Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Thursday October 27 2016, @03:36AM   Printer-friendly
from the hacking-is-legal dept.

A US judge overseeing an FBI "Playpen case" has told agents to reveal whether or not their investigative hacking was approved by the White House.

The case is one of several the Feds are pursuing against more than 100 alleged users of the child sex abuse material exchange network called the Playpen. The prosecutions have become test grounds over investigators' use of hacking tools to unmask Tor users – Playpen was hidden in the Tor network and agents injected tracking software into Playpen visitors' browsers to identify users.

In June, a judge hearing one of the Playpen cases in Virginia ruled that the FBI can hack any computer in any country, if it wants.

During its investigation, the FBI compromised Playpen's Tor-protected distribution servers, leaving them in operation to keep users visiting the service. The Feds then hacked the targets' computers to identify the owners.

It's not a crime if the President orders it.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Bogsnoticus on Thursday October 27 2016, @05:31AM

    by Bogsnoticus (3982) on Thursday October 27 2016, @05:31AM (#419293)

    It's not a crime if the President orders it.

    There were a bunch of people who "were just following orders" that were tried, convicted and sentenced at this place called Nuremberg 70-odd years ago.

    --
    Genius by birth. Evil by choice.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +2  
       Insightful=1, Informative=1, Total=2
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   4  
  • (Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 27 2016, @05:44AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 27 2016, @05:44AM (#419297)

    And yet some people demand doctors perform abortions BECAUSE ITS THE FUCKING LAW somesuch other nonsense from majority rule to whatever ruffled shirt political fad is in fashion these days.

    No real point, but apparently the Nuremberg defense is a-okay if it aligns with your greater good.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 27 2016, @07:00AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 27 2016, @07:00AM (#419310)

      And yet some people demand doctors perform abortions BECAUSE ITS THE FUCKING LAW somesuch other nonsense from majority rule to whatever ruffled shirt political fad is in fashion these days.

      Seriously? I'd have expected that "sorry, I'm not an abortion doctor" would get you out of such a rule.

      • (Score: 2) by Dunbal on Thursday October 27 2016, @09:16AM

        by Dunbal (3515) on Thursday October 27 2016, @09:16AM (#419335)

        I'd have expected that "sorry, I'm not an abortion doctor" would get you out of such a rule.

        It does.

    • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 27 2016, @07:01AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 27 2016, @07:01AM (#419311)

      President’s order is not a law.

    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by art guerrilla on Thursday October 27 2016, @11:24AM

      by art guerrilla (3082) on Thursday October 27 2016, @11:24AM (#419355)

      heh, a non cow:
      do i own my own body or not ? ? ?
      sounds like a pretty basic question of morals, and yet it appears you are answering 'no, you don't own your own body, i, a non cow get to determine what you do with it...'
      alrighty then, kindly FOAD, is my DEMAND for 'our'/your body...
      why not, you have established that 'principle'...

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 27 2016, @03:58PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 27 2016, @03:58PM (#419449)

      You do know that abortion was illegal in nazi germany don't you. It's harder to conquer the world without lots of cannon fodder.

  • (Score: 3, Informative) by stormwyrm on Thursday October 27 2016, @06:15AM

    by stormwyrm (717) on Thursday October 27 2016, @06:15AM (#419303) Journal
    You don't even have to go Godwin. It's an allusion to Richard Nixon, who famously said: "When the President does it, that means that it is not illegal [youtube.com]".
    --
    Numquam ponenda est pluralitas sine necessitate.
  • (Score: 4, Interesting) by Sarasani on Thursday October 27 2016, @06:50AM

    by Sarasani (3283) on Thursday October 27 2016, @06:50AM (#419309)

    But the Nuremberg Trials were only possible due to the Nazis losing the war. Otherwise, we might all be reading about the London Traitors' Trials (and instead celebrate the annual Nuremberg Nazi Appreciation Parade). In such an outcome, all the reprehensible things the Nazis did would have been considered legal.

    • (Score: 0, Troll) by aristarchus on Thursday October 27 2016, @07:18AM

      by aristarchus (2645) on Thursday October 27 2016, @07:18AM (#419313) Journal

      only possible due to the Nazis losing the war

      Keep telling yourself that, you loser Nazi! International law is not established by the whims of dictators and Trumps, it is the considered judgment of humanity as a whole, over all. So even if the Nazis had won, international law would have ruled against them, in the end. And they would have met their end, sooner rather than later. Trump. Who will follow the Trumpster? Treason? Who? Oh, you, too? See, authoritarianism is only a safe mode of governance if we put absolute power in the hands of a Mightry Buzazard, because he is usually gone fishing, so no damage done, not even to the fish.

      • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Thursday October 27 2016, @09:03AM

        by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Thursday October 27 2016, @09:03AM (#419331) Journal

        Jesus, Aristarchus - have you never read an alternate reality story? Sarasani is perfectly right - and history proves his statement to be right. For hundreds of years, Romans captured whoever, wherever, and shipped them to the circuses in Rome. Or, sold them off as slaves. Or, just killed them for amusement. Might makes right, and Rome was the mightiest of the mighty for a long time.

        Had Hitler been a little less insane, if he had listened to his wiser generals, had Hitler NOT launched the offense into Russia, he may very well have consolidated his gains in the rest of Europe. Having done so, history would have proclaimed him to stand in the ranks of Hannibal and other conquerors. The Holocaust would have been glossed over, if not forgotten by all but the Jews.

        It doesn't take a Nazi, or a neonazi, or any other political or racist mindset to understand all of that. Might makes right, throughout history.

        International law? Much of that was established AFTER World War Two. Much of it was established right there at Nuremburg. In effect, we created the law because we were the mightiest sons of bitches in the world at that time. Might makes right.

        • (Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Thursday October 27 2016, @12:46PM

          by Phoenix666 (552) on Thursday October 27 2016, @12:46PM (#419377) Journal

          The Holocaust would have been glossed over, if not forgotten by all but the Jews.

          I think you and Sarasani are correct. I would add that on this point the Holocaust also heavily targeted Gypsies, homosexuals, the handicapped, and other groups the Nazis didn't like. They would remember it, too. Americans associate the Holocaust with the Jews because the Jews have spent decades refining it into a political weapon; that weapon got them a homeland and billions upon billions of free American tax dollars and a free pass to commit any number of atrocities they want against people they don't like. Gypsies and homosexuals have never had that kind of PR muscle.

          --
          Washington DC delenda est.
          • (Score: 2) by dry on Friday October 28 2016, @01:07AM

            by dry (223) on Friday October 28 2016, @01:07AM (#419673) Journal

            Romani or Roma, not Gypsies. Just like it is Jews, not Kikes. Sadly the Roma are still persecuted in too much of Europe. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romani_people#Contemporary_issues [wikipedia.org]
            The joke on the Nazi's was that the Roma are pure Caucasian.

            • (Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Friday October 28 2016, @12:02PM

              by Phoenix666 (552) on Friday October 28 2016, @12:02PM (#419805) Journal

              You're correct, but very few know them as Roma, they're that downtrodden. Imagine if the Jews had only ever been known as Kikes, such that saying "Jews" drew blank stares, while "Kike" would be the common term.

              The question remains--why don't the Roma now have a homeland carved out of somebody else's territory, billions of dollars in free US tax money, and a license to beat up on a random people?

              --
              Washington DC delenda est.
              • (Score: 2) by dry on Saturday October 29 2016, @02:22AM

                by dry (223) on Saturday October 29 2016, @02:22AM (#420014) Journal

                Amazing what a good PR team can do, especially if you control some of the media.

        • (Score: 2, Interesting) by Francis on Thursday October 27 2016, @02:08PM

          by Francis (5544) on Thursday October 27 2016, @02:08PM (#419409)

          You're absolutely correct, how much do we talk about Stalin's or Mao's genocides. We talk a bit more about the Khmer Rouge, but most folks have no idea about King Leopold's genocide in the Congo during the 19th century.

          The reason why the Nazis got prosecuted was primarily because without the Nazi government and war apparatus there was no shielding them from foreign intervention. But, if you look at those examples, only the Khmer Rouge had any folks actually prosecuted for it. I don't believe a single person was prosecuted in any of those other governments for related crimes.

          • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday October 27 2016, @10:43PM

            by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Thursday October 27 2016, @10:43PM (#419600) Journal

            You use the word "we", and I presume that "we" are western people of European descent.

            In China, they haven't forgotten such atrocities as the rape of Nanking. The atrocities committed by the communist government get a lot less lip service, primarily because the communists are still officially in charge. Badmouthing the party can cause citizens to assume ambient temperature.

            • (Score: 1) by Francis on Friday October 28 2016, @04:16AM

              by Francis (5544) on Friday October 28 2016, @04:16AM (#419714)

              That is true, but that's more or less my point. If the Chinese government had been overthrown, it's highly likely that there'd be more awareness of that in general. I doubt very much that most Chinese distinguish between the dead from Mao's leadership and the dead from the typical famines that ravaged the country up until the '70s.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 28 2016, @04:58AM

              by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 28 2016, @04:58AM (#419731)

              In China, they haven't forgotten such atrocities as the rape of Nanking. The atrocities committed by the communist government get a lot less lip service, primarily because the communists are still officially in charge.

