Judicial Committee Approves FBI Plan To Expand Hacking Powers 79
Presto Vivace sends this report from the National Journal:
A judicial advisory panel Monday quietly approved a rule change that will broaden the FBI's hacking authority despite fears raised by Google that the amended language represents a "monumental" constitutional concern. The Judicial Conference Advisory Committee on Criminal Rules voted 11-1 to modify an arcane federal rule to allow judges more flexibility in how they approve search warrants for electronic data, according to a Justice Department spokesman. Known as Rule 41, the existing provision generally allows judges to approve search warrants only for material within the geographic bounds of their judicial district. But the rule change, as requested by the department, would allow judges to grant warrants for remote searches of computers located outside their district or when the location is unknown.
Rule 34 (Score:2)
It just wasn't enough - apparently, there were seven more required.
Re: (Score:1)
So, what happens if it's in a foreign country? (Score:1)
And laws there prohibit this? Will that government be able to hack the FBI as *they're* doing something illegal?
This could get funny.
Re: (Score:3)
Another group could be used as a cut out to act as an internet agent provocateur.
A charismatic leader in a chatroom could be anyone who has a suggestion. The data ends up with gov handlers who turned or created the "group" used.
Re: (Score:3)
You know when you hear about some nefarious plan in North Korea that threatens the US, or how Iran is trying to build nuclear weapons and delivery systems to attack you? That's what this sounds like to the rest of the world. It's basically saying that the US is developing and deploying cyber weapons at every level, and of course we can expect them to be used against us.
I would say that the US is now as bad as China, but actually it's been far worse for a long time due to having more resources and openly and
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, if it's another country, the FBI shouldn't be there at all. Ever.
That's what the CIA is for.
The FBI's bailiwick is domestic threats.
The CIA covers foreign threats.
Juris-my-diction (Score:2)
Which makes for interesting juris-my-diction fights when a single threat comprises both domestic and foreign elements.
Whatever the FBI hacks (Score:3)
This is an old story... (Score:3)
and it doesn't end with "and they lived happily ever after" [privacysurgeon.org].
WTF? (Score:5, Insightful)
Sorry, but our legal system is based on Common Law, not just whatever a bunch of Congressional idiots decides it is.
Further, the change would allow searches when "the location is unknown". Sorry, but that's a blatant constitutional violation.
"... and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." -- Amendment IV
Our very Constitution says quite explicitly they aren't allowed to issue warrants for "unknown" locations.
Re:WTF? (Score:4, Insightful)
The people who wrote the Constitution couldn't imagine the technology we have today, therefore the Constitution doesn't apply anymore. Q.E.D.
Nope, not how it works.
Re: (Score:1)
I believe you are confusing theory and practice.
Re: (Score:3)
I believe you are confusing theory and practice.
No, he's confusing ideal with corrupted ideal.
It's not too late to put the ideal back.
Re: (Score:1)
Yes. Yes, it is too late.
The only method that could possibly result in meaningful change to the current system will result in you being arrested as a terrorist.
Re: (Score:2)
The only method that could possibly result in meaningful change to the current system will result in you being arrested as a terrorist.
How pessimistic can you get? I don't buy that as a realistic assessment. Except maybe while Obama is in office.
Re: (Score:1)
Fine. Describe how you can wrest control of Congress and/or the Senate and/or the Presidency away from the Republocrat party.
Re: (Score:2)
How pessimistic can you get? I don't buy that as a realistic assessment. Except maybe while Obama is in office.
You are either stupid, or blind.
Or both.
Re: (Score:1)
The only "stupid" assumption at this point is that the law has any real power or meaning behind it.
People need to quit assuming that the law is this unbreakable, unquestionable authority. The law is created by people. People make mistakes, bad decisions, and can be easily "persuaded" to toe the line when required of them. Just because it's written on a fancy sheet of paper. and signed off on by some governmental authority, does not make it fair nor moraly nor ethicly correct. That act also does not make tha
Re: (Score:2)
The only "stupid" assumption at this point is that the law has any real power or meaning behind it.
Lex iniusta non est lex An unjust law is no law at all.
It seems the degree of instrusion and control is directly related to the ratio of forum flooding disguised as trolling. Cue the gun debate/Republican/Democrat/Oh Look Shiny thing flood (sigh)
Re: (Score:2)
So long as the legally persecuted individuals get a jury trial you would be correct - *IF* knowledge of our responsibility to exercise jury nullification to neutralize bad laws was widely recognized. But it's not, despite years of various groups promoting it.
That leaves us with electoral revolution, which would pretty much require mobilizing a credible third party that would somehow be resistant to the massive corrupting influences which have largely taken control of the Republican and Democrat parties, an
Re: (Score:2)
Tell that to the guy who was just shot for violating it.
Yours is a nice sentiment, but the reality has always been that the law is whatever the people with the power to enforce it say it is. In a democracy that power is supposed to flow from the people, but if the people lose control of their government then that just becomes a feel-good talking point to distract them. Once that happens there are really only three basic options:
- Take back control of the government (lots of strategies to be attempted...)
