Submitted via IRC for TheMightyBuzzard
Source: https://www.helpnetsecurity.com/2016/06/24/fbi-doesnt-need-warrant-hack/
A senior US district judge has decided that the FBI didn't need a warrant to capture a defendant's IP address or to extract additional info from his computer.
The case in question is that of Edward Matish, III, who stands accused of access with intent to view child pornography and receipt of child pornography.
He is one of a number of suspects who's IP address was identified with the help of a "network investigative technique" (NIT) used by the FBI after they seized control of Playpen, a dark net website dedicated to child porn distribution.
The NIT also instructed Matish's and other suspects' computers to send information about the OS running on it, its name, its MAC address, and its active operating system username to the server controlled by the FBI.
"The Court finds that Defendant possessed no reasonable expectation of privacy in his computer's IP address, so the Government's acquisition of the IP address did not represent a prohibited Fourth Amendment search," Judge Henry Coke Morgan, Jr., ruled.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 26 2016, @12:51AM
They just keep gutting the fourth amendment more and more, and then justifying it by saying that not doing so would make the government's job inconvenient. So why bother with warrants? It seems completely meaningless at this point, since every end seems to justify the means in the eyes of the courts.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Ethanol-fueled on Sunday June 26 2016, @02:21AM
The dipshit was a member of a big CP forum likely using Windows and enabling Javascript in the browser.
The feds won't reveal their methods because national security, so the way the article is worded sounds scary, but it sounds like the sacksuck was asking to be busted. If THAT is the current state of 4th amendment gutting, then let them have it and let the smart ones get away with whatever they're getting away with now.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 26 2016, @03:33AM
Er, no. We shouldn't let them get away with any 4th amendment violations whatsoever, even if they're currently going after bogeymen or using the 'their security was weak' excuse.
(Score: 2) by Tork on Sunday June 26 2016, @04:00AM
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 26 2016, @08:12PM
perfectly crafted example
So the pervert was using Windows! Now, what about the Javascript?
(Score: 2) by mcgrew on Sunday June 26 2016, @06:38PM
So apparently breaking into computers is somehow different from breaking into someone's house. The judge screwed up, I'll bet it's reversed on appeal.
mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 27 2016, @07:29PM
he didn't screw up! he did it on purpose because he's a traitor. stop making excuses for these "people"/slavemasters
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 26 2016, @12:54AM
> Current year
> Still using Darknet
> Not using Stenogram
ISHYGDDT!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 26 2016, @08:11AM
“Memes” used in your speech leave a trail. Don't.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by archfeld on Sunday June 26 2016, @01:31AM
Does that imply that judge Hank Coke Morgan Jr has no expectation of privacy on his computer ? That ruling seems to open the door to wholesale hacking of anyone's computer, without regard for the right to privacy or due process.
For the NSA : Explosives, guns, assassination, conspiracy, primers, detonators, initiators, main charge, nuclear charge
(Score: 3, Interesting) by anubi on Sunday June 26 2016, @08:51AM
I guess some good comes out of this. Judge Morgan can only rule what the FEDs can *legally* do, not what can be done.
As I see it, the root problem is not what someone else can *legally* do with my machine over the net, rather its what they *can* be do to my machine over the net.
The people I fear even more than the government are those who I have no idea who they are - and they are beholden to no law or identification as to who they are.
When people get fed up enough with people breaking into their house, they get dogs, electronic surveillance, and booby traps to put a stop to it.
When enough people get caught up in identity theft and snooping, they will also put a stop to it by adopting even more advanced encryption and covert communications ( like stethenographic ). And quit being so open about things.
Judge Morgan cannot wag his pen and make this problem go away.
However those of us knowledgeable in this art can.
The snoopers won't like this response. Not a bit. Nor will a lot of businesses who want to datamine their customers during a visit.
But I feel this is the only rational response to this situation.
When the script kiddies keep setting your outhouse on fire... start building your outhouses out of cinderblock.
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 26 2016, @01:37AM
"stands accused of access with intent to..."
