FBI To Gain Expanded Hacking Powers as Senate Effort To Block Fails (reuters.com) 153
A last-ditch effort in the Senate to block or delay rule changes that would expand the U.S. government's hacking powers failed Wednesday, despite concerns the changes would jeopardize the privacy rights of innocent Americans and risk possible abuse by the incoming administration of President-elect Donald Trump. Reuters adds: Democratic Senator Ron Wyden attempted three times to delay the changes which, will take effect on Thursday and allow U.S. judges will be able to issue search warrants that give the FBI the authority to remotely access computers in any jurisdiction, potentially even overseas. His efforts were blocked by Senator John Cornyn of Texas, the Senate's second-ranking Republican. The changes will allow judges to issue warrants in cases when a suspect uses anonymizing technology to conceal the location of his or her computer or for an investigation into a network of hacked or infected computers, such as a botnet.
Ban Encryption (Score:5, Funny)
And do we really need HTTPS ?
The FBI's hacking would be easier if all systems were required to have a special port with a telnetd root shell running, exclusively for the FBI's use, of course.
Re:Ban Encryption (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd give you a +1 "funny", but, in the current environment, there are a large number of readers who are likely saying "exactly!"
And that is how history repeats itself.
Re: (Score:2)
This would make us all less safe.
Instead, the government has invested effort in developing the strongest encryption key.
The strength of this key will keep us all safe.
Everyone must begin using this encryption key immediately.
People who refuse are obviously up to no good.
Re: (Score:2)
Did you say "current environment"? (Score:2, Interesting)
You, guys, wanted the President to be a dictator as far back as 2010 [latimes.com]! So he could "do a lot of things quickly".
The law being discussed will be signed by Obama. Whom you elected.
Re: (Score:3)
And while I like a lot of what Obama has done, I disagree with him strongly on expanding the powers of the NSA/FBI instead of adding better checks on them. Of course, he's not solely to blame - there are a lot of people in Congress that deserve a good share of blame - but the buck does stop in the Oval Office as far as that's concerned. (Now if he vetoed it and Congress overrode his veto, I'd say his hands would be clean, but obviously that didn't happen.)
Re: (Score:1)
No, the buck stops with the voters who reliably reelect 97% of Congress and always elect republicans and democrats to the white house every time. Until that changes, nothing else will.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Security is an illusion (Score:2)
They could have read it right off your keyboard anyway. By far the easiest place to monitor communications is at the unencrypted endpoints. If you don't want anyone to know what you're thinking, don't say it, don't enter it into a computer in any form, and don't write it down. That'll protect you. For at least a little while longer, anyway.
"Two people can keep a secret -- if one of them is dead."
Re: (Score:2)
yup.
Works even better if you have a reputation for blurting everything out.
Re: (Score:2)
There's just too much volume to track all the content everywhere. That's why they install keyloggers that look for users hitting the Cancel button on posts over a certain length. If people are having second thoughts about something then you know it's the juicy stuff.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There are 350 million people in the USA, more or less. Including kids not of age to use computers. One computer, just one, operates at billions of instructions per second (when the code is written in anything efficient, like c.) The NSA has a newish huge data center [wikipedia.org] located on the main trunks.
You do the math. If you still think they can't sieve that amount of data effectively, why then, good on you for your optimism. :)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
its already there, its called intel management engine and its one of the best kept secrets of the computer industry.
NSA very very likely has 100% access, probably a level higher than the corps that WANTED this ability.
I fear what 4 years of full republican asswipes will do to what few freedoms we have left. stupid flyovers - they fucked us good. I hope the 'stigginit' they did backfires and makes THEIR lives hell like it will for the rest of us.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Costs in testing, costs in staff, costs in a brands ramp up and down over a product "just for the USA".
All the interesting people would avoid any US telco network compatible device knowing its wide open to the US gov by design.
Weak junk US gov mandated design keys would then walk with staff, ex staff, former staff, private detectives, faiths, other
Pay attention. (Score:5, Insightful)
Bear this in mind: A Democrat tried to block the FBI from hacking any computer anywhere and a Republican tried to stop it.
And yes, Democratic Senator Ron Wyden has been opposing this snooping since he entered the Senate in 1996, so no, it doesn't have anything to do with Donald Trump or President Obama.
Re:Pay attention. (Score:5, Insightful)
Bear this in mind. A Democrat did this with an incoming Republican President.
