US Says It Can Hack Foreign Servers Without Warrants 335
Advocatus Diaboli tips news that the U.S. government is now arguing it doesn't need warrants to hack servers hosted on foreign soil. At issue is the current court case against Silk Road operator Ross Ulbricht. We recently discussed how the FBI's account of how they obtained evidence from Silk Road servers didn't seem to mesh with reality. Now, government lawyers have responded in a new court filing (PDF). They say that even if the FBI had to hack those servers without a warrant, it doesn't matter, because the Fourth Amendment does not confer protection to servers hosted outside the U.S. They said, "Given that the SR Server was hosting a blatantly criminal website, it would have been reasonable for the FBI to 'hack' into it in order to search it, as any such 'hack' would simply have constituted a search of foreign property known to contain criminal evidence, for which a warrant was not necessary."
Color Me Surprised (Score:5, Insightful)
If nothing else, at least it's out in the open where they have to defend it.
Re:Color Me Surprised (Score:5, Insightful)
Sigh.
If nothing else, at least it's out in the open where they have to defend it.
The Old Government response: We cannot confirm nor deny that we were involved in such activity.
The New Government response: Yeah. We did it. What the fuck are you gonna do about it, peasant. Piss off, or we'll label you a terrorist too.
If that is what you call a defense, I'd sure as hell hate to see them on the offensive.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
We have seen that. It looks like Ferguson.
Re:Color Me Surprised (Score:4, Insightful)
You've got that backwards: it's Darren Wilson who allegedly did something similar to lynching. What "a lot of people" are doing is calling for that allegation to be properly investigated, which is exactly the opposite of jumping to conclusions!
Re: (Score:3)
However, if there's a belief that the situation won't be properly investigated, it's perfectly rational to expect for people to riot and rebel. The country was foun
Re:Color Me Surprised (Score:5, Insightful)
Burning books while a crowd of thousands cheers? For all their might, the Powers That Be are ultimately just figments of collective imagination. A nation can't arrest or shoot you, it needs someone to do so on its behalf. And if the only reason why anyone might obey is fear, the entire system is one realization away from collapse. What happened in the former Soviet block is an excellent demonstration of just how that works.
Even the Roman emperors knew their power stemmed from public support, not armed might, hence the need to provide bread and circuses.
Of course, this is all ignoring the fact that US is a democracy. You don't need a revolution to change the people in charge, you simply need to express support for someone else, and anonymously at that. So if the rulers approve of bullshit like this, and still get re-elected, then don't blame the Government, blame the citizens.
Re:Color Me Surprised (Score:4, Interesting)
Of course, this is all ignoring the fact that US is a democracy. You don't need a revolution to change the people in charge, you simply need to express support for someone else, and anonymously at that. So if the rulers approve of bullshit like this, and still get re-elected, then don't blame the Government, blame the citizens.
I think you underestimate the power of political gerrymandering [wikipedia.org].
It's one of several reasons that change is very hard to come by in the USA's political process.
There's also the separate issue of our De Facto dual party system which has gone to great lengths to create roadblocks for alternative political parties.
TLDR: The two parties have rigged the electoral process in their favor, damaging the democratic part of our democratic republic.
Re:Color Me Surprised (Score:5, Insightful)
The Department of Justice already claims it can steal private property without a warrant or charges being filed, so declaring that power to be extended overseas is a logical next step.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Color Me Surprised (Score:5, Insightful)
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated." Some parts of the Constitution refer to the rights of Citizens... presumably US Citizens. The 4th Amendment makes not such distinction. People are people and have rights regardless of where they live.
Re:Color Me Surprised (Score:4, Insightful)
Sigh.
If nothing else, at least it's out in the open where they have to defend it.
Right. And I am certain at every court challenge to this notion, that "the Bill of Rights is only for US citizens on US soil," their idiotic interpretation will fail miserably and immediately. No where in the Constitution does it limit its powers and the extension of the enumerated rights to only US citizens only on US soil. This limitation was never intended by the Founders, thus it is not there, but a thin pathetic fantasy of whomever thought up this canine feces of a legal strategy. The Bill of Rights extends to protect every person, US citizen or not, anywhere and everywhere in the Universe from tyrannical government, according to the letter of the text. It is simply not possible to reasonably and legitimately prove otherwise.