Wow! Not production or distribution or possesion nor even access not even view, but intent to view!
And the joy of precrime! No need a warrant to hack someone's computer that still had not done anything! And despite the repugnancy of the alleged crime the harm done before and after the actual crime is done won't make any difference to justify a preemptive strike on still innocent people.
This is already ridiculously approaching Kafkaesque levels that Brazil, 1984 or Minority Report alone can't describe well enough.
Next, warrantless hack anybody's computer with due parking tickets.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 26 2016, @01:48AM
Next, warrantless hack anybody's computer with due parking tickets.
Heh, turns out you were overly optimistic. As I quoted in the comment just below yours, the judge concludes that law enforcement can "warrantless hack anybody's computer", period. No pre-crime or actual crime needed.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 26 2016, @04:23AM
Merely looking at pictures/videos shouldn't be a crime to begin with.
(Score: 4, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 26 2016, @01:45AM
The summary doesn't mention the most important part of the decision (quoted from Techdirt coverage [techdirt.com], emphasis added):
“It seems unreasonable to think that a computer connected to the Web is immune from invasion,” Morgan, Jr. adds. “Indeed, the opposite holds true: in today's digital world, it appears to be a virtual certainty that computers accessing the Internet can—and eventually will—be hacked,” he writes, and then points to a series of media reports on high profile hacks. He posits that users of Tor cannot expect to be safe from hackers.
If hackers can break into computers and extract information, then law enforcement can do the same thing without fear of reprisal or suppression of evidence. Morgan Jr. equates it to "broken blinds" on a house window, where previous rulings have said it's perfectly fine for passing police officers to peer into windows that don't completely obscure the house's interior.
[I]n Minnesota v. Carter, the Supreme Court considered whether a police officer who peered through a gap in a home's closed blinds conducted a search in violation of the Fourth Amendment. 525 U.S. 83, 85 (1998). Although the Court did not reach this question, id at 91, Justice Breyer in concurrence determined that the officer's observation did not violate the respondents' Fourth Amendment rights. Id at 103 (Breyer, J., concurring). Justice Breyer noted that the "precautions that the apartment's dwellers took to maintain their privacy would have failed in respect to an ordinary passerby standing" where the police officer stood.
But that flies directly in the face of his previous determination that there's no expectation of privacy in IP addresses, even if a person takes steps to obscure that identifying info. Tor may be imperfect and can be compromised, but applying Morgan Jr.'s analogy to this situation means it's OK for the FBI to not only peer into the interior of a house, but to break the blinds in order to look inside.
TL;DR: Since no computer is completely and absolutely safe from hackers, it's OK for "law enforcement" to hack it as well. Enjoy your new-found safety, citizens.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 26 2016, @01:51AM
Ah, yes, forgot to mention. According to an AC from Techdirt article comments:
He is a "Senior Judge," which means he is retired and working part-time.
I looked him up and the guy is 81 years old. No wonder half of the justification reads "because that nice FBI Special Agent said so."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 26 2016, @02:05AM
The obvious corollary is someone using a high powered telescope to observe the White House, or anyone looking through the "blinds" of any commercial or government computer (yeah yeah yeah... different set of rules for you plebes).
And given the progression of law enforcement justifying any measure, anyone got recommendation of someplace reasonable to move to? Totally serious.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Sunday June 26 2016, @02:14AM
The Moon. Internet is really slow there.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 26 2016, @02:28AM
Runs afoul of the Space Treaty.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_Space_Treaty [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 26 2016, @03:22AM
The obvious corollary is someone using a high powered telescope to observe the White House, or anyone looking through the "blinds" of any commercial or government computer (yeah yeah yeah... different set of rules for you plebes).
Your thinking is not devious enough. Try a corollary in the direction of: the law enforcement is allowed to do everything the worst members of our society have been doing (called "crimes" when the doer is not in the government).
Computers get hacked all the time, therefore it's OK for the government to hack any computer.
Houses get burglarized all the time, therefore it's OK for the government to burglarize any house.
