Slashdot Mirror
The FBI Has a Trojan To Watch You
G_of_the_J writes "A man who had cut 18 cables affecting Verizon and Comcast was blackmailing them. He had demanded bank accounts be set up and information be provided on web sites that he specified. Although he used anonymous access to get to the web sites, the FBI had planted a trojan which was downloaded to his computer. The trojan then sent his IP address and other information to the FBI."
... if he was stupid enough to visit the "private" website they created for him with such a lax security setup that his computer willingly installed the FBI's trojan.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
He can spoof ips yet he can't install software to detect unwanted outbound traffic?
Idiot.
TFA says the FBI had a warrant. When that is the case, I *want* them to be able to own a suspect's machine.
[Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
Dude was a bad guy. FBI's job is to catch bad guys. FBI uses technology to catch bad guy. I'm not feeling the outrage here...
In a related story, local law enforcement shot a criminal who tried to hold up a 7-11 when he resisted arrest and brandished a knife. Reports say police used their "gun" technology to do this.
Point being, we know the FBI has the tech to do this stuff. It's only really a rights issue when they use it against non-criminals, or suspected criminals.
Something is seriously wrong when you have to explicitly state, "The FBI did not commit any crimes in this story." When I read the summary, I felt that the warrant was implied, but with everything that has happened, I also feel that you are completely justified to think that that info was missing.
I think it's an interesting story, but sure ... if a warrant was obtained first, the FBI actually did this the RIGHT way, and that makes me happy.
That's how law enforcement is supposed to work. Sometimes it seems like we completely forget that, these days, with all the stories of "the law" just doing whatever they please, secretly.
Actually, the FBI can't tell the difference between a criminal and a suspected criminal. In the U.S., it takes a jury (or a guilty plea) to do that.
I think your point though is that it's not a violation of someone's rights if the FBI has reasonable evidence *before* they install the Trojan, and it appears they did in this case (because they had a warrant).
[Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
Flamebait, seriously? We had a whole debate about this last summer, and some members of Congress actually argued that the President has a Constitutional prerogative to use whatever intelligence gathering methods he wants as long as he has a plausible argument that we're "at war."
Note, that it doesn't particularly matter that the President argued he had Constitutional prerogative, presidents always assert that they have more power than they actually have. But Congress is supposed to be a branch of government competing with the President for power, they have incentives to check him instead of enable him.
So it isn't flamebait at all to note that warrants are questionable protection when it comes to surveillance activities.
Yeah, it's sad that law enforcement actually doing their job the RIGHT way is news.
Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
We had a whole debate about this last summer, and some members of Congress actually argued that the President has a Constitutional prerogative to use whatever intelligence gathering methods he wants as long as he has a plausible argument that we're "at war."
The problem is that as far as the government is concerned, they are always at "war". Presently you can count the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as all the wars against US citizens, including, but not limited to, the global war on terror, and the war on drugs, and apparently, the war on privacy.
Maybe also when attempting a criminal act, don't use your own machine, and don't use the same machine twice.
Okay, so if the government wages "the war on privacy" by using invasive techniques, and is justified in doing so by saying "we're at war," then there's obviously no privacy, right?
So can we say they've won the war on privacy, declare the war over, and thereby rescind the powers it used to wage such a war?
Whoa. Headspins. Gotta sit down.
Well, there are ways to be about 99.99% anonymous on the internet. One way is to set up a nym account, that bounces through serveral remailers like Mixmaster...and basically have the final hop on those to be one of the anon groups on USENET. That way, they don't know who it is reading one of thousands of pgp encrypted emails out there.
However, when it comes time for the internet to intersect 'meatspace', like when you want to get money. Well, now that part is gonna be a little tougher to do...much easier to track the money.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........