Re: (Score:2)
FTFY:
one day soon the government-department of the largest corporations will simply declare the whole constitutin, am
Re:Color Me Surprised (Score:5, Insightful)
they can hack me without warrants, can I hack them without warrants?
point being, they're breaking the law in the country where the servers were in... they're going to slip up some day and hack someone that sues them abroad and in usa...
the way usa runs it's justice spying system, it's a wonder any country still hands over any suspects to usa..
Re:Color Me Surprised (Score:5, Funny)
they can hack me without warrants, can I hack them without warrants?
Yes.
Disclaimer: IANAL
Re:Color Me Surprised (Score:4, Insightful)
The real question is....can you get away with it?
Re:Color Me Surprised (Score:4, Insightful)
they can hack me without warrants, can I hack them without warrants?
Of course you can do whatever you want. But the real question is, can you convince hundreds of thousands of people to fight a war in your good name? Can you have people work on military weaponry in order to kill large amounts of people in your good name? Because if you can convince hundreds of thousands of people to enlist in your "army" full of weapons that were developed blindly, all in the name of money or whatever, and are capable of launching a large-scale attack on any country that you wish, while all of the rest of the world simply decides to stay out of it, then shit man, you can do whatever you want. But this would take years and years of careful planning, and execution of said plan in a way that no one really understands what's going on. The Nazis failed because they tried to do it all in one generation. It takes year, my friend.
Seriously though, no law exists simply by being on paper. It's up to men (and women) to decide what's right or wrong, write laws, follow those laws, and enforce those laws. These day, however, it appears that people have stopped caring about right or wrong. It's all about the !!!$$$BLING$$$BLING$$$!!!
Re:Color Me Surprised (Score:5, Insightful)
The other countries don't care... the US hacking their people's computers means that they don't have to. All that needs to happen is the US and EU governments hack computers of the citizens of the other, and then swap the information. Sure, there's still some protections if that evidence was used in court, but there's zero protection if that intel isn't used for a court case, but instead to inform an investigation which then, magically, is able to know exactly where to look to get the information they need to get search warrants and other constitutional case-building evidence.
Re:Color Me Surprised (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes. And for those who aren't aware, this kind of thing has been going on for decades (if not longer). GCHQ and the NSA exchanging data on each others citizens to circumvent the laws (supposedly a contract between a government and its citizens). Largely this has been for industrial espionage purposes to, *not* to protect the interests of the nation.
Re:Color Me Surprised (Score:5, Informative)
"Are you living abroad and doing the hacking at the behest of a foreign government? Then go right ahead, but it should be treated as the act of war that it is, just as any other country that has servers hacked at the behest of the US government should do".
Actually, the USA has committed acts of war against dozens of nations since 1945 - and presumably there is no act of limitations on a state of war. That is, if you bomb a nation's territory, fire cruise missiles into it, assassinate its citizens with drones, apply commercial sanctions to it, or attack it financially, you are then in a state of war with that nation. So every one of those nations is entitled, under international law, to use any weapons or other military methods against the USA.
Moreover, the USA has repeatedly committed the supreme international crime of launching unprovoked aggressive wars. Hence, under the very doctrine put forth by the US government as reported in TFA, any foreign government is entitled to hack any servers in the USA - including those of the government and its agencies.
Unless, of course, the US government believes that it is different from all other nations, and that international law does not apply to it. The view expressed by the parent boils down to "might makes right" - the ancient principle enshrined in the Melian Dialogue. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3)
above.. international law
All national goverments are above international law. International law only exists if a participating country enforces it with a local law.
China & Russia off the hook then (Score:5, Insightful)
Good news for China and Russian state sponsored haxors then. Perfectly legal for them to steal from US gov and Corps.
Re: (Score:2)
So what they are saying... (Score:5, Insightful)
So what they are saying is that anyone outside the US can freely hack US servers without a warrant too. Surely they don't expect special treatment?
Re:So what they are saying... (Score:4, Insightful)
Dingdingding, we have a winner!