Women get raped all the time, therefore it's OK for the government to rape any woman [techdirt.com] (or, in a rare nod to equality, any man [techdirt.com]).
People get killed all the time, therefore it's OK for the government [washingtonpost.com] to kill any person [latimes.com].
We could be here all day, folks.
And given the progression of law enforcement justifying any measure, anyone got recommendation of someplace reasonable to move to? Totally serious.
Unless I've missed something, Northern Europe (Norway et.al.) seems relatively decent for now, when not under pressure from the US to ignore this or that rule of law or human right. Not sure how much longer, though. I wanted to say "Europe", but then there are the authoritarian shitholes of France, Spain, UK, etc in that club. I wonder how are the plans for that Martian colony going along?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 26 2016, @05:33AM
I wonder how the Nordic countries will respond to political refugees from the US.
(Score: 2) by Murdoc on Monday June 27 2016, @12:51AM
Just a quick search of the web turned up this: https://www.quora.com/What-10-countries-have-the-toughest-Internet-privacy-laws [quora.com] which tl;dr seems to say that it is the EU countries that have the best internet and data privacy laws, with the top-10 list putting the "authoritarian shithole" of France at #2.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 02 2016, @08:04AM
Any country which conducts mass surveillance on the populace (which France and the US do), censor in the name of security, exploit terrorist attacks by giving the government unjust powers in the name of security, etc. cannot be called free. So France is an authoritarian shithole, along with plenty of other countries.
(Score: 2) by bziman on Sunday June 26 2016, @02:52AM
Regardless of the constitution or law, I assume that anyone who has it in for me will attack me, and it's my responsibility to defend myself. It sucks that our banana republic has now decreed this sort of hacking legal (despite its obvious unconstitutionality), but if I allow myself to be hacked, that's my own fault. On the other hand, if they outlaw encryption, it'll be my duty to simply ignore that law.
(Score: 2) by quintessence on Sunday June 26 2016, @05:16AM
Yeah, but this is a terrible regression in the state of civilization.
The idea is that you have other options through law than settling scores through violence and whatnot. And even for criminals, there will be standards the state must abide lest it descend to despotism.
If the standard is dog eat dog, why bother with civilization at all (unless you're the bigger dog)?
As it is, this move towards an omnipotent state is going to make violent revolution all but inevitable as people lose all recourse to the law and only have the bluntest of instruments to make their protests known.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 26 2016, @03:16AM
So it all comes down to "suspect".
if you can pin "suspect" on someone (and you're the fbi) then you can start "hacking".
one could view this as a form of "harassment":
the fbi instructs a computer (in their possession)
to harass another computer (suspects computer).
Now maybe the suspect computer might not cave in after the first few waves of harassment so we are in a situation where the
hacking amounts to a denial-of-service on the suspect computer.
The fbi computer keeps on harassing and harassing and harassing in the hope that the suspects computer will
cave in. so if it doesn't ... for HOW LONG?! are we gonna see a fbi-datacenter with virtualized "harassment agents" by the aile-mile doing nothing but?
on a side note: also, i was just wondering if the tor-browser-bundle were to use internet explorer, if it would go the same way?
monies lost from big corporations useing windows (more like betting their lives on it) and banks and even the law(!) because the news sayZ
that law enforcement has a backdoor in.
i wonder how for-profit m$ would react if the fbi says "no! no! this is my precious backdoor to your empire. you cannot have!"
but i guess this isn't a problem for m$ they would just turn on their secret remote access capabilities in the fbi office and watch them whilst exploiting explorer ^_^
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 26 2016, @03:26AM
if there are infinite exploits, according to the judge, then there's no need for the fbi to keep this
one in a sea of infinity exploit a secret. the next one will come along soon enough?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 26 2016, @03:55AM
... but all digital evidence should be inadmissible in court.
(Score: 2) by GungnirSniper on Sunday June 26 2016, @04:20AM
Parallel construction is already a problem. Let's not encourage it.
