Dutch Ministry Proposes Powers For Police To Hack Computers, Install Spyware 130
hypnosec writes "The Dutch Ministry of Justice and Security has proposed some rather over the line measures and wants to extend such powers to the police that would allow them to break into computers and mobile phones in any part of the world. According to the proposal (PDF in Dutch), dated October 15, the ministry has asked for powers that would allow police to not only break into computers, but also allow them to install spyware, search for data in those computers, and destroy data. As explained by digital rights group 'Bits of Freedom,' which obtained the copy of the proposal, if the Dutch police get such powers, the security of computer users would be lessened and there will be a 'perverse incentive to keep information security weak.'"
CleanIT part 2? (Score:1)
This sounds a lot like the idiotic stuff formulated in the preliminary list of internet security legislation [boingboing.net] that was posted two months ago.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
My Independent Government in Exile from Mars has just been granted authority by the nDimensional judiciary to ignore national sovereignty and any simple definition of sanity - to damage or destroy Dutch Police information assets, where ever they may exist in the outer 3rd of the galactic rim.
The Quantum Pope already authorized my deputization of the WHOLE INTARWEBZ! So, your are all welcome to hop to it!
p.s.: I've watched some of those Dutch police beat the crap out of unmanageable, drunken British tourist
Re: (Score:1)
I've lived in Netherlands for couple of years and mostly I've been _amazed_ at how patient and rational their cops are. They do what cops should be doing, solving problems with minimum fuss and effort.
Oh well, seems like _nobody_ can stand a drunken British lout..
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, you're dead right. The cops were mostly after no one getting hurt.
And even customs security agents have been good folks - not robots or "roles".
Re: (Score:2)
Exploiting ambiguity, TWICE in two days!
Re: (Score:2)
The modern trend in legislation is to grant police the power to bypass oversight, usually with the excuse that the courts "take too long".
Re: (Score:2)
Usually the excuse is child pr0n
And this is granting the police to hack whenever they seem fit. Every time the citizens have to give up (internet)freedom it is about childpr0n. And do I have news for them. Those sickoś who are into that usually have everything locked up, off-line and encrypted... (Can you hear the
Re:Can't they already? (Score:5, Insightful)
Note how the authorities never use the sledgehammer approach to stamping out crime (and potential crime) committed by politicians and police. It's only the citizenry that are subject to such heavy-handed approaches.
When it comes to politicians and police they tread softly, and with surgical precision. (If at all.)
Re: (Score:2)
Note how the authorities never use the sledgehammer approach to stamping out crime (and potential crime) committed by politicians and police. It's only the citizenry that are subject to such heavy-handed approaches.
When it comes to politicians and police they tread softly, and with surgical precision. (If at all.)
And here I am all out of mod points.
If this doesn't get a +5 there is something wrong with the mods. It deserves it and you know it. He spoke the truth.
Re:Can't they already? (Score:4, Informative)
I agree. Mod this fucker up.
I saw surveillance cam footage of a cop in a nearby village (small town in the US)- off duty, breaking the antenna off a car in a parking lot and using it to beat his wife with it until she was on the ground in a fetal position screaming for help. I do not think she was seriously hurt outside some welts in various places. The day after this happened, someone was sentenced to 5 years in prison for domestic violence for telling his spouse he would kill her if she ever returned to his home again. He then shoved her out the door and she fell obtaining a few bruises. This supposedly happened after he caught her cheating with someone else moments earlier. The other guy ran and wasn't involved in the domestic violence.
The cop, he was sentenced to time served (over night) and had to complete an anger management course with 100 hours community service.
Another instance that recently happened which baffles the mind. An under aged woman (drinking age) called a friend who was a county sheriff claiming she was drunk and needed a ride home. He went to a bar outside of town and met her. Nothing has been said about if she was drinking at the bar or pulled into it after trying to drive from somewhere else and realizing she was to intoxicated to drive. The sheriff deputy went to get her, convinced her to follow him back to his house, then started making sexual advances towards her. The woman decided she wanted nothing of it and tried to leave. The Deputy wouldn't let her leave, she escaped and went outside. He subdued her using choke-holds and and various other aspects of his training even kicking and punching her. A few people saw this happening while exiting a near by bar and went over to prevent what they described as a rape in progress according to the 911 call. The deputy was arrested under suspicion of kidnapping, sexual assault, criminal assault, and something else by the town police. 3 weeks later, all charges against him had been dropped and he resigned from the Sheriff's department. 2 weeks after that, he was hired as a police deputy in a neighboring town and rumor has it that his pay actually increased in the process.