No doubt, China and Russia will react to this announcement with enthusiasm. "Chinese military hacking DOD computers?" No no no, of course not - They just needed to gather some evidence of "blatantly criminal" activity.
More seriously, that one phrase bothers me more than the entire rest of the post... When we allow our government to substitute "blatantly criminal" for "probable cause", we may as well just save time and install government cameras in our living rooms now.
"So why do you need this warrant?" "Come on, man, we know he did it!" "Okay, here you go!"
Re: (Score:2)
No doubt, China and Russia will react to this announcement with enthusiasm. "Chinese military hacking DOD computers?" No no no, of course not - They just needed to gather some evidence of "blatantly criminal" activity.
So... Chinese hackers hack into servers of US agencies to find out why US agencies hacked into Chinese servers to find out why Chinese hackers hacked into...
No, I don't see any problem with that.
Re: (Score:2)
you're assuming that government sponsored chinese hackers haven't been trying to and succeeding at performing industrial espionage for the better part of a decade.
this game isn't played with the same rules. It would be ridiculous to expect a higher standard for the US when our economic security is at stake.
Re:So what they are saying... (Score:5, Insightful)
"It would be ridiculous to expect a higher standard for the US when our economic security is at stake".
In other words:
We believe wholeheartedly in freedom, democracy, and human rights... unless that looks as if it might lose us some money - in which case forget about it.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh really? Let's take a look at the 4th Amendment in question:
Re:So what they are saying... (Score:5, Insightful)
I came to say exactly this.
A core precept of US law is that "all people" have certain unalienable rights, be they citizen or not, at home or abroad. The government does not bestow these rights upon us; the US Constitution merely lists the situation in which those rights may be abrogated for the good of a better society. This fundamental belief is also part of the reasoning for US interventionism abroad. While we cannot in all situations ensure those rights to all people, the reasoning (if not actual cause) is that the US should do what it can to prevent those unalienable rights from trampling regardless of whether or not they are US citizens.
However, this reasoning has an important caveat that is increasingly being ignored (though it's not new): the US must act as if those non-citizens have the same rights and protections as US citizens. While it may be impossible to ensure that every foreign national has free-speech, speedy trial or any of the other rights Americans take for granted, still the US government should not and cannot act against those rights. So the idea that foreigners should not be protected by the need for a warrant is blatantly opposed to the core concepts behind the founding of this country.
One of the reasons for this shift in policy is not some malign conspiracy of foreigner-hating tyrants but a critical misunderstanding of the relationship between people and the government by its own citizens (including those who work for the government). Too often that relationship is seen as patriarchal: the government dispenses the rights, and therefore it has the right to suspend them, either in whole or in part, affecting some or all of those under its influence, as per its own whim. This is incorrect; not only is it that "We-the-People" voluntarily allow ourselves to be restricted, but as a "people" those restrictions must apply fairly to everyone, not just citizens. Doing otherwise merely creates divisions that can be too easily exploited against ourselves later on.
It's worth reminding people of the difference.
Re: (Score:3)
Well said! However:
That may indeed be part of the reasoning for interventionism, but such reasoning is faulty. The Constitution says that the US Government is prohibited from infringing people's rights, but it doesn't say that the US Government is obligated to prevent (or indeed, even justified in choosing to prevent) other sovereign states from infringing on people's rights.
Re:So what they are saying... (Score:4, Informative)
I prefer the excuse to the reasoning. I remember listening to a speech by Bush where he was making the case for war and talking about liberty and it just turned my stomach. The thought in my head was "If I believed that you actually believed a word you were saying, I might be with you".
Its like I always like to point out with the civil war. We know the Emancipation Proclamation would have allowed slavery to continue. We know there were 4 slave owning states still in the Union and any who rejoined before the deadline would be able to keep slavery alive. The war was not fought (by the Union) over slavery.
This is why i dislike Lincoln and call him a terrible president. The country should be able to break up, the several states deserve the right to make that choice. Had the war been, from day one, a war of liberation against slavery, fuck, I would paint that man a hero for the ages....but he didn't...it was a war against self determination.
In the end, you have to seperate the window dressing from the structure and not be so in love with the trappings that you ignore the rotting beam under the floor boards.
