Slashdot Mirror
DOJ Requests More Power To Hack Remote Computers
An anonymous reader writes "The U.S. Department of Justice says it needs greater authority to hack remote computers in the course of an investigation. The agency reasons that criminal operations involving computers are become more complicated, and argues that its own capabilities need to scale up to match them. An ACLU attorney said, 'By expanding federal law enforcement's power to secretly exploit "zero-day"' vulnerabilities in software and Internet platforms, the proposal threatens to weaken Internet security for all of us.' This is particularly relevant in the wake of Heartbleed — it's been unclear whether the U.S. government knew about it before everyone else did. This request suggests that the DOJ, at least, did not abuse it — but it sure looks like they would've wanted to. You can read their request starting on page 499 of this committee meeting schedule."
Al Gore? Is that you?
You might not want to use something like this, at least you do not want to use it against criminals who themselves have a background in IT and especially IT security. Else you might be in for a nasty surprise, namely that they're employing a tripwire system that waits for someone trying to hack them as an early warning system.
In other words, your attempt to hack the criminals doubles as a "the feds are coming" flare.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Bluntly, if they would prosecute me for doing it, then they better damn well have a warrant and judicial oversight.
Otherwise, it's breaking the law, and prosecution ensues.
Since they're doing it anyway (surely you're not going to believe their denials still, are you?), let it be public and provide incentive to build more resistant electronics.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Since our Atty General Mr. Holder, says he can choose which laws to obey, then there are no laws, no rules, except what he chooses to do.
including other countries; I did not notice anything in the article restricting this to computers in the USA. Other countries might not agree with the USA DOJ allowing computers in their countries to be cracked -- thus the USA cops/investigators will be conducting criminal acts in other countries -- how does that make them different from what the USA wanted to grab Gary McKinnon for ?
So let me get this strait. The DOJ's argument is: "If we leave the door locked, how are we supposed to catch burglars?"
If you (or myself) do the same thing, it's illegal, and we're gonna be prosecuted. The law is the same for everyone (at least it should be). I'm sick & tired of that shit. Police installing cameras (without warrant) to spy on people, inside their homes, warrantless wiretapping and every other thing that is *ILLEGAL* for the common people.
If it's illegal for me to do it, it's illegal for them to do it. And yes, I hope it blows up in their faces.
I've got better things to do tonight than die.
The DOJ has shown its self to be incompetent.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/ri...
http://gov.louisiana.gov/index...
https://www.techdirt.com/artic...
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
Since our Atty General Mr. Holder, says he can choose which laws to obey, then there are no laws, no rules, except what he chooses to do.
Not to mention: if we had a totally secure, encrypted, spook-proof communications network (barring wiretapping warrants, of course), where would that put us as far as "national security" goes?
Oh, yeah. Back in the 1990s. Seems to me, things were actually better then, in this respect.
...spook-proof communications network (barring wiretapping warrants, of course)...
Wait a minute. Are you saying there should be built in backdoors to accommodate them?
And the 90s? What leads you to believe it was better then, when the democrats were pushing for clipper chips, V-chips, and other restrictions on encryption? I say we have it much better now, now that we have confirmed the government is running outlaw spy agencies, and that might provide the above mentioned incentives to actually do something about it. However, trust has now gone out the window. Everybody is suspect, pretty much the way the authorities want it. And republicans and democrats will continue to dominate the narrative.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
I'd say we have it better now, because crypto isn't "illegal" like it was when ITAR was the law of the land. However, because online connections are required, coupled with layers of complexity added to even the humble desktop, the crypto may be good, but the key is still stored under the doormat for anyone to fetch.
There are a few instances I know of where someone was arrested for resisting arrest before an arrest ever happened.
The one that is the most egregious is where a guy started videoing a cop who stopped someone near him. He pulled out a camera and started taking video of the entire thing. The cop let the other person go after a few minutes then came over and ordered him to give his camera to him. He replied with "why" and the cop tackled him, handcuffed him and arrested him for resisting arrest. I'm not sure if I'm conflating a different scenario but I'm pretty sure he ended up getting tazzered for asking what the hell he did wrong.
Another situation I know of, some guy came from behind and pushed another to the ground. The other guy started fighting him and was arrested for resisting arrest. Except there was tons of people around and not one of them heard the first guy announce he was a cop or the other guy was under arrest. I heard through a friend of a friend that it was because the arrested guy was rude to the cop's wife earlier that day. No reason for the initial arrest was ever given just charges for resisting arrest which he ended up beating after spending thousands on legal expenses and almost losing his job.
There are all sorts of stories about being arrested for resisting arrest before any arrest was ever done. Its ridiculous to say the least.