It seems like the justice system is really code for Just us as far as they are concerned.
Re: (Score:1)
they can hardly outsmart, they needed a rat to dig o
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Can't they already? (Score:5, Informative)
Yes, and that has already happened. This is the push to avoid judges post hoc, but attain permission pre hoc.
The nuance: The proposal is to have law enforcement ask a certain type of judge to approve the hacking before it occurs, similar to the way phone taps are approved.
It would furthermore only be allowable when somebody is suspect of severe crimes, f.i. a crime for which the maximum sentence is at least 4 years of incarceration (note the wording here, one would assume 'suspected terrorist' is sufficient).
Realistically, though, the whole thing should be comparable to phone taps and one should either oppose both or deem both to be acceptable.
The majority of our (recently elected) parliament is supportive of the proposal (including the parties that are most probably going to form a coalition government), although many members of parliament note that when an actual law is proposed, the protection of privacy should be more strictly worded (in the sense that minor 'crimes' should not warrant government hacking).
Re: (Score:2)
Realistically, though, the whole thing should be comparable to phone taps and one should either oppose both or deem both to be acceptable
No, this is more like them being allowed to rummage around in your house when you aren't there, and planting a bomb. This is much different than passively listening to phone conversations.
Re: (Score:2)
You are right in pointing out that there is a distinction between active and passive and in that sense my comparison is flawed.
When it comes to privacy, however, "rummaging around in your house" isn't really any worse than listening to phone conversations. I think some (most?) people would rather allow the police to look through all the stuff in their house than to listen to all their phone conversations. I'm betting most people in the organized crime business would.
The reference to planting a bomb is of co
Re: (Score:2)
Realistically, though, the whole thing should be comparable to phone taps and one should either oppose both or deem both to be acceptable.
Of course you know that the Netherlands are far too fond of phone tapping [dutchnews.nl]?
Re: (Score:1)
I see smoke, but no fire in your source.
I furthermore do not see a relevant point in your posting.
Said differently: you're not (yet?) adding anything useful to this discussion.
Sounds backwards to me (Score:2)
But what do I know?
Re: (Score:1)
Sounds like an incentive to make computer security stronger.
But what do I know?
"the security of computer users would be lessened and there will be a perverse incentive to keep information security weak." isn't referring to the end users such as you and myself having an incentive to have weaker security. This implies that the government/police will dictate that software developers, ISP's, and possibly even hardware manufacturers be more lax with their security functions/features for the explicit purpose of the government/police hacking and or installing spyware in a citizens personal
Re: (Score:2)
A series of countries in the Middle East has recently changed their government, so why can't we? In our case it's even easier ... we have regular elections.
Re: (Score:2)
Doesn't work. You'd have to clean out the whole of Westminster/Washington of lobbyists before you could get some clean politicians installed.
Never happen.
Re: (Score:1)
A series of countries in the Middle East has recently changed their government, so why can't we? In our case it's even easier ... we have regular elections.
The Dutch elections were last month and although the current government is demissionary, it is very likely the new government will continue the old governments policy. Minister Opstelten belongs to the VVD [wikipedia.org], which, after last month's elections, is still the largest party in the Dutch House of Representatives.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Give the police the power to destroy evidence. Yeah! That will always end well. I am sure that the power to destroy possibly exonerating evidence will never be misused.
When will this end ? (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm sick and tired of seeing these new laws proposed almost weekly! What the heck is going and who is pushing towards all these new law propositions for allowing breaking into users computers, reading their email, tracking all activity and attempts at controlling the internet.
I wont allow these bastards who know nothing about how things even work to control this network of ours. They are trying take away our basic freedom all the time to communicate freely. They know that free speech is harmful for the powers that be. Enough already!
I call all sysadmins and network administrators to start opposing these law enforcers! We have the power to make the change. We are the ones who install these rules into production, and we are the ones who can stop this madness. And those who continue oppressing us, know this: f*ck you! You will not win. Give up already and let's try to work together instead of assuming everyone is a damn terrorist.
Re: (Score:2)
Since these asshats are the enemy of the people, every time they propose one of these atrocities, those responsible need to be rounded up and sentenced to at a minimum, 1 year in a Dutch Oven. [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3)
Are you politically active in your jurisdiction? Have you run for local elections?