Re: (Score:2)
rights extend to citizens or peoples within the United states. The first amendment does jack shit for an iranian citizen in iran. An iranian in the US might be extended certain rights, almost certainly the first amendment rights. A US citizen in a foreign country must forfeit those rights in keeping with the host country's laws. that's generally how it's always worked.
Re: (Score:3)
The First Amendment restricts what the US Government is allowed to do. The US Government is indeed prohibited from violating the First Amendment rights of an Iranian in Iran. Actions of non-US entities (e.g., the Iranian government), however, are outside the scope of the document -- it's not the US Government's job to stop anybody else from infringing Iranians' rights; only to refrain from doing so itself.
Re: (Score:2)
You've got to read it in context.
Preamble to the constitution:
'We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.'
This has in many judgements been found to mean it's only effective in the states.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure this is somewhat of an incident of (understandable) myopia by the founding fathers. The US government was to be responsible for what happened within its borders and could not control what was happening outside and the constitution was written with a somewhat isolationist view of the US. They could not possibly have envisioned the kind of interconnectedness of our communications (nor indeed the capabilities of military weaponry) so it was not written with the rights of those outside of the US in min
Re: (Score:2)
If the "people" referred to by the 4th Amendment and the "people of the several states" referred to by Article 1, Section 2 were the same group, then there would have been no need to write the "of the several states" part.
Re: (Score:3)
Maybe you need to read the entire thing? The constitution originally left voting rights up to the states to sort out individually. It was the 14th amendment adopted in 1868 that universally set the male, 21, born or naturalized citizens standard. Technically, that doesn't stop the states from still doing what they want though. They could allow non-citizens to vote if they really wanted to. It is a right and there is nothing in the constitution that prohibits it.
The full list of protections from Wikiped
Re: (Score:2)
You would be wrong about the Bill of Rights both with respect to James Madison's intent and many decades of jurisprudence. The Bill of rights applies to resident aliens, as an example, just as it does to citizens.
Re:So what they are saying... (Score:4, Informative)
>Non-citizens are not protected by the constitution and have no such rights
Where do you get this idea?
Aliens in the U.S. have essentially the same rights as citizens for many purposes because of the 5th and 14th Amendments’ language, but aliens do not have constitutional rights against the U.S. government outside its territory.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, there are international extradition treaties, trade agreements, (applications) of law, etc. If the US DOJ continues down this path, they will have a hard time getting useful cooperation in legal matters with other countries in the future. Good luck enforcing your treaties and copyright claims abroad. There is only so much injustice and double standards that other countries and their voters will accept, and the legal systems of most countries explicitly prohibit the application of foreign law and law e
Re: (Score:2)
Um, last I checked the DoJ isn't part of our military and as such does not have the authority to perform acts of war such as invading sovereign territories not controlled by US law; which is exactly what hacking a server not controlled by the US without the permission of said sovereign government is considered. Hell, the DoJ isn't even a spy organisation, we already have other departments for that, so they can't legitimately use that excuse that it was just SOP for intelligence gathering.
The US needs to ea
Re: (Score:2)
'A legal system that isn't based on morality and strive to follow morality as close as possible is a sure way into a police state.'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J... [wikipedia.org] I see as a shining example of a system that strives to follow morality as closely as possible.
Re: (Score:2)
So if I come visit US I have zero rights?
No. Aliens in the US have essentially the same civil rights as citizens. Non-citizens outside of the US are not subject to the restrictions or the protections of US law, obviously.
Re:So what they are saying... (Score:4, Insightful)
So if I come visit US I have zero rights?
No. Aliens in the US have essentially the same civil rights as citizens.
So if he comes to visit the US he has zero rights.
Re: (Score:3)
But that isn't how the constitution functions mechanically. It doesn't apply to people. It applies to the government's behavior.
Every person has the same rights no matter who they are, where they are, what country they belong to, etc. The constitution restricts how our government may infringe upon those rights. Those restrictions are universal except in the few cases where an exception is carved out.
So when trying to figure out how it is applied, you simply look at it without considering who the subject
Re: (Score:2)
Surely they don't expect special treatment?
You do know that US is short for USA and that the A is for America, right?