NOT when it was an incoming Democrat President.
But then I suppose Pope Ratzo has selective recall and forgets that Pelosi campaigned on repealing the Patriot Act in 2006 if they won the house, then in 2008 if they won the Presidency. Then EXTENDED the sunset provisions!
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, Senator Wyden did it when Barack Obama was president-elect, too.
Please (Score:2)
Arguments of the form:
A's assertion: "Joe never kicked the dog"
B's response: "Larry did so kick the dog!"
Re: (Score:2)
A's assertion was "Joe never kicked the dog therefore all Democrats are teh awesome"
No, A's assertion was "Joe, who is a Democrat, never kicked the dog".
The "all Democrats are teh awesome" part is something that you made up. You made it up because you WANTED him to be saying it.
But he didn't, and you know it. This makes you a liar.
Go back and read the thread.
A said: Bear this in mind. A Democrat tried to save the dog! Democrat Joe tried to save the dog.
B said: Steve and Jill are Democrats and they not only kicked dogs they wrote up laws to have them euthanized.
Clearly, PopeRatzo was making a point about democrats, and used one (Wyden) as his example. When it was pointed out that other democrats suck on this issue, he tried to imply that that he was only talking about one of them, not trying to generalize. But his initial post wa
Re: (Score:2)
A's assertion was "Joe never kicked the dog therefore all Democrats are teh awesome"
Citation please? All I read was a comment about Wyden in particular.
Go back and read the initial post. Here, I'll quote it for you:
PopeRatzo was clearly trying to show that Democrats are teh awesome and Republicans are teh suck. In reality, both suck.
Re: (Score:2)
And for the record... (Score:1)
He's been against this crap when Clinton, Feinstein, Boxer, Obama, and others were all pushing or aquiescing to it as well!
I really wish he was a Senator for my District because at least on tech issues and privacy he's on the same page I am.
Related: Now that the FBI has broad ranging support for hacking anyone, how long do you think it will be until we find out about Trustzone/TPM/Management Engine/SEE hardware, and the assorted chains of 'untrustworthy' firmware being used to carte blanche hack everyone's
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Republicans have controlled congress since 2010.
Re: (Score:2)
mod up.
the R's own all the bullshit that has happened under obama.
whatever O wanted, the R's denied. 'whatever it is you want, we don't want it and we will burn the country down to show how much we have O'
don't give us shit about the D's being at fault. they have not been truly in power in well over a decade.
at this point, with all 4 branches led by R-based idiots (the nsa/cia/fbi are the 4th branch. you didn't know that?) - we're going to see some major derpage coming our way and we won't have anyone to
Re: (Score:2)
typo: s/b/ 'we will burn the country down to show how much we hate O'
Re: (Score:2)
Republicans have controlled congress since 2010.
The article is incredibly short on detail, but it appears this is the result of changes to the federal rules of criminal procedure, which are made directly by the Supreme Court pursuant to an act passed in 1934 granting them that power. The court, last I checked, was a Supremely partisan (pun intended) 4-4 mix, but they seem to agree on this. While it's true that the congress could have stopped those rules, I don't believe it's something that commonly happens, partisan rhetoric aside.
Re: (Score:2)
This issue has not come before the Court since it's been a 4-4 mix. The last time this issue came up to SCOTUS, it was under Republican control.
Re: (Score:2)
Whether the issue comes before the court or not is moot--this isn't a judicial precedent, this is a rule as to how US courts behave. It's ambiguous whether or not Scalia was alive or not at the time this rule was codified--apparently, the Court transmits the rules to Congress "by May 1st" of the year they go into effect, and the rules can take effect no earlier than December 1st of that year. Since Scalia died in February, it's more likely than not this happened after his death.
Re: (Score:2)
You will find that he was not.
Re: (Score:2)
You will find that he was not.
Are we playing madlibs?
Snarking aside, I'm not especially educated on this topic... if you can find a date for this rule (I personally cannot) I'd love to see it so I can learn more.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Explain to me why this is a bad thing? This allows the FBI to hack a computer IF THEY HAVE A WARRANT!
I am VERY firmly against surveillance without a warrant (and a fan of Snowden), but if a judge signs a search warrant, I say the the government do what they need to do.
Re: (Score:1)
This is like the police getting a warrant to search every house in an entire city. You don't see why this is bad?
Re:Pay attention. (Score:5, Interesting)
But hey, if the government says they need something, then they should probably get it.
