DOJ Pushes to Expand Hacking Abilities Against Cyber-Criminals 49
Advocatus Diaboli writes with news about the DOJ's push to make it easier to get warrants to hack suspected cyber-criminals. "The U.S. Department of Justice is pushing to make it easier for law enforcement to get warrants to hack into the computers of criminal suspects across the country. The move, which would alter federal court rules governing search warrants, comes amid increases in cases related to computer crimes. Investigators say they need more flexibility to get warrants to allow hacking in such cases, especially when multiple computers are involved or the government doesn't know where the suspect's computer is physically located."
Cyber? (Score:1)
Criminal says it all.
Re: Cyber? (Score:1)
No.
"DOJ Pushes to Expand Hacking Abilities" says it all.
Well SURE! (Score:5, Insightful)
After all, they're out there serving and protecting, right?
If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear arguments are becoming more painful than a toothache.
Re:Well SURE! (Score:5, Insightful)
These changes seem reasonable to me. They are getting a warrant with judicial oversight. That is the way the system is supposed to work. If they have probable cause, then there is no reason that I can see for the warrant to specifically tie the search to a geographical location, or to require separate warrants for each machine. Car analogy: Should a search warrant for a vehicle specify that it can only be searched at the suspect's home, but not at his place of work? Should separate warrants be required for the glove compartment and trunk?
Re:Well SURE! (Score:5, Informative)
These changes seem reasonable to me. They are getting a warrant with judicial oversight. That is the way the system is supposed to work.
No, this is how it's supposed to work:
Mind you, per the Constitution nothing can supersede this rule, outside a legally ratified Constitutional Amendment.
If they have probable cause, then there is no reason that I can see for the warrant to specifically tie the search to a geographical location, or to require separate warrants for each machine.
Really? What part of "particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized" is unclear?
Car analogy: Should a search warrant for a vehicle specify that it can only be searched at the suspect's home, but not at his place of work? Should separate warrants be required for the glove compartment and trunk?
Separate warrants are required [seattlepi.com] for locked compartments.
So yes to the second question.
Re: (Score:2)
In addition to all of those fine points, many of us here are well aware of how loosely defined 'hacker' and 'cyber terrorist' is likely to be (and is already).
Re: (Score:3)
In addition to all of those fine points, many of us here are well aware of how loosely defined 'hacker' and 'cyber terrorist' is likely to be (and is already).
Indeed; my first thought upon reading the summary was, "Oh, you mean 'cyber-terrorists' like Aaron Schwartz and Weev?"
They have no intention of stopping real terrorism, because real terrorism is a weapon in their toolkit against the rights of the common man. Since incarceration is now a for-profit business, I have no compunction about pointing out the easing of warrant requirements is just another way for the corporate-owned prison system to maintain profitability.
Re: (Score:2)
Problem solved. All warrants now specify earth as the location.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Not even an IP address. They are talking about sending malware via email, because they have no idea where on the planet the person might be.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If they do not know where it is how can they know they have jurisdiction?? How can the judge? There are reasons why some places elect judges so they can be held responsible. This is an end run around any local authority.
For your analogy should the DOJ be allowed to search a car in Mexico? Nope they could ask Mexico to do it. Other countries have different standards.
Re: (Score:2)
Really? You know no reason why a warrant meant to search Joe BadGuy's server, likely hosted in a datacenter somewhere, shouldn't be a blanket check to search through every machine in every datacenter in the US? Because that's what not being tied to a particular machine o
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
In their defense, they already have 'evidence' from the IRS that those Tea Party groups are a bunch of anti-government terrorists representing a greater danger than any previously discovered. They are like a nuke in New Yark.
Re: (Score:2)
Related question (serious) (Score:1)
Plant the evidence... (Score:5, Insightful)
This will make it very easy to implicate *anyone* in a cybercrime by just planting the evidence on their computer/device as you are hacking it anyway.
Totalitarians, here we come!
Re: (Score:2)
Not to mention that if their machine is proven to be 'hackable', then maybe it already has been hacked.
Re: (Score:2)
It also makes it easy for a defense attorney to object to any evidence gathered from a computer. Provided the case goes to trial, of course.
Honeypot their "attack" (Score:4)
So if you were targeted by the "law enforcement" and you Honeypoted their hacking attempt would they then come at you for interfering with their investigation?
Re: (Score:3)
So if you were targeted by the "law enforcement" and you Honeypoted their hacking attempt would they then come at you for interfering with their investigation?
Naturally. In fact, you don't even need to be a target. Maybe their target attempted to hack one of your computers, that puts you into the pool of computers being swept up in one of these broad warrants. So your honeypot now gets you an obstruction of justice charge, and you were never even suspected of a crime.
Re: (Score:2)
402 pages? (Score:1)
Seriously, 402 pages?! It is no wonder the erosion of our constitution is happening. No one has time to read and research this type of thing with a full time job.
My question about this is who are the contrators and their employed lobbyists seeking these law changes? I am no expert but the federal money available for those soliciting and being awarded government contracts for providing services to prisions/jails etc (https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=list&tab=list&keywords=bop). I ques
This will be used against everyone (Score:5, Insightful)
Letting the FBI change things on computers of people it is investigating is a recipe for disaster. How long before they too get a general warrant that allows them to hack any computer in the world? Remember, these are just people suspected, not people found guilty. If you don't think they could get that warrant, then you have not been following the NSA revelations closely enough.
What can they not get from the average criminal by just confiscating his computer when they arrest him? With the ability to upload and download files to people's computers, they will be able to blackmail anyone they want. If they want to eliminate a senator who is trying to cut their funds, they just hack into his computer, make some racist/sexist comments on his twitter account, and he wont be re-elected. Or they could add evidence of other activities, that even if no one can prove, would still would destroy them politically.
Re: (Score:2)
A cynic might even suspect that this particular expansion is a way to take the heat off the NSA by moving its domestic operations to a different agency.
That way they could shut down the NSA program to great fanfare and quieted fears. Brillinant, I love it!
Re: (Score:1)
Now law enforcement will effectively be cybercriminals, so it should become easier for citizens to get warrants to break into police and government computers.
Good luck (Score:5, Funny)
My computer isn't even physically connected to the Internet. I use wi-fi!
Would this make regular security illegal? (Score:2)
It's not just a matter of using Linux versus Windows. I get the occasional spam with poisoned executable attachments inside zipfiles. I view zipfile headers, and often see stuff like the following 2 examples...
PK^C^D^T^@^@^@^H^@^Y^?|DT^Z^F^[¾`^G^@^@\236^@^U^@^@^@OrderDetails.pdf.scr
PK^C^D^T^@^@^@^H^@^\WzD~\224®ÂM^\^@^@^@J^@^@;^@^@^@~apbnet00~50~44b76b05-3e01-414a-8469-04f234689df3~Email.exe
".scr" is executable in Windows http://filext.com/file-extensi... [filext.com] so I assume that's a troja