Dutch Bill Seeks To Give Law Enforcement Hacking Powers 114
An anonymous reader writes "The Dutch government today presented a draft bill that aims to give law enforcement the power to hack into computer systems — including those located in foreign countries — to do research, gather and copy evidence or block access to certain data. Law enforcement should be allowed to block access to child pornography, read emails that contain information exchanged between criminals and also be able to place taps on communication, according to a draft bill published Thursday and signed by Ivo Opstelten, the Minister of Security and Justice. Government agents should also be able to engage in activities such as turning on a suspect's phone GPS to track their location, the bill said. Opstelten announced last October he was planning to craft this bill."
Re:A Green Light to all Hackers (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
Exactly. When governments give themselves freedoms while taking the same freedoms away from their citizens, something is wrong.
You mean like the ability to tax people?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
No, this is completely normal. For example, governments have a monopoly on violence (see wikipedia [wikipedia.org]). Citizens don't have the freedom to shoot each other, for example. A police officer does have the right to shoot under certain circumstances.
This isn't something from the past few years. Governments have reserved certain rights to itself for many centuries, in order to maintain civil order and sovereignty.
So, it's also completely normal that the government reserves the right to hack into computers under certa
Re: (Score:1)
I disagree with your simile. It's more like the police getting powers to burgle (with a warrant) rather than knock on the door (and break it if nobody opens). You need an IDS to see what's going on, rather than being served with an order to hand over whatever data they think might suit them as evidence.
The same bill also adds powers to demand decryption. Make of that what you will.
Re: (Score:2)
I disagree on them being comparable. The inhibition threshold is much lower, comparable with "non-lethal" weapons vs. handgun use by police force. A policeman is much more likely to use a taser on a suspect than shoot him.
Since the average judge would see such a "hack" as something much less invasive than a search warrant, he's also more likely to grant it on flimsy, if any, leads. I'd fear that in very short time such hack attempts would be routine when you have some kind of suspect, to break into his comp
Re: (Score:3)
Since the average judge would see such a "hack" as something much less invasive than a search warrant, he's also more likely to grant it on flimsy, if any, leads.
That makes for an interesting double standard.
(Monday)
Cop: "Your honor, we'd like to hack into this guy's computer to see if he's a criminal."
Judge: "Meh, no biggie. Here's your warrant."
(Tuesday)
Cop: "We got him, Your Honor! Turns out he was hackin the webs and rippin the disks and things."
Judge: "Hax?!? On the computorz?! This for serious! 50 years in a federal 'pound me in the ass prison!' So let it be written. So let it be done. Also, bricks without straw because apparently for the purpose of this joke
Re: (Score:1)
Bad example in any legal jurisdiction in which I've lived with one possible exception which only lasted 22 months. Except for those months spent in Switzerland, I've never lived where the law didn't allow me to use a gun (or other lethal weapon) to defend myself and others if I or they were under imminent threat of death or great bodily harm.
Funny how you seem to take for granted (and seem to agree with) a situation that many other Slashdotters complain is NOT the norm in the US while clamoring loudly for i
Re: (Score:2)
Explain to me then why this proposed law is needed. With a proper
warrant in hand, all they seek to do under the new bill is possible,
right now.
No Opstelten is a nitwit with a lot of time on his hands, and his
clueless mind wants to whistle even more to the tune of the United
Distaste of America.
Opstelten furthermore is a guy who without even being aware of
it (there's that dumbsullery again) operates on the principle of class
justice.
For those that don't know him: even the way he speaks is all upper
class pomp (
Re: (Score:3)
Lately? That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Every government in human history has enjoyed powers that were denied to individual citizens. That's pretty much the point of the institution we call a government. We don't want individuals making and enforcing their own laws or drafting people into private armies...
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
That's all fine and dandy as long as they are doing it to Dutch citizens. It's the same as searching a suspect's house, warrant in hand. The problems I can imagine arising from this bill will come when they hack into some foreign entity's computers. Jurisdiction, anyone? "Look boss, our suspect works for the American Department of Defense. Let's go hack the Pentagon!" Next thing you know, Amsterdam is bombed back to the stone age.
Re: A Green Light to all Hackers (Score:1)
So, as a US citizen who is my representative in Dutch government? I would like to send them a letter.