Have you joined with like-minded neighbours and presented a united argument to your local representative, threatening to boot him out at the next election if he doesn't submit to the will of those he represents?
*You* have the power and right to influence politics around you. Exercise those rights.
Re: (Score:2)
It will end as more and more people vote for their local Pirate Party (represented in over 60 countries) - the political solution when it comes to privacy and your rights online.
http://www.pp-international.net/ [pp-international.net]
Re:When will this end ? (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually, it is. Think of it as being like the captain of a ship -> it doesn't matter who owns the title / deed to the vessel, it's still "the captain's ship." Responsibility starts and ends with him.
But by all means, change that. See what happens.
Re: (Score:2)
The Jews have written the oppressive laws in China? Syria? Zimbabwe?
Oy vey! Those guys get around.
More likely what the oppressive people have in common is that they are (get ready) ... humans !
What happens when they crash a nuclear plant? (Score:4, Interesting)
What happens if the police do actual damage to important infrastructure. Either civic or private?
Or if police introduce a vulnerability that allows the above?
Don't mess with active systems.
Re:What happens when they crash a nuclear plant? (Score:5, Insightful)
well I don't know how it works for the Dutch, but I know we solved that problem YEARS ago here. Its quite simple, they will have some manner of immunity so that even if they had no concievable reason to think they were in the right, there will still be no consequences.
Oh...wait thats not true, they might get paid time off until the heat dies down.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Better yet... being as cops are just people with a typically over-heightened sense of self-importance and there are no personality tests or IQ requirements to get into the force, what if a cop comes across something they shouldn't that's many levels above them, sells it and compromises national security?
Re: (Score:2)
What happens if the police do actual damage to important infrastructure. Either civic or private?
Or if police introduce a vulnerability that allows the above?
The same things that usually happens when the police fucks up.
They falsify a report, investigate themselves and continue as if nothing happened.
Did you expect otherwise?
Not sure if you are being "funny" but (Score:2)
at least in the US that is actually very True.
While the Justice department shares legal code with the Department of Defense if you are in the military then you go before the Judge Advocate General and they use the Uniform Code Of Military Justice.
true fact a guy in the process of doing a crime could choose which court he wants by making sure he does/does not wait until he is separated from the military.
If you give amouse a cookie... (Score:5, Insightful)
This is what happens when 1) make mundane activities (like saying something cheeky online) illegal, and 2) insist that law enforcement do something about it.
Law enforcement says " I need to do X to accomplish Y." Government and public supporters say "ok, just crack down on Y for us, ok?"
Later, government says "cracking down on Y isn't enough! We have to make W P and Q illegal, and work to stop that too, to keep our citizens safe!" (Where "safe" is a ephemeral and impossible goal, like achieving lightspeed. Each increment toward the goal comes at exponentially higher costs, and you can never actually get there anyway.)
Law enforcement says "we need all kinds of expanded powers for that!"
Rinse, repeat, until people need licenses to speak, wear only government sanctioned clothing, are put on government regulated diets, and live with a swarm of automated security drones following them everywhere.
"To infinity and beyond!" Takes on a sharply malign connotation here.
The initial problems are less severe than the consequences of policing it. Rather than capitulate to further erosion of rights and libertis, we should just say no.
Spooky action at a distance (Score:2)
1984 Reloaded
And it they can't break into my computer... (Score:3)
Re:And it they can't break into my computer... (Score:4, Insightful)
wanna bet it will be called 'obstruction of justice'.
(wish I was kidding.)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This isn't about the US... it's about the Netherlands, sadly. I didn't vote for the guy doing this or any of his cronies, I swear!
It's a good thing those things don't seem to pass as easily here as they do in the US, but still... I worry that it might happen one day.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's the fact that you'd be willfully preventing the police from having information that they are legally allowed to have.
So if this law comes into power, any Dutch citizen having his or her personal files on a computer not connected to the Internet will be violating the law, because the police won't be able to hack it?
Re: (Score:2)
That's my interpretation, anyway. It'd probably take a court case to clarify in the end.
Re: (Score:1)
And that, my friends, is why I only buy Dr. Pepper.
Re: (Score:2)
First, I don't live in the US. Second, I believe I'm entitled to have complete fictional, made up, bogus documents stored in the privacy of my computer. People write fiction all the time, right? And if some idiot breaks into my machine and believes the shit, how's that my fault, exactly?