              I knew it! Trump groped Ms. Nanking, and then raped her. So why does not the Communist party own up to this? What are they trying to hide? And what does Runaway not know? (Skip that last question, we do not want to be downloading infinite sets onto SoylentNews!)

            • (Score: 2) by gnuman on Friday October 28 2016, @06:21AM

              by gnuman (5013) on Friday October 28 2016, @06:21AM (#419746)

              In China, they haven't forgotten such atrocities as the rape of Nanking.

              The question was about Mao.

              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mao_Zedong#Great_Leap_Forward [wikipedia.org]

              Not about war with Japan. Same with Stalin, most have forgotten and some celebrate Stalin every year in Russia. None of such things do not happen with Hitler and Germany.

              Basically it is 100% true - history is written by victors. Victims of Carthage extermination probably could vouch for that.

              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Punic_War [wikipedia.org]

              For *centuries*, that history was written with Romans being the poor victims of evil Carthaginians. And battle hardened Roman soldiers wrote that what they were doing in Carthage was perversion of war - all kept hidden until few decades ago.

              So yes, if Hitler won the war, the Holocaust would have been glossed over. Few would care. Heck, look at more recent examples of genocide - Rwanda. Or Armenian genocide by Turkey, which is still denied. Why? Because victors can't admit it.

              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_Genocide [wikipedia.org]

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 27 2016, @04:04PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 27 2016, @04:04PM (#419451)

          The Holocaust would have been glossed over, if not forgotten by all but the Jews.

          Very true. Just look at things like the Firebombing of Dresden, or the internment of Japanese Americans by the US government (and things like the Trail of Tears). None of them are denied and people who know such things know of them... but none of them are really emphasized and the majority of the population only has passing familiarity with them.

          Or they could handle it like the Great Leap Forward and Tiananmen Square in China, which I think are more of an open secret.

          There are lots of models of how a nation buries a dark chapter of history. It's easy to imagine a victorious Nazi government being held up as a shining example of what a country can be (and how to break out of the spiral of economic stagnation and oppression).

          • (Score: 2) by HiThere on Thursday October 27 2016, @11:01PM

            by HiThere (866) Subscriber Badge on Thursday October 27 2016, @11:01PM (#419604) Journal

            The internment of the Japanese was atrocious, but not up to the level of the Nazis or the Trail of Tears. There was no particular attempt to kill the Japanese-Americans, merely to exclude and impoverish them. Just about all survived. And, as far as I can determine, the goals were strictly economic, and merely enabled by popular racist sentiment. E.g., it wasn't done in Hawaii, which had a much higher proportion of Japanese.

            --
            Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
        • (Score: 2) by aristarchus on Thursday October 27 2016, @08:35PM

          by aristarchus (2645) on Thursday October 27 2016, @08:35PM (#419553) Journal

          Jesus, Aristarchus

          You are confusing me with someone else!

          Realpolitik Does not become you, Runaway! Best to stick to the homespun doctrines of international relations, like how each nation has a right to built a wall.

          Might does not make right. Might makes stupid. Arrogant, careless, and stupid. As Gandhi said, "Yes, there have been tyrants, but they have always fallen. Always."

          • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday October 27 2016, @10:45PM

            by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Thursday October 27 2016, @10:45PM (#419602) Journal

            " Does not become you, Runaway!"

            I think that you are a poor judge of what is becoming. I do think for myeslf, thank you very much.

            • (Score: 2) by aristarchus on Friday October 28 2016, @12:50AM

              by aristarchus (2645) on Friday October 28 2016, @12:50AM (#419663) Journal

              I think that you are a poor judge of what is becoming.

              We may have isolated the problem: you are a very poor judge of judges of what is becoming. Just thinking you think for yourself does not make it so.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 27 2016, @09:10AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 27 2016, @09:10AM (#419332)

        Why you got such a hard on for the buzzard? He catches more fish than you do? Or - wait - I got it - he uses you for a trolling motor!

      • (Score: 3, Touché) by Dunbal on Thursday October 27 2016, @09:18AM

        by Dunbal (3515) on Thursday October 27 2016, @09:18AM (#419337)

        Well if we're going to cite international law... the United States is notorious for simply ignoring it because it believes that law only applies to "other countries".

        • (Score: 2) by Sarasani on Thursday October 27 2016, @12:36PM

          by Sarasani (3283) on Thursday October 27 2016, @12:36PM (#419372)

          One such example: the US dissin' the World Court ruling on contras [theguardian.com] back in 1986.

          • (Score: 2) by GungnirSniper on Thursday October 27 2016, @12:42PM

            by GungnirSniper (1671) on Thursday October 27 2016, @12:42PM (#419375) Journal

            No worse than Spain declaring itself a universal jurisdiction for some crimes, or the kidnapping of Eichmann.