Re: (Score:2)
So what they are saying is that anyone outside the US can freely hack US servers without a warrant too. Surely they don't expect special treatment?
Not really. What they are saying is US Constitutional protections do not apply abroad. Wether or not you agree with that statement is a different issue than saying it's OK to hack into a US computer. The agents hacking into the computer could be guilty of violating the laws of the country that hosts the server an subject to prosecution if that country decides to go after them.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually I don;t care whether any of us agree with the statement. It's a moot point since Reid v. Covert, where the Court concluded that U.S. citizens have the same rights against the U.S. government when it acts against them abroad.
Re: (Score:2)
So what they are saying is that anyone outside the US can freely hack US servers without a warrant too. Surely they don't expect special treatment?
However, if a US government employee who was somehow involved in cracking a foreign server visited that country, they would presumably still be subject to arrest and prosecution?
What about extradition? The US has extradited people from their homes after they cracked US servers so they might struggle to argue that US citizens shouldn't be extradited in similar circumstances. Or has "I was breaking the law as part of my job" suddenly become a valid defence?
And of course "somehow involved" doesn't necessaril
Is anyone shocked? (Score:2)
Sovereignty Issues ? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Usually a foreign property search requires the permission of that country to pre-approve the search. I very much doubt the US requested permission. Violating another country's sovereignty should never be taken lightly.
Which is a separate issue form the one that is being argued. The country could have given permission to US law enforcement to access the server; however that would not answer the question "Does Fourth Amendment protections apply in the case of a non-US search and seizure?" The answer to the later could be yes and thus the search illegal even with host country permission.
American Exceptionalism (Score:5, Insightful)
How do US authorities feel about foreign nations hacking into US military and corporate computers? For example, this story: Chinese authorities hacked into Pentagon and other sensitive computers [theguardian.com]:
I'm guessing they don't like that. Which perhaps is what the United States means by "American Exceptionalism [wikipedia.org]".
Re: (Score:2)
As absolutely wrong as their position is ethically I don't think there's quite the hypocrisy being claimed. I doubt the Chinese are punishing the people hacking into American servers for them either, warrant or not. In theory a US warrant shouldn't even be valid for a server in the UK, so the FBI is commiting a crime in Britain by hacking a machine that is located there without a UK warrant. The question is whe
Re: American Exceptionalism (Score:2)
I wonder if Gary McKinnon can use that defence? After all he hacked into the US DoD looking for evidence of a UFO cover up.
Re: (Score:2)
1) It is not a violation of US law to hack into Chinese computers.
2) It is not a violation of Chinese law to hack into US computers.
Neither of the above imply in any way that it's not a violation of Chinese law to hack into Chinese computers, or a violation of US law to hack into US computers.
Which means that the Americans who hacked into the Chinese computers should not go to China, nor should the Chinese who hacked into American computers go to the USA.
Re:American Exceptionalism (Score:4, Insightful)
But it also means that if someone does hack into US computers, the US should not be looking to extradite or otherwise seek redress.
Because if it's legal for you guys to do it, you have no leg to stand on when someone else does it to you.
But, that's OK. Because the US will just call in a drone strike, and if a few civilians have to die, that's just the cost of doing business.
Of course, the problem with that, is someone else might decide that your civilians are a valid target.
An eye for an eye leaves everybody blind.
I really worry that the road the US is heading down is one of "we don't give a crap about you, your country, or your laws, as long as we have what we want". At which point the US is really not entitled to any sympathy from the rest of the world.
And, as we've seen over the last decade or so, they might actually be creating more animosity towards themselves.
They're certainly losing support and sympathy from the rest of the world who doesn't agree that our rights are secondary to their security.
So, while I understand why the US is in this mess ... I simply am not prepared to cede my rights to yours.
I used to admire America and what she stood for. Now I'm looking at her and thinking ... wow, what a train wreck. And a train wreck which is becoming scary and dangerous, and in a very big rush to bring on the dystpoian future of a ruthless, paranoid surveillance state.
Papers please comrade. In my lifetime, America has begun to morph into what they've always stood against. And they're fast becoming scarier than what they used to stand against.
Re: (Score:2)
As an American, I'm sickened by what America has become.