Re: (Score:2)
http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=2961 [smbc-comics.com]
Re: (Score:2)
What is good for the goose must be good for the gander. This is a clear green light.
The bad guys have always abused other people's systems to steal data. Anyone who sets up systems connected to the internet should expect sustained attacks from the bad guys.
The only thing that is happening here is that the Dutch government is stepping out of the shadows and going 'Look at me! I'm a bad guy! I'm going to h4x0r j00 with my l33t skillz!' Personally I'd null route the entire Dutch government for this, they admitted an intent to crack other people's systems and steal data.
Child porn (Score:5, Informative)
Ah good - they've been paying attention and made sure to include the good ol' "child pornography" bit in the list of reasons as justification for breaking into someone else's machine. No bill can be taken seriously without that think-of-the-children element added to it.
Re:Child porn (Score:4, Interesting)
Opstelten has had some help of Robert Mickelson, a notorious child porn producer and child rapist, who used truecrypt. His crimes caused a lot of sheeple to switch sides.
It's not his case that caused them to switch sides. It's the way the prosecutor uses this to support his case, it's the way certain (typically conservative) media use it to feed the fear and confirmation that their customers want, and politicians go along with this trend to not loose the support of their voters.
For those of you not aware of dutch news (Score:2, Interesting)
The Netherlands has seen some high profile DDOS attacks on both its banks and a government service that allows login to government sites (DigiID), The re emerging of this idea is therefor no surprise. It has not been successful so far.
The reason is simple, Americans might complain about the two-party system... well... we got about a dozen. And not all that different in size either. Our current government is "VVD" (Think business rules all democrats) and PvDA which used to be the labour party (socialist) but
Re:For those of you not aware of dutch news (Score:4, Interesting)
Yes, I think EVERYONE slightly miserable is the better alternative, opposed to a few people happy and the rest utterly miserable. The poldermodel (sorry for teh dutch) has its merits.
Re: (Score:3)
Absolutely. If we can't all be happy, at least spread the misery around a bit, so nobody has a strong interest in increasing the misery for others.
There's a lot wrong with Dutch politics, but it's still a thousand times better than the rampant insanity of US politics.
Re:For those of you not aware of dutch news (Score:4, Interesting)
So we have a law on the table. A law which goes against our civil liberties, something that many a party in the opposition is not going to like. However the issue of civil liberties, especially "digital" ones, has always been a political bargaining chip that is easily given up if it can be exchanged for something better. When this law lands in the senate, you can be sure that many parties will be interested in supporting it in exchange for something else.
Re: (Score:3)
It disgusts me when cretins like your trivialize the horrible struggle for civil rights in the USA in this manner. Lincoln was a Republican, the Civil Right Act was sponsored and voted for by Republicans, and Jim Crow was a creation of the Democrats. You would know this if you weren't a vainglorious European who has no idea what the KKK even was, or is. Having lived under the thumb of Hitler for a time, you think you'd know better than
Re: (Score:3)
It disgusts me when cretins like your trivialize the horrible struggle for civil rights in the USA in this manner. Lincoln was a Republican, the Civil Right Act was sponsored and voted for by Republicans, and Jim Crow was a creation of the Democrats. You would know this if you weren't a vainglorious European who has no idea what the KKK even was, or is.
It's hysterical how vainglorious Republicans trivialize the horrible struggle for civil rights in the USA, and how they have no idea (or are in UTTER DENIAL) of the history and modern reality of their own party.
In 1970 Nixon's political strategist stated the following in a New York Times interview:
From now on, the Republicans are never going to get more than 10 to 20 percent of the Negro vote and they don't need any more than that...but Republicans would be shortsighted if they weakened enforcement of the V
Re: (Score:2)
The socialist utopia is a society that leaves everyone equally miserable.Granted, it is not what they strive for, but it is what would be the end result if they ever got their way.
Re:Child porn (Score:5, Informative)
Incidentally, the bill goes beyond hacking into suspects' computers. It also states that suspects (not convicted criminals) can be forced to hand over encryption keys, if they are suspected of serious crimes. So in the interest of making things easier for investigators, we've done away with an important legal principle ("nemo tenetur") which states that suspects cannot be forced to aid their own prosecution. The minister thinks that this principle should be set aside for, you guessed it, suspects of terrorism or kiddie porn.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Yes, but there is a huge difference between suspects and convicted criminals. They must first prove they know you stole the car before really being able to demand it back. Either we need to move trowards encryption as truecrypt has the ability and ensure you can have a second or multiple hidden partitions. But sooner or later that may end on them being allowed to force you to give the key to the hidden partition, even if there isn't one, making you guilty of at least one crime whenever they investigate.