Tips for better submissions to help our site grow. [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 26 2016, @08:01AM
hacking anyone's computer or computer based device is now legal
thank you fbi for opening the gate
(Score: 4, Insightful) by fliptop on Sunday June 26 2016, @12:52PM
So running nmap -A -T4 is considered hacking?
Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 26 2016, @11:06PM
Much like Diogenes, I came here looking for the one reasonable post in the expected din from breathless self-proclaimed 4th Amendment defenders.
Thank you for showing me that there is one person around where with at least half a clue.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 26 2016, @02:03PM
Like it or not, your IP is public. Much like your license plate on your car is as you drive around town. "Seeing" your plate or IP out in the wild, sure.
Now, hacking your PC, no. Tracking and recording citizens traffic ( be it a car or IP ) that isn't under investigation, no. Linking people to their plate/IP without a court order, no.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 02 2016, @08:13AM
"Seeing" your plate or IP out in the wild, sure.
That depends on what "seeing" means. A person spots your license plate? Fine. The government installs surveillance equipment everywhere in public places to conduct mass surveillance on the populace by automatically, cheaply, and accurately tracking license plates wherever they are? Not fine. The effects that the former has on society are completely different from the effects the latter has on society; with the former, not much of anything happens, but the latter allows oppression and destroys privacy in a way that a person seeing a license plate can't.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 27 2016, @06:02PM
#1
As I understood it, the case in question here involves the Defendant browsing to a website and sucking down a trojan horse along with his kiddie porn. (From a site that hosted child porn and was busted by the feds and seized.) Said horse then contacted a different server and said, "Here I am! Grab the evidence you need to prove that it was this computer that done done the kiddie porn downloading so Joe Blow can't claim it was someone using his WiFi."
Now, revulsion at kiddie porn and using think-of-the-children as justification aside, wouldn't that mean that this ruling says that if YOU go someplace YOU ain't supposed to go, and you damn well KNOW you ain't supposed to go there (CP is almost the only category that this applies to AFAIK but whatev,) then yes a law enforcement agency can do what it wants to on your machine. The same way that you allow YouTube to serve you up videos (and god knows what else,) or Forbes to allow umpteen javascripts or they don't show you anything, etc. You opened up the door and it's legal for them to walk on through.
This is a far cry from, "OMG! The Feds done haxxored me by breaking downz my firewallz and invadings my circuits from their headquarterz!!!!" It ain't even, "the fedz seduced me into accepting a destructive device that I said I'll use to blow up the peepuls!" Instead it is you go someplace, you allow that someplace to interact with your system how it wants to.
#2
Actually this, so far, is proof that the justice system works. Why? Because a federal district judge can legally rule that you can be assraped and it is your own fault. Then you get the right of APPEAL. This surely wouldn't be the first time a judge has made an incorrect ruling and won't be the last. Still considerably better from the many places in the world where Joe Blow would have already received a slug in the brain 'cuz the elder sez so and call that justice.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 02 2016, @08:08AM
This is a far cry from, "OMG! The Feds done haxxored me by breaking downz my firewallz and invadings my circuits from their headquarterz!!!!" It ain't even, "the fedz seduced me into accepting a destructive device that I said I'll use to blow up the peepuls!" Instead it is you go someplace, you allow that someplace to interact with your system how it wants to.
You contradicted yourself.
Also, no, just visited a location does not mean you give consent to have anything happen to you. What terrible logic.
Actually this, so far, is proof that the justice system works. Why? Because a federal district judge can legally rule that you can be assraped and it is your own fault. Then you get the right of APPEAL. This surely wouldn't be the first time a judge has made an incorrect ruling and won't be the last. Still considerably better from the many places in the world where Joe Blow would have already received a slug in the brain 'cuz the elder sez so and call that justice.
Ah yes, the 'X is better than Y, so X is good!' fallacy. Getting raped isn't a good thing merely because a starving African child exists who gets routinely beaten and raped. Just because X is less bad than Y doesn't mean that X is good. You're stupid to the point of it being unbelievable.