And there is this . . .
Meesa thinks a weesa should give the chancellor emergency powers. -- Jar Jar Binks
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I would assume that a judge would have some common sense. A warrant might say "All computers own by XXX person" or "all computers at XXX location." I doubt that a judge will sign a warrant for "all computers in Utah."
What is the alternative? "Whoops, we got a warrant to search five computers, but all of the illegal stuff is on computer #
Re: (Score:3)
you would be (profoundly) sadly surprised at the level of naivety most of the judicial has about computers beyond using them for office related apps.
Re: (Score:1)
Right...because the Judge that signed the warrant that allowed the police to force EVERYONE in a bank to unlock their phones using their fingerprint (obviously only those people who didn't use a pass code) went to law school so he/she understood the implications of the warrant (you'll have to google it but it was on Slashdot some months ago).
Seriously, what is the substantive difference between a warrant to force everyone to unlock their phones in a location such as a bank, that may only be there conducting
Re: (Score:2)
if they have a rubber stampped warrant from a judge who has no understanding of what they are signing
You are aware that search warrants are a thing today, right? If judges are rubber-stamping warrants they don't understand, it's a problem that has nothing to do with this law.
Re: (Score:2)
I am sure Jar Jar Binks would be a better candidate than today's. :P
Re: (Score:1)
They are not allowed to hack my computer even IF THEY HAVE A WARRANT, because no warrant can be granted for a computer on foreign soil.
Of course, they'll just get GCHQ to do it for them, but still.
Re: (Score:2)
Why do think this, what specific legal impediment, law, case law, precedent can you site that exists?
Microsoft has had some issues with this and EU privacy laws around E-mail, I don't know the matter is entirely dead yet.
Warrants not required (Score:2)
I think what our courts would (eventually) say is that the constitution doesn't protect anyone, or anything, outside of the USA itself, and so no warrant is required in the first place.
That's pretty much the entire basis our CIA was built upon.
I'm not saying this is a good outlook; but I am saying it is the outlook.
Re: (Score:2)
If I can connect, you have made your computer available in whatever jurisdiction I live in.
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
Because they will always overreach, and this gives them the justification and opportunity to overreach. Judges are mostly older, ignorant of technology, and for the most part blissfully ignorant in regards to the constitutional protection of information as it applies to the 21st century. This expansion of powers should be immediately repealed. We need to reform information technology laws in a way that is based on rational understanding of Constitutional rights. It might mean that private data is unobtainab
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
or President Obama.
Except, couldn't Obama veto it?
Re: (Score:2)
Sure. My point is that you can find Democrats who aren't fascists. Ron Wyden is one. When push comes to shove, the GOP will line up and support fascists.
Re: (Score:2)
Except, couldn't Obama veto it?
It doesn't appear so. The article is poorly written and very short on detail, but this looks like a change to the federal rules of criminal procedure, which are controlled directly by the Supreme Court. Congress CAN challenge these rules (the fact that the court has the ability to make these rules at all is a power delegated to them by the congress) but it typically does not. The president apparently has no say unless the congress acts.
Down ballot elections (Score:3)
Bear this in mind: A Democrat tried to block the FBI from hacking any computer anywhere and a Republican tried to stop it.
And yes, Democratic Senator Ron Wyden has been opposing this snooping since he entered the Senate in 1996, so no, it doesn't have anything to do with Donald Trump or President Obama.
Yep.
Taking $60 million from down-ballot campaigns [politico.com] and giving it to the Clinton campaign so she could defeat Bernie Sanders doesn't seem like such a good move now, does it?
Re: (Score:2)
There's more where that came from.
And now that every single thing that's going to happen in government after Jan 20 is squarely on the shoulders of the Republican Party and President-Elect Urinal Cake, they probably won't really need that much money.
Re: (Score:2)
It's the warrantless stuff, and the secret trials that I oppose. I don't oppose everything the FBI/NSA does (although there is a frighteningly large amount of what they do that I oppose, which is concerning).
msmash/manish (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Take Note (Score:4, Insightful)
I haven't seen a posting yet of the entire list, but in addition to the two named in the summary, Chris Coons (D-Delaware) and Steve Maines (R-Montana) are also noted in TFA as voicing opposition.