Re: (Score:2)
in soviet russia, no discussion would take place. yes hyperbole is fun, but it's also wrong. Stood against totalitarianism, communism and fascism. We are nowhere near that, and will never be, because at least we're having the conversation about how to proceed.
You're looking at the growing pains of navigating tricky waters in an increasingly complex world.
How to fight terrorism? can't declare war, nation-states aren't the enemy. How to fight radical islam, without appearing to condone religious discrimina
Re: (Score:2)
But it also means that if someone does hack into US computers, the US should not be looking to extradite or otherwise seek redress.
No, what it means is that if foreign police hack into a US computer to gather evidence on a foreign criminal, the US should not be looking to extradite or otherwise seek redress... and the US may actually agree with this argument.
But, that's OK. Because the US will just call in a drone strike, and if a few civilians have to die, that's just the cost of doing business.
Not likely. Note that I'm sickened by my government's tendency to bomb with abandon, but there's no way the US is going to be targeting drone strikes at legitimate officials of recognized foreign governments.
Papers please comrade. In my lifetime, America has begun to morph into what they've always stood against. And they're fast becoming scarier than what they used to stand against.
I wish I could disagree... I do have some hope, though, that the pendulum
Re: American Exceptionalism (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
1) It is not a violation of US law to hack into Chinese computers.
I'm not so sure of that. There have been a a number of amendments over the years to the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. One in particular broadens "the definition of "protected computer" in 18 U.S.C.1030(e)(2) to the full extent of Congress's commerce power by including those computers used in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce or communication."
That's a pretty wide net, and could be interpreted to include whatever the prosecutor wants it to.
Re: (Score:2)
It is not a violation of US law to hack into Chinese computers.
Are you sure? How does that work? I'm assuming you mean that hacking into Chinese computers while being in the US is not a violation of US law. If the acting person is in the US, then US law should generally apply. Does every law against hacking have an exception like "unless the target is in a foreign country, then it's OK"?
No exception is required. It's a question of jurisdiction. Hacking of computers in China is in the jurisdiction of Chinese courts and handled under Chinese law.
Suppose I (a US citizen) fly to China and commit a murder. Would you expect US law to be used to convict me in a US court? Obviously not. It's up to China to police murders in their own country, even if the murderer is a foreigner. In the case of breaking into a computer the question of jurisdiction is a little trickier, since I can sit in my bedro
Re: (Score:2)
:) my government is there to protect my rights, not yours.
I always laugh when i see my government spying on other governments and those other governments getting snippy.
the crime is never the spying, it's the getting caught. My government is there to protect my rights, spy if they must, kill if they really must, but protect me. Your government is also doing the same, and it's at its leisure to spy on me, kill me if they can swing it and decide i'm a terrible threat, or whatnot. This is what i pay for, th
But they can tax your overseas income? (Score:4, Insightful)
Secure your systems (Score:5, Insightful)
We're beyond trusting these people. Secure your systems and assume the worst.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not true, the NSA has a lot of tools for getting past air gaps. They have a long list of tools including screen capture cards built into computer monitor CABLES. So the cable itself has a tiny computer in it, that screen captures the monitor signal, and then broadcasts that signal in an encrypted format to a receiver in the area. And that is just the start.
So no.... air gapping is not enough. It is very good... and makes penetrating a network a lot harder. But physical security is still the first law.
Re: (Score:2)
Ideally, you have to source all your equipment through third parties to disguise who is buying it which reduces the possibility it will be tampered with in the first place.
Once you do that, you might want to xray enclosed components that you cannot directly observe.
As to what I am doing? I am telling you that the NSA has used screen capture systems built into monitor cables. That isn't me just making that up. They do have such devices and they do use them.
So how do you deal with that? The Russian FSB went b
double standards (Score:2)
Isn't this very action what the Congress decreed would be construed as an act of war?
Drones (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, if you can fly drones and kill innocent people with them in Pakistan without asking the government I guess you can hack their servers too.
What Court? (Score:2)
What court would grant a warrant for an action outside that court's jurisdiction? They don't need a warrant because there is no "do something in Iceland" warrant that can be obtained from a US court, at least not one that the local authorities would recognize.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Extradition Matters.