-
Re: (Score:2)
Tell that to the guy who was just shot for violating it.
Tell what? An unjust law is no law at all?
Clearly you neither understood what I wrote (read it again). I've never said fixing the problem was easy or simple. Freedom doesn't come for free, it's gained at the cost of security. The security of being able to outsource responsibility and sit on the couch making a contribution no greater than whining. A pre-requisite for positive change is loss of social time, safety, and an investment in education (basically the result of trusting nothing and verifying everyth
Re: (Score:2)
When has justice ever had anything to do with the law? It's only in the last few centuries that the illusion has even been attempted on a large scale. I mean you may get something resembling justice among the rabble, that helps to mitigate the revenge cycle and improve social stability (i.e. profits for the masters), but as soon as the powerful get involve the outcome of the legal system is pretty much a foregone conclusion, justice be damned.
"Deal with it." has historically been the most common long-term
Re: (Score:2)
When has justice ever had anything to do with the law?
When did I say it did?
"Deal with it." has historically been the most common long-term option.
"Deal with it" is a Claytons option. If you take the time to actually read what you're responding to - you'd get that.
I disagree that capitalism and democracy are a contradiction in terms - one refers to the flow of wealth, the other to the flow of power.
Which would be "A phrase or expression in which the component words contradict one another".
Capitalism is voting with your wallet, Democracy is voting with your ballot. If Capitalism drives legislation (and I think it does) then laws are passed according to the influence of lobbyist groups - an effective mechanism as any politician wants to be re-elected and previous
Re: (Score:2)
When has justice ever had anything to do with the law?
When did I say it did?
When you said "an unjust law is no law at all". By that logic most of the laws in the history of the world were "no law at all" - but tell that to the many people who suffered or died for breaking them. What exactly do you think a law is?
I won't contest that the system we have in the US exalts capitalism at the near-total expense of democracy - but I believe that's a result of the system we chose to create, rather than an inherent and intractable contradiction. Reclassify politicians accepting *any* form
Re: (Score:2)
When has justice ever had anything to do with the law?
When did I say it did?
When you said "an unjust law is no law at all".
Which means - justice and the law are mutually exclusive. Quite the opposite of the meaning you take away.
Sure, I vote a nearly straight third party ticket, preferring those whose policies I actually agree with when available
Which, does nothing to change the influence of lobbyists or force parties to actually listen to voters when setting the agenda. If you keep picking from the offered cards hoping for a game that you control you're just hoping for the triumph of optimism over experience.
So then oh wise master, what exactly are you trying to suggest?
That in a two party system you can't win. No amount of legislation will stop corporate interests from profitably influencing candidates in a two party system. Donate to both and any time either party wants to do the corporate bidding they simply need enough support from the other party to push the legislation through - which is already bought and paid for. But if the balance of power is held by a large
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, one of those statements with a convoluted historical meaning that departs from the literal one. Gotcha.
Can't say I disagree much with your major points, so then why do you object to my voting third party and preferring those candidate who espouse policy I actually agree with? Sounds to me like you think that's exactly what I *should* be doing.
As for your foxes and chickens, I quite agree. However, there are occasionally times when the chickens can squawk loud enough that the foxes will actually pass s
Re: (Score:2)
How pessimistic can you get? I don't buy that as a realistic assessment.
And that's why this slow erosion of our rights will continue apace.
Because people, as a large, unified group don't stand up and say "No" to this sort of bullshit, and then back it up with force if necessary.
Because, at the end of the day, all power derives from the application of force, or threat of force.
You can pretend it's all about civility and enlightenment. But people can still choose to be uncivil. And stupidity abounds. And, in the end, naked force, and the willingness to use it pretty much ALWAY
Re: (Score:2)
Talking like that would get me assassinated before the first ballot was ever cast.
Moreover, I don't have the patience to "play the game" the way all these incumbents would force me to.
That's part of the problem right here. All the favor mongering and "quid pro quo or I obstruct you" bullshit that goes on.
I'd probably be the first elected official to run berserk with a gun and execute numerous colleagues.
Re: (Score:2)
And that's why this slow erosion of our rights will continue apace.
Because people, as a large, unified group don't stand up and say "No" to this sort of bullshit, and then back it up with force if necessary.
No, you're reading too much into what I wrote. I do stand up, and I do speak, and I do resist. What I don't buy is this whole "It's too late! There's nothing we can do!" bullshit.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Apparently, "anywhere" is now considered a "valid description of the place to be searched". Direct lying in a criminal way by the authorities is not uncommon in a police-state, as they will never be held accountable for it.
Re: (Score:3)
No, it says what it says. And, it says no such thing.
This is no different than a warrant to search a specific vehicle, independent of the location it might have been driven to. "Place to be searched" doesn't need to mean a physical location, it can mean a specific person or vehicle or computer.
The intent of the restriction is to ensure specificity, so there are no blanket warrants/searches. Allow
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Commerce among the several states (Score:2)
Then how is this different?