Re: (Score:2)
The best I got was the listing of sponsors for one of the bills:
Senator Wyden (along with Sens. Coons, Lee, Franken, and Daines)
Source [techdirt.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Rather, congress was divided by how much time they've spent in office. The newer ones tended to oppose it, and the older ones tended to support it. Note that the American public as a whole seems to favor it, so any campaign to change this should be aimed primarily at the American public, not the senators. Also, i think the country
Honesty has its virtue (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Sort of. When they're doing it all cloak and dagger, they have two fairly strong restrictions:
1) A slap on the wrist if anyone finds out.
2) Inadmissible in court.
When they're doing it in public, they only have the one restriction: That a judge sign off on it. And given that there doesn't appear to be much in the way of jurisdictional restrictions, they only really have to find one judge somewhere in the country who's willing to sign off on whatever with minimal convincing.
Countries like Russia, China, et
Re: (Score:1)
Sort of. When they're doing it all cloak and dagger, they have two fairly strong restrictions: 1) A slap on the wrist if anyone finds out. 2) Inadmissible in court.
When they're doing it in public, they only have the one restriction: That a judge sign off on it.
1) you seem to have some contradiction there between "fairly strong restriction" and "slap on the wrist if anyone finds out"
2) They invented "parallel construction" some time ago.
Countries like Russia, China, etc.. hell even friendly countries like Canada or the UK.. should be super annoyed with this though as the FBI is effectively claiming jurisdiction over their most-definitely-not-American computer systems (and the citizens operating them.)
I go back to my original point- They were going to do the hacking anyway. They have been doing the hacking anyway. The right answer for foreign governments and populations is the same right answer as for domestic citizens like myself- Don't leave my doors unlocked, my windows open, or my telecommunicated data unencrypted, or the
Re: (Score:1)
So as you already indicated, they were all criminals because they were doing these things anyway, so now it's okay to just make it legal to do them?
Its illegal to tar and feather public officials, so should we do it anyway, and then see if we can get them to vote to make it legal?
That was almost coherent. My point, if indeed you are truly struggling to understand it, is that in the big picture, it matters less what the law is, and more how most people understand what is going on regardless of the legality. I think this issue is one of a set of issues that are very important to how human society is going to function for the next hundred years. If this potential-law had been stopped, *for the right reasons*, then sure, that would have been the better outcome. If it had been stoppe
Sure (Score:1)
"jeopardize the privacy rights of innocent Americans and risk possible abuse by the incoming administration of President-elect Donald Trump"
But it was just passed by the current administration. So the ones that want to "jeopardize the privacy rights" would be the current administration. But now the current administration will cry foul. But if their person won they would most likely just let this pass with no issues and not said a word.
Expect absolutely no outcry from this (Score:2)
Just Grant My Damned Warrant (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Trust me the FBI buys scotch by the pallet/barrel so finding a judge is easy
Re: (Score:2)
Democracy Cannot Happen With A Tilted Hand (Score:2)
If the FBI is now a republican proxy, how will the Democrats make plans?
Re: (Score:3)
That's an awfully good question.
My best guess -- there will be an extended period of whole-hog persecution of Democrats for, well, being Democrats, and Republicans will get a pass from the newly politicized FBI. Afterwards, I expect Republicans will dial it down a bit, lest it become too obvious that they're using law enforcement directly as political tool. If I were a Democrat, I'd plan for two years of sitting around with my thumb up my ass, because at this point I don't believe the Republicans will let
TILT GAME OVER (Score:2)
Please re-submit news article describing legislation going into effect without clumsily trying to re-cast it as a Donald Trump issue. I hope everyone can see how banal it is. So if Hillary had won, these Orwellian rule changes would have triggered chirping bluebirds instead?? People will tire soon of the press finding new ways to take the 'passive' out of passive-aggressive.
NO (Score:1)
All three branches of the government have failed to do their jobs.
Despite what any agency or congress or the courts say, the "laws" they pass are still subordinate to the U.S. Constitution. No "law" has the power to override it.
I encrypt the hell out of everything and I will never change that practice. If government wants the data, they must obtain a true warrant and I will decrypt it for them.
Re: (Score:2)
If government wants the data, they must obtain a true warrant and I will decrypt it for them.
Even then it seems that you can tell them to go piss up a rope. They can confiscate the device/storage with the warrant but you don't have to give them the password. They then can try to crack it before the heat death of the universe.
IP Geolocation is not a science! (Score:3)
Just thought I would point that out to any passing FBI operative who thinks that they can go interfering with remote devices without considering international borders.
