Slashdot Mirror
Dutch Ministry Proposes Powers For Police To Hack Computers, Install Spyware
hypnosec writes "The Dutch Ministry of Justice and Security has proposed some rather over the line measures and wants to extend such powers to the police that would allow them to break into computers and mobile phones in any part of the world. According to the proposal (PDF in Dutch), dated October 15, the ministry has asked for powers that would allow police to not only break into computers, but also allow them to install spyware, search for data in those computers, and destroy data. As explained by digital rights group 'Bits of Freedom,' which obtained the copy of the proposal, if the Dutch police get such powers, the security of computer users would be lessened and there will be a 'perverse incentive to keep information security weak.'"
I'm sick and tired of seeing these new laws proposed almost weekly! What the heck is going and who is pushing towards all these new law propositions for allowing breaking into users computers, reading their email, tracking all activity and attempts at controlling the internet.
I wont allow these bastards who know nothing about how things even work to control this network of ours. They are trying take away our basic freedom all the time to communicate freely. They know that free speech is harmful for the powers that be. Enough already!
I call all sysadmins and network administrators to start opposing these law enforcers! We have the power to make the change. We are the ones who install these rules into production, and we are the ones who can stop this madness. And those who continue oppressing us, know this: f*ck you! You will not win. Give up already and let's try to work together instead of assuming everyone is a damn terrorist.
GeoKone.NET
This is what happens when 1) make mundane activities (like saying something cheeky online) illegal, and 2) insist that law enforcement do something about it.
Law enforcement says " I need to do X to accomplish Y." Government and public supporters say "ok, just crack down on Y for us, ok?"
Later, government says "cracking down on Y isn't enough! We have to make W P and Q illegal, and work to stop that too, to keep our citizens safe!" (Where "safe" is a ephemeral and impossible goal, like achieving lightspeed. Each increment toward the goal comes at exponentially higher costs, and you can never actually get there anyway.)
Law enforcement says "we need all kinds of expanded powers for that!"
Rinse, repeat, until people need licenses to speak, wear only government sanctioned clothing, are put on government regulated diets, and live with a swarm of automated security drones following them everywhere.
"To infinity and beyond!" Takes on a sharply malign connotation here.
The initial problems are less severe than the consequences of policing it. Rather than capitulate to further erosion of rights and libertis, we should just say no.
well I don't know how it works for the Dutch, but I know we solved that problem YEARS ago here. Its quite simple, they will have some manner of immunity so that even if they had no concievable reason to think they were in the right, there will still be no consequences.
Oh...wait thats not true, they might get paid time off until the heat dies down.
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
We have police to stop crimes, not to commit them. What this dude just did, was proposing the commit of a crime at big scale.
-Woof woof woof!
Yes, and that has already happened. This is the push to avoid judges post hoc, but attain permission pre hoc.
The nuance: The proposal is to have law enforcement ask a certain type of judge to approve the hacking before it occurs, similar to the way phone taps are approved.
It would furthermore only be allowable when somebody is suspect of severe crimes, f.i. a crime for which the maximum sentence is at least 4 years of incarceration (note the wording here, one would assume 'suspected terrorist' is sufficient).
Realistically, though, the whole thing should be comparable to phone taps and one should either oppose both or deem both to be acceptable.
The majority of our (recently elected) parliament is supportive of the proposal (including the parties that are most probably going to form a coalition government), although many members of parliament note that when an actual law is proposed, the protection of privacy should be more strictly worded (in the sense that minor 'crimes' should not warrant government hacking).
Note how the authorities never use the sledgehammer approach to stamping out crime (and potential crime) committed by politicians and police. It's only the citizenry that are subject to such heavy-handed approaches.
When it comes to politicians and police they tread softly, and with surgical precision. (If at all.)