The U.S. government has power "to regulate commerce [...] among the several states" and to enforce copyrights on its soil. If this requires states to give "full faith and credit" to other states' efforts to track down a server used in interstate commerce, in an activity that competes with interstate commerce (Wickard v. Filburn), or in trafficking in copyrighted works, warrants that cross state lines might be necessary.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, it says what it says. And, it says no such thing.
Wrong: "... and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
The exception for vehicles is because vehicles themselves are considered to be a physical "place".
Re: (Score:2)
A judge's jurisdiction is a judge's jurisdiction. Attempting to change that would change our entire legal system. Just no. Sorry, but our legal system is based on Common Law, not just whatever a bunch of Congressional idiots decides it is. Further, the change would allow searches when "the location is unknown". Sorry, but that's a blatant constitutional violation.
"... and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." -- Amendment IV
Our very Constitution says quite explicitly they aren't allowed to issue warrants for "unknown" locations.
And you think a representative who helps define law somehow doesn't understand this basic violation? Or the other 10 that voted in support of this?
Cute history lesson, but the Constitution no longer protects us. Lobbyists have destroyed that. You know, the kind that manipulate representatives.
That old tattered document under glass is nothing more than a tourist attraction now. Ancient history as Hillary's defense team would argue. And blind ignorance would be the only acceptable excuse for not seeing
Re: (Score:1)
Second, our legal system is based on a blend of statutory and common law. And statute usually wins.
Finally, I think we can all agree that virtual and physical locations are two very different things. I have no idea where Slashdot's servers are, but here we are.
Re: (Score:2)
A judge's jurisdiction is a judge's jurisdiction. Attempting to change that would change our entire legal system. Just no.
Agreed - time changes nothing. If it wasn't OK a hundred years ago for a judge to issue a similar warrant to raid the house of someone who visits or recieved mail from his jurisdiction - but didn't reside in it, why should it be OK now? And if the judge doesn't even know which jurisidiction the target lived in he couldn't approve a warrant for everywhere the target might go - on the offchance the target might be there one day.
This link [privacysurgeon.org] that attracted all the slushpot comments earlier summarised the syndrom
Re: (Score:2)
"... and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." -- Amendment IV
Our very Constitution says quite explicitly they aren't allowed to issue warrants for "unknown" locations.
That's a very interesting question. Is place equal to location? You could argue it isn't, since a warrant to search a vehicle or ship; eighth if which could be in multiple locations over time, or even have an unknown location, yet still be a specific place to be searched. In a computer warrant, you could conceivably identify the computer to be searched without identifying its physical location. If you require a geographical location to issue a warrant you would not be able to search a laptop, for example,
Relax (Score:1)
You need a warrant to do anything legally, and in this case "finding out where a computer is" is cause to write a search warrant. The only problem is that in order to write a search warrant for a computer on the internet that is literally just an IP address to the investigator, one must acknowledge that computer could possibly be on the other side of the planet when accessed by the FBI.
Remain Calm Citizen (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:3)
Jurisdiction shopping (Score:2, Insightful)
What it will allow, is the FBI to skip the jurisdiction investigation since it would render it unnecessary and unwanted. Unnecessary because they can get a hacking warrant without it, and unwanted, because it might turn out they don't have jurisdiction or need a more difficult form of warrant.
It will also let them jurisdiction shop, so the judge that rubber stamps hacking the one that gets the requests, and the jurisdiction investigation will be skipped as unnecessary. (Think of how 'Patent Trolls' always s
Re: (Score:2)
It also makes a lot of Prenda Law's copyright subpoena tactics legal.
What does this bring to Swatting? (Score:2)
A gaurentee for future earnings (Score:2)
For all involved. Defense attorneys, judges, the appellate division, enforcement departments, prosecutors all the way up to the Supreme Court. All in all, when it finally makes its way to the highest court how much will have been spent? $400 to $500 million will have been spent.
Sad thing is, it only gets tested when the target has enough balls and income to make the prosecutors try the case.
justice isn't free
The real target... (Score:2)
of this is copyright law. Remember how Prenda Law lost so many cases because they couldn't prove who was in and out of a particular legal district? Poof, problem solved. Check for MPAA/RIAA donors.
This doesn't sound that bad (Score:1)
The Constitution only requires that a judge issue a warrant, not that the issuing judge be nearby. That's a procedural leftover from the pre-telecoms era.
Re: (Score:1)
Doesn't it just mean the Judge where a crime was committed can issue all the necessary subpoenas and warrants needed instead of having to go to multiple judges for each geographical area? Considering the increasing irrelevance of physical location, isn't this just the Law catching up with technology?
The Constitution only requires that a judge issue a warrant, not that the issuing judge be nearby. That's a procedural leftover from the pre-telecoms era.
Depends on which constitution, but usually the constitution requires that the judge be a natural judge.
That is, one that wasn't picked to screw you over twice.
Without the need for proper jurisdiction checks, that means any FBI agent anywhere can ask any judge in the US to give a warrant for any IP address, even if it's in another jurisdiction. Read as, country. Read as, causing an international incident. You think China is going to sit idle while the US openly hacks all its servers everywhere? One thing is
Rule 41: (Score:2)