. Jacob?

    1. Cynic_999

      Re: As it should be

      If Tor was backdoored, they would not have needed to hack it, they would simply have entered quietly via the back door.

    2. Matt Bryant Silver badge
      Stop

      Re: AC Re: As it should be

      "FBI should hack Tor, Tor should secure against that. If FBI wasn't allowed to try to hack it, how would we know it was backdoored?...." Well, yes. But I suspect the FBI's NIT did not "break" TOR but simply made TOR's hiding of IP addresses in transit irrellevant. Note the article states the "malware" was put on the server, which is effectively outside TOR, then the identifying "signal" was collected after the package had exited TOR and was on the target's PC. All TOR does is encrypt the package and obfuscate your IP address in transit, it does not detect and prevent malware from broadcasting your IP address after it has reached your PC. This is how honeypots are used to track e-crims, it's nothing new, the only legal question was whether the use of TOR by the paedos gave some right or expectation of privacy, which the judge decided it did not.

  8. Paul Crawford Silver badge

    "The act of hacking it, shows its backdoored that they exploited a flaw in firefox to reveal the machine's local IP address."

    Fixed it for you. Please check the facts of this case before making such general assertions.

  9. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Don't they realise they have now opened up all the US government and its departments to the world? After all 'you do it to me, therefore I can do it to you' comes into play.

    I assume the next thing we will hear is that the FBI has been hacked and all their information is available on some server in China or Russia.

    1. Someone Else Silver badge

      @Ivan 4

      I assume the next thing we will hear is that the FBI has been hacked and all their information is available on some server in China or Russia.

      Or on Tor....

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      "Don't they realise they have now opened up all the US government and its departments to the world? After all 'you do it to me, therefore I can do it to you' comes into play."

      And that's where you're wrong. The West always has the moral highground - when we do it it's good, but when others do it, its bad. /sarcasm off.

      Outside the West, it's known as so-called justice.

    3. Charles 9

      "Don't they realise they have now opened up all the US government and its departments to the world? After all 'you do it to me, therefore I can do it to you' comes into play."

      Yes, but they're under the assumption they're ALREADY under attack,meaning the roles are actually reversed.

  10. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Turn about

    Turn about is fair play.

    1. Antron Argaiv Silver badge
      Thumb Up

      Re: Turn about

      Well, my question is: is it illegal to block an attempted hack? And the followup question: if you know it's the FBI trying to hack you, is it illegal to block the attempted hack?

      1. Mark 85

        Re: Turn about

        IANAL, but why would it be illegal to block it? If you hear someone outside your house rattling doorknobs, wouldn't you go check the locks? Maybe add some the next day? It shouldn't matter if it's a bad guy or the cops... Sometimes those are both the same people.

      2. Matt Bryant Silver badge
        Boffin

        Re: Antron Re: Turn about

        "Well, my question is: is it illegal to block an attempted hack?....." No. If you are simply defending yourself against an unidentified threat then that is perfectly legal. Being unaware it is the FBI makes your actions innocent as defensive measures would be the reasonable response to an intrusion. You could probably even get away with deleting evidence by claiming you thought deletion of the data was the only way to protect your secrets from the unknown hacker, it would then be up to the FBI to prove you deliberately deleted evidence to avoid the FBI discovering it. But you might be called to explain in court why you thought your actions were justified defensive measures, and if the prosecutor can sow the idea in the jury's minds that you did it in bad faith.....

        ".....And the followup question: if you know it's the FBI trying to hack you, is it illegal to block the attempted hack?" If you become aware it is an attempt from the FBI, and you are in an area under their jurisdiction (probably including areas with co-operation and extradition treaties), and the FBI could prove that you knew (not sure how they would), then they could charge any further attempts to thwart their hack as interference with an investigation (or spoliation of evidence if you delete or encrypt anything after you become aware the FBI are hacking you). I suppose a defence would be, when an attack is detected, if you believed it was the FBI then call them and ask them - if they deny it is them then you have the legal protection of saying your further defensive measures were innocently made because "they said it wasn't them". Of course, if it's not the FBI and you call them, they may say "no, but we'll hack you now you're on our radar as thinking we might have an interest in hacking you, thanks!"

        Outside the FBI's jurisdiction it becomes a matter of co-operation between local and US authorities. Ukrainian hackers have recently found out to their cost that hacking US servers can lead to extradition, but hackers in places like Ecuador, Cuba, China or Venezuela are laughing.

  11. Preston Munchensonton
    Facepalm

    Per the judge:

    Notably, the Government already has found that protecting its citizens outweighs the First Amendment's right of freedom of speech, for it applies prior restraint to child pornography.

    Per the US Bill of Rights:

    Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;...

    Can't see any legal loophole to protecting free speech in that phrase, beyond just "Hey, we fucking made it up, so deal with it".

    1. a_yank_lurker

      This shyster apparently believes because computers are hacked that users are consenting to hacking. Thus, according der Shyster, the ferals can hack with impunity. The logic flaw is that hacking is by definition done without user consent. And it is done in such away to avoid detection by users.

    2. Charles 9

      "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;..."

      Sorry, but that's been abridged for nearly a century now. Look up US v. Schenck (1917) and the "Fire in a Crowded Theater" justification. No right is absolute as one person's rights inevitably butt up against another's.

  12. Chris G

    Toes

    So now, he FBI has a mandate from a judge to go and tread on CIA toes.

    Formerly it was considered FBI jurisdiction for investigations within America's shores and offshore was the jurisdiction of the CIA.n

    I suppose the next thing is going to be open house on the world for any merkin law enforcement, including Sherrif Cletus from Bumwipe Indiana.

    The (very) long arm of Merkin law!

    1. Lord_Beavis
      Trollface

      Re: Toes

      We don't allow the name Cletus in Indiana.

      It's Joe Bob...

    2. Keven E

      I haven't seen the toe crusher since 6th grade

      It always make me snicker a bit when someone hints that the FBI and CIA either don't work together well or really are separated...

      1. Kiwi

        Re: I haven't seen the toe crusher since 6th grade

        I haven't seen the toe crusher since 6th grade

        Was just watching that movie again a few days ago.. One of my favourites that I watch every couple of years or so.

        It always make me snicker a bit when someone hints that the FBI and CIA either don't work together well or really are separated...

        Anyone would think that one groupthose two got the concept of "divide and conquer" a bit mixed up.. :)

        (Who the hell gave you a down vote? Here's an up to balance things a little...)

  13. JeffyPoooh
    Pint

    Legal 'Precedence' - Your Honor, you're doing it wrong...

    Judge wrote, "Notably, the Government already has found..."

    That's not how you do 'precedence'.

  14. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    >Judge rules FBI can hack any time, any, place, anywhere

    And can the FBI prove that they didn't plant photos of children being abused or exploited on a suspects computer after they hacked into it?

    1. Swarthy

      They don't have to

      The judge also denied the defendant's counsel the opportunity to examine the NIT to see if it performed as claimed. He said it was subject to "law enforcement privilege," and wasn't relevant to the defence in this case.

Page:

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like