Re: (Score:2)
You know it exists? But I didn't use a pass phrase. I used a pass key, stored on a USB stick. Sadly I lost it a while ago or I could show you that it's just some harmless files.
Prove I'm lying.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Child porn (Score:5, Informative)
There are several EU countries where this principle is interpreted narrowly (certainly the Netherlands), and the law in some cases does compel suspects to hand over documents and keys while retaining only the right to literally remain silent, but the European Human Rights Court has overturned many convictions obtained thus on appeal. Even in cases where suspects of tax evasion got fined for not handing over incriminating records (and the tax agencies over here are notorious for being allowed to do whatever the hell they please in order to get at your cash).
Re: (Score:2)
In the UK you can go to jail for refusing to hand over your encryption keys, and people have. The maximum sentence is two years, so clearly anyone who has done anything really bad is going to take that option.
I believe there was a ECHR challenge but it failed.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How does nemo tenetur interact with obstruction of justice? e.g., If they ask someone who isn't a suspect and they are subsequently charged with obstruction, can they then invoke their right to remain silent even if the information isn't self-incriminating? Or can my own silence bring obstruction charges?
And does the narrowest interpretation include non-verbal communication? e.g., if the law compels me to supply a decryption key and I literally remain silent, can they compel me to write it down? And what if
Re: (Score:2)
How does nemo tenetur interact with obstruction of justice? e.g., If they ask someone who isn't a suspect and they are subsequently charged with obstruction, can they then invoke their right to remain silent even if the information isn't self-incriminating? Or can my own silence bring obstruction charges?
If you refuse to surrender information that doesn't incriminate you, then there's no conflict between obstruction of justice and the right to remain silent.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course there is: if you can only refuse to surrender information that incriminates you, then silence is as good as admitting guilt - and besides, how do you prove information would incriminate you without surrendering it?
Re: (Score:2)
How does that work? Let me set up a hypothetical example.
Jim is suspected of robbing a bank. The police have noticed a man of Joe's description in a certain area, and ask him if he saw something like the getaway car on some property of Jim's that generally nobody goes to. (The police are not at all sure it was Joe, and ask several people of that description.) Apparently, Joe must tell the police that he did see the car there, and that does confirm his presence at that place at that time. I see two p
Re: (Score:2)
I said it before, I say it again, before I side with politicians that try to reach into my privacy, I'd rather side with pedos. Simple self interest. I'm an old guy, no pedo would be interested in dealing with me in any way. Politicians, otoh...
Re: (Score:2)
Hehehe. I, for one, don't understand for the life of me why it is OK to share videos of soldiers shooting at children with automatic weapons, for real. Or what Lucas did with kids in the prequels. How is that OK, and a depiction of a fictional sex abuse act is not OK? I think children involved in actual acts would strongly agree with me, too.
Or what about any movie where a super-villain is trying to destroy the world? Why are we OK with looking at that imagery? Isn't that the worst fucking thing that one
Re: (Score:2)
The easy answer for this is capitalistic greed currently defines this world. Why did a billionaire get home arrest for sexually abusing under age girls in the mansion where the abuse occurred? Why is it OK for a President to blow children to bits with drone fired missiles, why did a gunship crew get away with shooting up children and why do Israeli snipers get away with targeting children. Now that's just for a start. No fiction actual brutal reality.
Back to that law, governments can bullshit legislate c
Re: (Score:2)
Simple. Logic and reason has no room in legislation around sex, drugs and copyright.
sure, if dutch officers never plan to travel. (Score:5, Interesting)
they would still be criminals in the other countries. might be troublesome if they plan to travel, while having wire fraud and computer crime charges on their heads...
and well, they're part of the eu so that too, might be unavoidable to remain and not extradite to other eu countries.
Re: (Score:3)
That's why they're hiring Fox IT to do it. (Also top-level sponsors of OHM2013, by the way.)
Re: (Score:2)
Right, because no other country in the world has it's security forces hacking computers, and if they do, they're immediately arrested and extradited under international law...