Intent is a large component of US Law. Not sure about Dutch. If you have a fictional document on your computer which is part of a novel you've been writing, you would not be guilty of obstruction of justice because there is no intent. If you have a honeypot on your computer or fake data which is there primarily for the purpose of thwarting police investigations, then you would almost certainly be guilty of obstruction of justice.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Law of unintended consequences:
How do you differentiate a honey pot from a virtual machine for a thin client? Technologically, they are exactly the same thing.
Re: (Score:2)
If the day comes that I can be guilty of obstruction of justice by preventing Dutch police from breaking into my computer ... Then we have truly lost our freedoms and it is time to start using the proverbial fourth box quite liberally.
And, really, if the police in my own jurisdiction would find my unwillingness to let them break into my computer, the same would be true.
When the Dutch figure their cops should be able to break into, and tamper with, computers anywhere in the world, then the Dutch might discov
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
Sounds like a formal declaration of war on every other state's sovereignty to me.
They might want to pull back now before they become a smoking crater with a faint hint of weed.
Bring it on... (Score:2)
They would have to somehow get me to run the program on my computer first. Good luck with that.
Re: (Score:3)
While getting backdoors into linux would be considerably difficult, it wouldn't be impossible.
Say for instance, government agencies tell nVidia to include an exploit in their binary blob kernel space driver.
How will you spot it, without the source?
Re: (Score:3)
Binary code analysis. The same way most exploits are found.
Re: (Score:2)
While getting backdoors into linux would be considerably difficult, it wouldn't be impossible.
You are right, however once an exploit is found the Linux community is usually quite quick in coming up with a fix even if it means a fresh install of the OS, although this is not something I would do unless I was fully compromised. I would think and hope that anyone in the Linux community would immediately alert the appropriate people even if it is the police in their own country.
Say for instance, government agencies tell nVidia to include an exploit in their binary blob kernel space driver.
While it is possible for a government to force certain vendors (eg. nVidia or even Microsoft) to put spy-ware in their products
Re: (Score:2)
There's all sorts of blobs being used routinely in linux deployments.
Things like the broadcom firmware blob that lives in the network card itself, for instance.
Unless you can vet 100% of the software in your system, there is a clear vector to compromise.
Even then, very clever use of comitts to the linux source itself could open vulnerabilities up.
Its easier to fix once known about, but linux isn't a magic bullet. then again, if world govts started ding this en masse, I would expect crazy-secure desktop linu
Re: (Score:2)
They can come in the night and install it for you.
Re: (Score:2)
They would have to somehow get me to run the program on my computer first. Good luck with that.
So you run NO software?
I would be willing to bet it is MUCH easier than you might think it is.
Good idea (Score:2, Funny)
Privacy is over rated unless you have something to hide.
How? (Score:3)
How is this any different than allowing police to break into homes and install covert cameras? Do they already allow this?
Re: (Score:3)
How is this any different than allowing police to break into homes and install covert cameras? Do they already allow this?
It's different because you can't install a million covert cameras without breaking into a million homes, and owning a million cameras. and then having enough personal to actually look at all the footage.
installing spyware on a million computers/phones on the other hand is ACTUALLY DOABLE.
Re: (Score:2)
What Happened? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Slippery slope after 9/11, I think. That's when we got RFID'd mandatory ID cards.
Re: (Score:2)
Welk Nederlands jeugdboek uit de jaren '80 maakte daar al eens melding van? Ik dacht dat het er een van Jan Terlouw was, maar ik vind het niet in zijn bibliografie (inhoud: Groen komt aan de macht en dit leidt tot een (idealistische) dictatuur).
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, van Nederlandse literatuur heb ik geen kaas gegeten. Also... I think it'll piss off the mods if we talk dutch on an english-oriented website, won't it?
With big power... (Score:2)
Will be illegal to use safe, hack proofer operating systems? Will need to have commercial operating systems some kind of mandated government backdoor to have a chance to be used in Germany?
And there is the problem that if you leave a door for government, even if you trust blindly on them (and in the next government and all the people involved in this), others could eventually use it
I may have this wrong but... (Score:5, Interesting)
We have police to stop crimes, not to commit them. What this dude just did, was proposing the commit of a crime at big scale.
Re: (Score:1)
That's incredibly naive. Police do not stop crimes, they are there to fill out the paperwork after they are committed, and to collect revenue for the state.
