from the hack-and-search-sounds-like-a-boring-dungeon-crawl dept.
The U.S. Department of Justice wants new authority to hack and search remote computers during investigations, saying the new rules (Giant pdf) are needed because of complex criminal schemes sometimes using millions of machines spread across the country. Digital rights groups say the request from the DOJ for authority to search computers outside the district where an investigation is based raises concerns about Internet security and Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures. "By expanding federal law enforcement's power to secretly exploit 'zero-day' vulnerabilities in software and Internet platforms, the proposal threatens to weaken Internet security for all of us," Nathan Freed Wessler, a staff attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union, said by email.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by redneckmother on Tuesday May 13 2014, @05:24PM
The US gov is supposed to "defend" citizens against such attacks - not pursue and exploit them. The more they crack (and hide same), the less secure US citizens will be.
Mas cerveza por favor.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Professr on Tuesday May 13 2014, @05:38PM
Government: "Citizens less secure? Good! That will remind them why they. need. us."
(Score: 5, Informative) by Geezer on Tuesday May 13 2014, @05:45PM
How much you want to bet they're already doing it anyway, and just want blanket authority ex post facto just in case an honest judge asks them "where's your warrant?" at trial.
(Score: 4) by bucc5062 on Tuesday May 13 2014, @07:51PM
This!! I thought there was this thing called a warrant that law enforcement was required to get to go and search for things. Why do they need more power granted to them (without oversight) when calling up a judge can do the job.
"Hey ah judge, we need dis here warrant to go and get some stuff from Joe-Bob's computer"
"And the reason for the warrant?"
"reason? um...reason? Because we think he's guilty. How's that?"
"denied!"
The more things change, the more they look the same
(Score: 4, Informative) by mendax on Tuesday May 13 2014, @05:52PM
... but it is disturbing.
When someone is being wiretapped, it's unlikely that the FBI is going to learn that the suspect is an aficionado of pornography and likes B&D or S&M or has a thing for little boys. I am not advocating illegal behavior, but when the cops are given permission to search, it's an opportunity for the prosecutor to find something, anything, to use as leverage to get a conviction, even if that conviction has nothing to do with the suspected offense which justified the original warrant.
More and more, we are living in a surveillance society. I am going to buy Glenn Greenwald's new book [nytimes.com] to learn the length and diameter of the shaft.
It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.
(Score: 2) by physicsmajor on Tuesday May 13 2014, @10:42PM
I really take exception to your comment implicitly grouping BDSM with pedophilia. The first is a blanket of completely legal things consenting adults may engage in. The second is against ethical, moral, and legal codes in every part of the civilized world.
I'm not a member of the BDSM community, but I know people who are. You would never know in their day to day lives, and it's entirely consensual. So I feel the need to point out, firmly, that these are completely and absolutely different things, which should never be grouped together implicitly or explicitly.
(Score: 2) by mendax on Wednesday May 14 2014, @12:18AM
Speaking as a victim of a pedophile who liked small boys I'm sorry that you're prickly. Speaking as someone who has gone through years of psychotherapy to deal with the wreckage it created in my life and learned a lot of about the psychology of sexuality, it was appropriate to group them together because they are both particularly controversial manifestations of abnormal sexuality. That fact that one is illegal and devastating to the victim is irrelevant. So, you can take exception if you like; that is your right. But I think you're overreacting.
It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.
(Score: 2) by physicsmajor on Wednesday May 14 2014, @03:30AM
First off: I am in no way defending pedophilia. It is morally, ethically, and legally repugnant in every way possible. I wish nobody ever had to experience what you did.
With that said, and even though I'm hardly the one to be having this conversation, I really have to press the point. The salient difference between these two is consent. Rape is, at its most basic definition, a sexual act which does not involve mutual consent. I'm going to assert this and move on; if you don't like that definition feel free to question it, but I think most would agree thus far.
Sexual acts involving a minor are by definition non-consensual. They are, thus, categorically and without exception wrongful acts of rape.
In contrast, games of bondage are, in most cases consensual (there are always exceptions, and those I do not defend). A subset of people have their sexual experience greatly amplified by giving up control. Crucially, this does not mean giving up consent! Rules are defined beforehand. Whoever plays the submissive role must be confident and trust their partner, and they have a safe word to end the experience if needed. The game is one of an illusion of loss of control. Critically, all of this happens between two consenting adults.
These could not be more different, and grouping them is absolutely incorrect. Again, I'm sorry for what you've experienced, but there are crucial differences which cannot be waived away between them. Come back with citations for statements like "particularly controversial manifestations of abnormal sexuality" if you want, but I think I've made my case and I'll let the mods decide.
(Score: 2) by tathra on Wednesday May 14 2014, @01:26PM
there's nothing controversial or abnormal about two [or more] consenting adults. nobody has any business telling other consenting adults what they can and cant do in their bedrooms.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by egcagrac0 on Tuesday May 13 2014, @06:03PM
Hi, We're the DoJ, and we'd like to wantonly violate the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, while prosecuting those who would do the same.
(Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 13 2014, @06:07PM
How about we give DOJ the authority to scan and fix our computers?
obviously criminals cannot abuse secure computers for nefarious purposes then?
so let's all connect to DOJ and let the tax p(r)ayer sponsored government entity ...
scan our computers for vulnerabilities and recommend solutions to be more secure?
now this would be "tax monies hard at work"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 13 2014, @10:30PM
"How about we give DOJ the authority to scan and fix our computers?"
Due to the proprietary/secret nature of black box anti-X scanners, they very well could already have DOJ secret agreements/back doors with the companies providing the software to scan your system and collect data and you may never know it. How many anti-X scanners for Windows are open source vs. those in use by the majority of Windows users?
Simply turning off the option(s) to submit so called anonymous data back to the company HQ may not be enough. Some EULAs for anti-X products are scary, try reading one through sometime, some collect information on most or all of your hardware and more!
(Score: 1) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 13 2014, @06:10PM
That's all they need: more power. I mean, they already have so much that they render the judicial process obsolete, so a little more can't hurt.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by tibman on Tuesday May 13 2014, @06:47PM
The one thing that i understand is that sometimes they need access to a machine outside the US borders. If the country hosting the computer is unwilling to participate in the trial then how do you get the evidence? Physical things aren't as difficult because you can't just reach outside the country and use them for a crime. But a botnet for example could be global in reach. You may bag the criminal but his tools are still alive and probably still at work. No one country can clean up that mess unless they take control of the botnet. Botnets probably don't care about court orders.
It seems like government hacking is not done in a transparent way though. If they made it public then things would be different. Heck, people would probably love to see the stories about breaking into criminal networks and wrecking house.
SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 13 2014, @07:22PM