Evidence stolen or illegally required is a touchy issue. If it is stolen, how dare anyone assume it is 'real' and not made up. Very easy to set someone up. Nope, the only evidence should be physical. Germany and Merkel should spit the dummy over this claim.
Reassurances are worthless, and it would be so easy to plant something.
"Known to Contain" (Score:5, Insightful)
a search of foreign property known to contain criminal evidence, for which a warrant was not necessary.
The reason we require you to get a warrant is to distinguish between the two meanings of "known to contain":
1. I can reasonably demonstrate the probability that this server contains.
2. I have a gut feeling that this server contains.
The problem is not that the actual Silk Road server got hacked, which is what the FBI is arguing. The problem is servers that do not contain criminal evidence getting hacked based gut feelings. That is why we require a warrant. We don't want our government hacking into servers on a whim and without a record, regardless of where those servers are physically located.
Well, then by corollary... (Score:3)
...other nations don't need a warrant to hack US-Based Servers.
Thank you for giving me permission (Score:3)
Swiss Banks? (Score:3, Insightful)
So are we working to hack Swiss banks or other off-shore financial institutions, looking for tax evasion by US citizens?
It would be a dragnet, but we know there is tax evasion occurring.
This would seem reasonable if the precedent stands. Especially if the evidence can be used for further warrants.
I need to watch Sneakers again...
Re: (Score:2)
So are we working to hack Swiss banks or other off-shore financial institutions, looking for tax evasion by US citizens?
It would be a dragnet, but we know there is tax evasion occurring.
Yeah, but it's typically very wealthy people who are doing that. Wealthy people who tend to donate money to political causes. Catch my drift?
Remember how Google and Apple and Microsoft and all these big companies are getting out of paying corporate income taxes by "offshoring" their income? Remember how the Democrats are going to do something about it? I get email every few days from left-wing groups telling me about this.
Look at where Google, Apple, and Microsoft employees invest their political contri
Please liberate us... (Score:4, Funny)
To any foreign country out there that doesn't like the US government, please come liberate us and bring us democracy again. As a person that is stuck living in the hell hole that is the USA, I am begging you, please help us -- we are fucked.
Thanks,
-- Brian
There is a kind of logic here (Score:2)
That is, US courts don't have jurisdiction in Russia, so a US warrant to go to Russia and search a home there is worthless.
Any search in Russia would either be a) illegal, or b) need a Russian Warrant.
So if they don't get a Russian warrant, the Russian government could rightfully choose to charge them with a crime committed on Russian soil.
That said, the question then becomes
If true - imagine the consequenses (Score:2)
Does that mean they think they're allowed to hack whatever banks and stock markets they want in foreign countries?
If so - imagine how effectively they might go after financial crimes.
Or is this just for when the FBI wants to overlap with the DEA on wars on drugs?
Kill (Score:2)
They can kill foreign people, what's a bloody server.
"The People" are not "The US Citizens" (Score:5, Informative)
Human rights don't work that way. The US Constitution is very carefully worded, especially regarding where it says "person" or "people" and where it says "citizen" or "citizens".
Here's the Fourth Amendment:
That doesn't say "citizens". It says "The right of the people".
There was a time... (Score:3)
...when this was called espionage and it was conducted by the CIA. If the FBI needed something from outside of our borders, it asked the local police for it because that is how law enforcement is supposed to work...within the rule of law.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. It would be perfectly legal in Russia to hack into an American server to gather evidence for a Russian trial (assuming the Russian constitution doesn't prohibit such activities in Russia.) However, because it would be illegal in America, the Russian law enforcement agent would still be subject to American prosecution, if discovered. So don't expect Russia to offer any information to America regarding the law enforcement agents or agencies involved.
Re: (Score:2)
And the reverse is also true. Any NSA officer hacking into a Russian server is subject to prosecution in Russia, if discovered.
Basically, personnel from both sides might want to avoid taking any vacations where the other side might arrest you.
Re:Wtf?! (Score:5, Insightful)
You're never going to agree to the extradition of one of your own spies if they get exposed, which is why you occasionally get "tit for tat" diplomatic expulsions, as it's the only real way of showing that you know you've been spied on, as the spy will most likely have diplomatic cover.