Re:I may have this wrong but... (Score:4, Insightful)
What are you .. 10 years old?
It starts-off requiring a search warrant. Soon after, the laws are relaxed to grant police the power to perform these actions without a warrant. Of course a transparent, independent party will be tasked with reviewing these actions every year and presenting a report.
A couple of years later, that "transparent", "independent" party will find police used those powers excessively. This party will be ignored.
Eventually, police having access to these powers will be viewed as routine and instrumental to them performing their duties.
Now they ask for more powers. Wash. Rinse. Repeat.
Why? (Score:2)
Because Dutch law already allows most of the proposed access under present regulations.
Contrary to often referenced US law Dutch law is written in general terms, we regulate official/police access to 'the home' and that includes things like telephone or internet and a judge can allow such access right now.
Thanks to the People's Party for Freedom and Democ (Score:3)
This message was brought to you by People's Party for Freedom and Democracy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People's_Party_for_Freedom_and_Democracy [wikipedia.org]
Main force behind these kind of laws/proposals are always the parties that have Freedom (to limit others) in their name (we have a couple of them) or from a Christian background (we know that is good for you plebs).
Re: (Score:2)
Your observation is, in fact, a trope: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/PeoplesRepublicOfTyranny [tvtropes.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Oh gods yes... VVD is the worst of it all because they have power. VVD = People's Party for Freedom and Democracy. But the PVV (Party for Freedom) are the ones that Wilders is using to spew his nonsense. Actually.. they split off from the VVD, so it's all the same anyway. I'm just glad Wilders didn't get to be the prime minister through the VVD somehow, I guess..
We've also got the CDA (Christian-Democratic Appeal, I guess?) that was in charge at the time the RFID-enabled mandatory ID cards were introduced..
Lucky it's only the Dutch (Score:2)
I'm from Holland... (Score:1)
...and the guy that proposed this is a total nitwit (1).
Nothing to be excited over, this is all grandstanding
to mask (1).
Time to go all FreedomBox on them there dudes (Score:1)
And for a thought-provoking treatment of the issues, for sci-fi fans (or freedom fans, really), consider reading Cory Doctorow's "Little Brother" [craphound.com], downloadable for free.
Obligitory hackers reference (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
massive violation of different countries laws?? (Score:2)
and how exactly is this not effectively an ACT OF WAR??
I would think that if they are not very very careful %other_nation% might object very forcefully.
Also if they are mucking around with the files on a computer what is to say that they are not going to PLANT evidence??
Re: (Score:2)
It's not an act of war. It's almost certainly a crime, though. Nation A doesn't get to write laws that say they can do whatever they want within Nation B's borders. They can certainly declare that THEY aren't going to prosecute their own employees for hacking Nation B's computers, but any of those employees setting foot within Nation B's jurisdiction shouldn't be surprised when they're prosecuted.
Comment removed (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I think everyone is missing the point. This is the old "demand something unspeakable in order to 'back down' to what you really want" trick. The Snoopers Charter isn't doing too well in UK (a short hop away from the Netherlands) but it is being seen as a good idea so declare war on the world's computers and the true intent will be passed after an "embarrassing" u-turn / deprecatory climb down lets the protesters think they've won a small victory for liberty.
...and taint evidence (Score:1)
Serious, if a computer is
a) So easily broken into
b) Now infected with spyware
How could evidence from it not be considered tainted?
Blacklists for everyone!!! (Score:2)
Most of China
Most of Eastern Europe
Africa
Soon... the Netherlands....
As an American let me say... (Score:1)
At least we're not The Netherlands!
Re: (Score:1)
Two Systems (Score:1)
The machine is broken... (Score:2)
When those charged with our safety and protection, ask for the right to commit crimes and atrocities against the very people whom they're deign to protect, it is fair to say the machine is broken. The appropriate answer to this request is "HELL NO!!! Are you smoking crack!!! You can't enforce the law by wiping your ass on it, and you can't protect liberty by gutting it. NO, HELL NO!!!!
Vote for this very simple rule.. (Score:2)
.. any politician who is in support of increased intercept powers with lesser controls MUSt agree to have these applied to his or her own life for a period no shorter than a full year, and the results published.
If that test year worked, maybe it's worth considering. If they are not prepared to do that, it means that there are problems with the law which means any OTHER citizen should not be exposed to it either.
Please feel free to post improvements, but in a democratic state I think some more direct contro
Direct Violation of Personal Privacy (Score:1)