            • (Score: 2) by Dunbal on Thursday October 27 2016, @03:58PM

              by Dunbal (3515) on Thursday October 27 2016, @03:58PM (#419447)

              Ahh yes, the "But other people do it too!" defense.

            • (Score: 2) by aristarchus on Thursday October 27 2016, @06:15PM

              by aristarchus (2645) on Thursday October 27 2016, @06:15PM (#419511) Journal

              Universal jurisdiction is part of international law. If a crime against humanity occurs, every nation has the right to intervene and prosecute. The ICC is meant to alleviate the need to create a new tribunal every time there is some new nastiness, such as was done with the Balkan conflict, and Rwanda. In some cases, notably the The Convention on Genocide [ohchr.org], there is not just a right, but a positive duty to intervene and prosecute. This is why the Clinton administration tried so mightily to not call what was happening in Rwanda a "genocide", because once they did, the United States would have been obligated under international law to stop it.

                        And denying universal jurisdiction over your own nation and personnel is kind of the opposite of taking up the responsibility of enforcing international law. If you are an American, I can see who this subtle and obscure difference may be too much for you to fathom.

              • (Score: 2) by GungnirSniper on Thursday October 27 2016, @07:27PM

                by GungnirSniper (1671) on Thursday October 27 2016, @07:27PM (#419540) Journal

                There is no such thing as international law.

                • (Score: 2) by aristarchus on Thursday October 27 2016, @08:38PM

                  by aristarchus (2645) on Thursday October 27 2016, @08:38PM (#419556) Journal

                  Oooh! You outlaw, you! Must be good, to be soooo bad! But don't come crying to us when you end up in front of the ICC after your "vacation" to some "conflict zone". Mercs, the only thing dumber than Republicans.

                • (Score: 2) by HiThere on Thursday October 27 2016, @11:06PM

                  by HiThere (866) Subscriber Badge on Thursday October 27 2016, @11:06PM (#419607) Journal

                  Depends on what you mean. There's a general, but not unanimous, agreement on some things. You can argue that those are only international treaties, of course, but when 90% of the force is on one side, then there's effectively a law, even if enforcement is extremely sloppy.

                  And if you argue that if it isn't enforced honestly it's not a law, there are a large number of cities and states that don't have any internal law.

                  --
                  Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
      • (Score: 2) by LoRdTAW on Thursday October 27 2016, @12:54PM

        by LoRdTAW (3755) on Thursday October 27 2016, @12:54PM (#419379) Journal

        (Score:0, Brain Dead)

      • (Score: 2) by Bot on Thursday October 27 2016, @03:00PM

        by Bot (3902) on Thursday October 27 2016, @03:00PM (#419430) Journal

        > it is the considered judgment of humanity as a whole, over all
        Even if I probably agree 100% on the rights attributed by constitutions and international courts, I still have to challenge this line. When did you vote for that judgment?

        A bunch of people wrote documents talking about inherent rights. They are not inherent, they always come from revelation (religion) or reasoning.

        I also suspect those masons writing Liberté Egalité Fraternité did it as a stopgap measure to annihilate the existing aristocratic bullies using the poor. 200 years after the very same system began hacking at those very same rights. Which is not surprising at all since, as I wrote many times already, it called the process Revolution, which is cyclical and so implies return to the initial conditions.

        --
        Account abandoned.
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 28 2016, @02:26AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 28 2016, @02:26AM (#419694)

        Fucking useless dipshits have arrived to parrot the talking points of their masters! Good chimp!

        • (Score: 2) by aristarchus on Friday October 28 2016, @04:50AM

          by aristarchus (2645) on Friday October 28 2016, @04:50AM (#419728) Journal

          Fucking useless racists have arrived to parrot the men's right points of their dominatrixes! Good Republican!

          I'm sorry, I cannot scan this message in any way that makes sense. Perhaps you could rephrase?

    • (Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Thursday October 27 2016, @01:46PM

      by tangomargarine (667) on Thursday October 27 2016, @01:46PM (#419403)

      To be fair, the Allies did a fair amount of internationally illegal stuff during the war, too. Just not, y'know, concentration camps and purges and stuff.

      --
      "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
      • (Score: 2, Touché) by Francis on Thursday October 27 2016, @02:23PM

        by Francis (5544) on Thursday October 27 2016, @02:23PM (#419415)

        The US absolutely did have concentration camps, it's just that we called them internment camps. That and the fact that they weren't adjacent to death camps.

        It's rather unfortunate, that we've chosen to roll the notion of a death camp into the notion of a concentration camp when they're not really the same thing.