Oh wait... no.
Congrats on being outstandingly naive.
Run-of-the-mill state-sponsored criminal hackers (Score:5, Insightful)
Really no difference to Chinese state-sponsored hackers. For anybody else, these people are just an (advanced) persistent threat, as they will not go to jail if identified, at least not in their own country. Treat them no different than any other criminal hackers from a different country.
Re: (Score:2)
Surveillance can be justified by safety concerns
What? What sort of surveillance? Warrantless?
Re: (Score:2)
You need to differentiate a bit more here. The US intelligence community is explicitly allowed to do industrial espionage and provide the info gained to the US industry (no solid evidence available). Same for the French (stole a large contract for high-speed trains that way). I think in Germany and Switzerland, they are forbidden to do that (but no guarantees they don't do it). No idea about the rest of Europe, but don't expect these people to have honor or morale.
Bottom line is that any hacker trying to pe
Re: (Score:3)
Yes.
Next question?
Re: (Score:2)
There are US state sponsored hackers, it is just that nobody has any interest in outing them and I expect threats and bribes are well known in advance to all potential victims. Also, the US has a lot more experience at this and a history of paying other to do its dirty work. And no, corporation do not give out this type of information freely. In fact, they go to great length to protect it.
Re: (Score:2)
They should definitely be arrested and punished. Same the other way round. Allowing "hacking" by states is the road to hell for IT security, no matter whether domestically or abroad.
One problem is that government agents are almost never trustworthy or honorable. The other is that they are universally incompetent. For example, one incarnation of the German "Bundestrojaner" left those spied upon wide open to other attacks. Faked and manipulated digital evidence provided by the authorities is also already a wi
Re: (Score:2)
Really no difference to Chinese state-sponsored hackers. For anybody else, these people are just an (advanced) persistent threat, as they will not go to jail if identified, at least not in their own country. Treat them no different than any other criminal hackers from a different country.
I think that issue here is that law enforcement can use evidence obtained by hacking to prosecute someone. State-sponsored hacking, be it Chinese or American, is used to gather intelligence, but is clandestine by nature and cannot be used as evidence... well, at least in the criminal justice system. Who knows what "secret evidence" is introduced in the kangaroo courts used to try suspected terrorists... As someone else pointed out, the reason behind this bill is probably that it is cheaper to obtain evidenc
Guilty til proven innocent (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
It would be pointless to collect evidence after conviction. This is really no different from phone tapping, it requires a warranty that's only issued when there's reasonable suspicion.
Re: (Score:2)
Yep, mod parent up please. Not that it'll do any good, I think it's probably too late to take back the definition of 'hacker' in the public mind. I think the only thing to do is use it in the original sense as much as possible to at least give it a dual meaning.
I get funny looks when I bemoan the lack of a hackerspace in my local area, but it does give me an opportunity to educate.
Re: (Score:1)
Yep, mod parent up please. Not that it'll do any good, I think it's probably too late to take back the definition of 'hacker' in the public mind. I think the only thing to do is use it in the original sense as much as possible to at least give it a dual meaning.
I get funny looks when I bemoan the lack of a hackerspace in my local area, but it does give me an opportunity to educate.
You'll pay for your treachery! 1337 HAXOR spaces will be the fall of civilization.
Fun if huge cpu and databases used... (Score:2)
Identify the product sold to the police, how its injected into a users OS.
How to protect, what it phone homes too....
This was tried in Australia in the past:
http://www.smh.com.au/technology/security/hackers-break-into-police-computer-as-sting-backfires-20090818-eohc.html [smh.com.au]
i.e. just a "phone home" computer in suburbia.
But will some consumer OS be enough the Dutch? Or will they need to link to Big Iron?
or 100's of empty rented homes wi
extremely touchy and controversial (Score:1)
The defence rests its case... (Score:5, Interesting)
If the hack is at such a level that they have system write access (e.g.. to place taps on communications) then the defence case has a much stronger case just by asking whether the the same channel could be use to plant evidence, whether by the law enforcement agency or by a third party.
GREAT timing (Score:2)
From a Dutch news source: (Score:1)
- The proposed bill gives police the right to hack -- in collaboration with local authorities if the location of the server is known.
Basically: only unknown server location might involve hacking not allowed by local jurisdiction.