You may just find yourself falling foul of international treaties initiated by your own government that class this sort of action as cyber-warfare. I just hope the government above the target of your hack is understanding and decides not to retaliate with physical force to your electronic attack.
I for one would find it an interesting exercise in jurisprudence for the FBI to be indicted in a foreign court for cyberwarfare.
Re: (Score:1)
Just thought I would point that out to any passing FBI operative who thinks that they can go interfering with remote devices without considering international borders.
You may just find yourself falling foul of international treaties initiated by your own government that class this sort of action as cyber-warfare. I just hope the government above the target of your hack is understanding and decides not to retaliate with physical force to your electronic attack.
I for one would find it an interesting exercise in jurisprudence for the FBI to be indicted in a foreign court for cyberwarfare.
I think we can rely upon president Trump to tear up every last one of those treaties.
Re: (Score:2)
I for one would find it an interesting exercise in jurisprudence for the FBI to be indicted in a foreign court for cyberwarfare.
Or for Quantico, VA to be bombed in retaliation...
Re: (Score:2)
Just thought I would point that out to any passing FBI operative who thinks that they can go interfering with remote devices without considering international borders.
You may just find yourself falling foul of international treaties initiated by your own government that class this sort of action as cyber-warfare. I just hope the government above the target of your hack is understanding and decides not to retaliate with physical force to your electronic attack.
I for one would find it an interesting exercise in jurisprudence for the FBI to be indicted in a foreign court for cyberwarfare.
If I may point out, however, Russia and China engage in this venue quite frequently, and neither has received much push back from the USA. Assuming they consider it a legitimate manner of investigation, they probably wouldn't care, and given that they're the only two countries capable of doing anything other than lodging a complaint, I don't think the FBI is going to be very reserved in the use of its new found power. Particularly against those domestic terrorists, the Democrats...
Thank goodness (Score:1)
Thank goodness that Obama is still president and can veto this change. Or perhaps he never signed it into law and the author of the story is incorrect? Obama would never have authorized this. This is horrible. So we can safely assume Obama will have a chance to veto this before it gets passed. Before those damn rethuglicans get into power and ram it through.
Thanks Obama! Thanks Democrats!
USA sets precedent (Score:1)
So it would not be unreasonable for any other government in the world to do the same. All computers in the USA are fair game to every other country's government. Completely legal.
Well (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They don't have to get into your OS when they own all the SSL keys and intercept and compromise hardware before it reaches your door.
Re: (Score:2)
That's TAO/NSA not FBI...
Re: (Score:1)
Thank gawd I use OpenBSD and host my own web, email, and cloud services. Let the FBI give it a go against one of (if not the) most secure operating systems out there.
A $5 wrench in an FBI interrogation room is the ultimate cross-platform, near-universal exploit.
Just sayin'.
Strat
Stop blaming Trump, you racists (Score:1)
The law will be signed by President Barack Obama — who vastly expanded [time.com] government's [theguardian.com] surveillance [nytimes.com] over his 8 years. So stop blaming Trump for it, uhm'k?
Re: (Score:2)
There is no law. This is a change in the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, which are set by the Federal Courts, and will take effect unless Congress stops it. Sen. Wyden was trying to stop it, but failed. Get your damn facts straight.
Re: (Score:2)
msmash = spammer (Score:1)
Can someone please stop msmash submitting all this radical left wing fact-lite anti-Trump propaganda FUD.
This looney left meltdown is getting old (Score:2)
I wish you people would be as concerned about the *actual* abuses by the Obama administration as you are about the *possible* abuses by the Trump administration.
Re: (Score:2)
SHAMROCK https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] MINARET https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] (note UK help for the USA)
Operation CHAOS https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] ?
COINTELPRO https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] ?
What the Church Committee https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] found?
Main Core https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] ?
The Clipper efforts and crypto control, gov access https://en.wikipedia.org/wi [wikipedia.org]
Snoopers charter (Score:1)
Short version: This is the US version of the 'snooper's charter' that has become law in Australia and the UK.
The USA has claimed they own the internet for some time now and no-one's denied it. This is a logical journey down a slippery slope: Doubly so, if one thinks the USA should be the world police.
Criminal activity by the US government? (Score:2)
allow U.S. judges will be able to issue search warrants that give the FBI the authority to remotely access computers in any jurisdiction, potentially even overseas.
And that doesn't violate my country's law...how exactly?