Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Bavarian Police Can Legally Place Trojans On PCs

Posted by kdawson on from the trust-us-we-would-never-abuse-this-power dept.

An anonymous reader writes "The Bavarian Parliament passed a law that allows Bavarian police to place 'Remote Forensic Software' (Google translation) on a suspect's computer as well as on the computers of a suspect's contacts. They may break into houses in secret to install the RFS if a remote installation is not possible; and while they are there a (physical) search is permitted too. The RFS may be used to read, delete, and alter data." The translation says that RFSs may be used in cases of an "urgent threat to the existence or the security of the Federation or a country or physical, life or liberty of a person... Even where there is a reasonable assumptions on concrete preparatory acts for such serious offenses."

7 of 256 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Yes, by MacDork · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I think the bigger threat here is that they can break into your house without your knowledge and search it in secret. I guess the Gestapo taught them nothing.

  2. Re:Yes, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Yeah, cause it's nothing like the PATRIOT act in the US

  3. Forensic? by gruntled · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Um, "forensic" software is typically designed to *prevent* the alteration of data. Otherwise you can't reliably go into court and prove that you haven't planted the evidence. Last I heard, Germany still embraced the concept of due process...

    Not sure whether this is a crazy law passed by some locals that will be struck down by German courts, a bad write up, or a bad translation...

    1. Re:Forensic? by satmd · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yes, the translation is mostly correct, but is missing few details: The Verfassungsgericht (highest judicial institution over here) stated that this kind of investigation is illegal and put very high barriers on it... for the whole of Germany. AND they put up a new consitutional right on "digital privacy". The barrier is that high that it should be near to impossible to implement the trojan in a way to stay within law. Now the Bavarians thought they know better and updated their local laws and declared them to be "in accordance" with the new barriers (which they most likely are not and thus are going to get that struck down again). Also... they are NOT allowed to physically enter the house/rooms/flat/... in order to install the trojan. They have to deploy it remotely by dialup or internet. If that was allowed they could secretly search through your other belongings, which is explicitely forbidden to happen with the owner not being around. People have the right to witness a raid or execution of a search warrant. And yes, the risk of alteration is real, so the so-called evidence will probably be very weak and should not last very long in court. Yet, I fear that the "evidence" might be remembered and used to investigate into other activities. Police may use evidence from one case to prove another case. THIS is very dangerous.

  4. Re:Yes, by KiloByte · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If they are allowed to break in, they can install a hardware keylogger. Which yes, does run against linux.

    --
    The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
  5. Re:Please by scaryjohn · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The Federal government has been violating due process and the US Constitution since FDR was in office.

    Really? We didn't violate due process before FDR? I know you were trying to make a point, but what about Wilson? Lincoln? Jackson? Or Adams? How about Washington?

    --
    One might ask the same about birds. What ARE birds? We just don't know.
  6. I think I spot a teeny, tiny flaw... by nick_davison · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The RFS may be used to read, delete, and alter data.

    So, getting this straight... They have the right to modify data in ways that can't be [reasonably] detected... and then they can use this data to press charges?

    "Of course not your honor! It was different data we changed. The incredibly convenient file that says, 'I am guilty, it's a fair cop, guv! Oh yeah, it was me!' was there all along."

    You're on incredibly shaky ground when you allow the police to manufacture information where they may subsequently use information to support charges. As soon as one dirty cop gets caught manufacturing evidence, you've devalued the entire method for gaining it. How long before the standard defense becomes, "My client has never seen that file before. Given the police routinely add and modify files on people's computers, prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they didn't put it there themselves and then change the logs to simply make it look like my client did it."