If you get caught red-handed spying abroad, it depends on which country you're talking about. North Korea would probably execute you, Canada would pack you off home and take you off their "actual diplomats" list.
Re: (Score:3)
I'd mod +1 if I could.
This does fall under spying. It's a good analogy.
The thing that upsets me, and apparently not others, is that our government is so incompetent at spying that they have to blow their own fucking cover.
Re: (Score:2)
Laws apply wherever. It's the ability to enforce them that is at issue.
NO. This is not about "foreigners." (Score:5, Interesting)
Remember, the government is trying to argue that Silk Road was owned by Ulbricht, a US citizen. So what they're really claiming is that the 4th Amendment doesn't apply to a US citizen's papers and effects, if they happen to be physically located outside of the borders of the US. The Constitution imposes no such limitation; therefore, this is clearly unconstitutional.
The government's argument also begs the question -- and I mean that in its proper sense, as in, the government is making a circular argument. From the summary:
There is no such thing as a "blatantly criminal" anything until it has be ruled as such in a court of law. Getting a warrant is exactly what they must do as a first step towards proving something is illegal; they don't get to simply "assume" it's illegal and skip that step. It is exactly the job of the judge issuing the warrant -- and nobody else -- to decide what is "given!"
That concept is so basic and fundamental that it's an axiom upon which the entire US legal system is founded; it boggles the mind to think that any lawyer so incompetent as to make such an argument could even exist!
Re: (Score:2)
This is the most informative post.
It seems like the key issue is whether property owned or controlled by American offshore is entitled to 4th Amendment protection from the Federal government.
I would be surprised if there wasn't any precedents for this, although in past years with physical property the government likely relied on foreign law enforcement to perform searches or did so under the authority of a foreign government.
But even so, it would be interesting to know how the courts handled an American tri
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. Simply stated "hey, those Constitutional protections don't apply when someone's a criminal, duhhhhh." As the FP (or someone close said) at least it's out in the open so it can be debated. However, it would be nice if the judge picks up on the fact that they perjured themselves (literally) with their first explanation of how they got into his server. I'm not holding my breath.
Re: (Score:3)
The subject's citizenship is irrelevant as is the location of the information and what it is contained within. A warrant is needed with very few exceptions.
The FBI *can* do whatever they want to get whatever information they want. Any halfway competent judge should throw it all out along with any evidence that they find based upon anything found in this manner. By making these statements, they're pretty much ensuring that they can't get a conviction in this case which leads me to believe that they have h
Re: (Score:3)
Sure, the foreign government could allow the hacking and hand over the data. But that doesn't magically give the data any legal weight; it's just hearsay. Using it as evidence should still require a warrant!
Re: Diplomatically risky, though possibly legal (Score:3)
this is nonsense. The US Constitution only grants the power explicitly delegated to the federal government - other powers fall to the States and the people. Any protections listed are based on natural rights which are inherent in the human being, not in a citizenship, and so apply equally to all humans.
Re:Still lyin' (Score:4, Informative)
The server is on TOR, so the location is masked. The FBI knows that it isn't inside the US... How?
What makes you think a Tor server can't be hacked? Tor is just a network protocol that masks the source and destination addresses of a connection. It is not magical hack-proof server sauce.
In the case of the Silk Road, the server was hacked to do at least one thing: the law enforcement agency added malicious javascript that caused browsers who connected to their servers to cache that script. Then, when the hapless drug buyer disconnected from Tor, the script remained in their cache, and when they reconnected to a regular network connection, the script phoned home from their real IP address. That's how they identified buyers on the Silk Road. But if they've hacked the server, it is not hard to believe they didn't also determine its real IP address.
Re: (Score:2)
America is in no position; financially, morally or ethically; to talk down to other countries for what they do anymore....
Re: (Score:2)
What I find most annoying is the government, which is supposed to enforce and obey the law, spends so much time figuring out ways to get around the law.
Re: (Score:2)
Companies usually have a horde of lawyers, a private citizen is lucky if he can afford just one lawyer for a limited time.
Guess who's right the government disregards.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes... as long as the former nation state is larger/wealthier/more powerful than the latter.