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.
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 …
"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....?).
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??
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.
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.
This post has been deleted by its author
"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.
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?
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...
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.
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.
"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.
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?
"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.
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.
"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.
"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.
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".
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.
"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.
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!
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...)