- The proposed bill allows the police to place spyware on suspect's PCs to eavesdrop on e.g. Skype.
- There is apparently a clause to require decryption for child terrorists / porn suspects. Punishable by up to 3 years jailtime.
The second one is bad enough, but the las
So much for prophecy... (Score:2)
I thought WW3 was supposed to be starting somewhere in the Middle East? If Dutch cops think they can hack around the globe - and announce they'll be doing so whenever the mood takes them - won't that upset any country who has already stated that incoming hacks will be treated as an act of war?
They must be smoking some good shit there these days!
Re: (Score:1)
The Middle East is increasingly irrelevant in the international scene.
Many places are finding their energy needs elsewhere. Soon, hopefully, the demands of autocrats and dictators in M.E. countries will be mostly irrelevant.
This fact, of course, has the usual suspects sputtering and furious. 'Fracking,' pipelines from western Canada, and all that.
Real reason: not enough resources (Score:4, Insightful)
Wonder if the foreign countries will love it? (Score:2)
I mean, sorry, yeah, it's a felony, but we've authorized our people to do this. No we won't extradite our police officers to you, ...
What makes me really wonder about this in the context of the EU warrant, I mean, compromising computer security is a felony everywhere, so by the rules of the EU warrant the NL would be required to extradite their own police officers?
Re: (Score:2)
Well, hopefully the various governments around the globe will be kept busy entrapping each other, maybe then some freedom can still exist...
Re: (Score:2)
That is entrapment and that is something that in Holland is technically still illegal, even for law enforcement agencies.
The reasoning behind it being illegal is that a person who is succesfully tempted into commiting a crime, could arguably be said not to have even considered committing that crime if not for the people having ensnared him into their trap.
Unfortunately, there are semi-governmental institutes that are very fond of that technique and make it into a civil case. An attorney presents you with th
Re: (Score:2)
Newsflash - Police are above the law.
Re: (Score:2)
Wrong.
The police are NOT avove the law. If anything, they are kept under even closer scrutiny than ordinary citizens.
Re: (Score:2)
Wrong.
The police are NOT avove the law. If anything, they are kept under even closer scrutiny than ordinary citizens.
Rubbish. For all practical purposes the police are above the law.
Living in the Netherlands... (Score:4, Interesting)
Sadly, I have to admit he IS just that stupid.
He's been busy trying to kill privacy while turning a dozen bureaucratic police corpses into a single grand paper mill with vast investigative powers and near-zero investigative ability. Percentage of crimes solved is historically low. Priority appears to be crimes that aren't (example: 440 man DAYS burned on a single 4Chan message of a schoolkid threatening to set his school on fire), as well as traffic violations (effectively turning the police into an extended tax collection agency).
Sadly, he's not going anywhere until the next elections.
Why stop there? (Score:2)
"... give the the power to hack into computer systems ..."
Why stop there?
They should also give them the power to leap tall buildings, x-ray vision, run faster than a speeding bullet. I mean if we are talking about legislating that they be able to do things they are innately incapable of doing, why just stop at the ability to hack?
Re: (Score:2)
Because when the law is here, they will create a new law for a backdoor in every system because the first law allows for something like that.
Aaaand? You Don't want Bullet Trains, Trampolines outside of every building, and X-Ray cameras at airports?
I mean, yeah, it's a grab bag, but it's not any worse than them just keeping on doing it. Just that now they can't go to jail for it.
I, for one, welcome our Mega-Gymnastic Super-Conductor Uber-Hacker Overloards.
Decryption order is far more dangerous (Score:3)
Thanks (Score:2)
Think of it as a public service announcement. This is a government's way of reminding everyone that their computer systems are broken, broken to the point of shocking negligence. When their left hand (law enforcement) does this, it just means you need to ask their right hand (regulators) what they're doing about the known serious problem.
If the government can successfully ask your phone to power up and query GPS and tell them where you are, anyone can ask your phone to tell them where you are. That means
This business will get out of control. (Score:1)
Will firewalls/anti-virus become illegal? (Score:2)
If police need to break into computers as part of their job, will computer security (firewalls/anti-virus/etc) be considered "obstructing a police officer"?
Not the only thing for 1st time snce 1800s, is it? (Score:1)
I freakin' knew Beatrix shouldn't have resigned!
last october yea i thought this was old news (Score:1)