Slashdot Mirror
US Says It Can Hack Foreign Servers Without Warrants
Advocatus Diaboli tips news that the U.S. government is now arguing it doesn't need warrants to hack servers hosted on foreign soil. At issue is the current court case against Silk Road operator Ross Ulbricht. We recently discussed how the FBI's account of how they obtained evidence from Silk Road servers didn't seem to mesh with reality. Now, government lawyers have responded in a new court filing (PDF). They say that even if the FBI had to hack those servers without a warrant, it doesn't matter, because the Fourth Amendment does not confer protection to servers hosted outside the U.S. They said, "Given that the SR Server was hosting a blatantly criminal website, it would have been reasonable for the FBI to 'hack' into it in order to search it, as any such 'hack' would simply have constituted a search of foreign property known to contain criminal evidence, for which a warrant was not necessary."
If nothing else, at least it's out in the open where they have to defend it.
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
Good news for China and Russian state sponsored haxors then. Perfectly legal for them to steal from US gov and Corps.
So if I'm a Russian law enforcement agency and learn of some criminal evidence on a server located in the U.S. of A. it's just fine if I hack into it because that simply constitutes a search of foreign property known to contain criminal evidence and there's no law in my country that says I'm forbidden to do so in another country? Yeah, right.
Fac quod dico, non quod facio.
It's perfectly OK for the US government to hack whatever it wants regardless of where you are, but if you're unlucky enough to be from one of the "Lesser" countries, don't you dare attempt the same.
Then have to deal with people from other countries going after them for messing up their data. It'd be interesting to see top US officials held accountable for cyber crimes in other countries and get detained and put on trial because they did something that was way too much to let go by going after someone.
So what they are saying is that anyone outside the US can freely hack US servers without a warrant too. Surely they don't expect special treatment?
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
While I haven't looked at the court documents, I can't help but think that someone needs to get charged with perjury for providing false testimony for the original story they were pushing.
While the FBI is dancing around, it is obvious that this is another "reconstructive" chain of evidence. The server is on TOR, so the location is masked. The FBI knows that it isn't inside the US... How?
Usually a foreign property search requires the permission of that country to pre-approve the search. I very much doubt the US requested permission. Violating another country's sovereignty should never be taken lightly.
If only we could fall into a woman's arms without falling into her hands
US Constitution does not protect foreigners outside US jurisdiction, so it's not a violation. It may be a violation of treaty (which is a violation of law) or may be legally clear.
Just as pr0n resulted in rapid evolution of UI tech, excess by governments will result in rapid evolution of security, e.g. Apple and Android mobile devices.
So basically they just said that if it does not belong to a US entity it's fait game.
All your transient communications
All the embassies (Considered foreign lands)
Thanks US government for making it easy for me to convince my employers not to chose US data centers.
"it doesn't need warrants to hack servers hosted on foreign soil"
My feet aren't touching any soil, so... What then?
How do US authorities feel about foreign nations hacking into US military and corporate computers? For example, this story: Chinese authorities hacked into Pentagon and other sensitive computers:
I'm guessing they don't like that. Which perhaps is what the United States means by "American Exceptionalism".
Well then they really can't say others can't do the same to them...
This makes no sense to me. They claim they don't need a search warrant because it's in another country, but if I lived and worked in another country for a foreign company the US still says I'd have to pay US income tax on that money. If I'm still answerable to US tax law (which is an amendment to the constitution) no matter where I live or who I work for the US government should also be applicable to the same set of rules.
Is that they previously lied to the court on how they obtained the evidence.
Yes, I should relocate my hidden tor service to a server that is inside the USA, that'l learnem....
Goddammit, are you guys completely bonkers?
That is blatant aggression
Considering that they're all hyped up about cyber warefare, we should consider that to be nothing short of cyber terrorism by the US gov. That is right, the US is directly declaring itself a terrorist state and taking all of the voting sheep^Wpopulation along with them. You voted for these guys. You can reap the ashes of mistrust from the rest of the world.
The US isn't behaving differently than this utter scum the Islamic State is: they think *their* law is the one they can impose on the world.
C'mon folks. We are fighting for a civilised world. Pretty please.
We're beyond trusting these people. Secure your systems and assume the worst.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Isn't this very action what the Congress decreed would be construed as an act of war?
"The hallmark of humanity is the ability to move beyond sensory inputs" - Mary Helen Immordino-Yang
Well, if you can fly drones and kill innocent people with them in Pakistan without asking the government I guess you can hack their servers too.
-- Cheers!
Or are they trying to play it both ways? The government argued that they can force companies with a US presence to produce data from servers located anywhere in the world. Therefore might one therefore deduce therefore that such servers would still require a warrant and therefore be illegal for them to hack? They can't have it both ways (although they'll probably still argue that they can)
--- To save space, would readers please insert their own witty comment -here-
nice to have it _your_ way, both ways; The contents are under US jurisdiction if the company has a presence in the US, but the same data isn't protected under the 4th because the server isn't on US soil.... lovely
S, if the American position is that they can do anything to anybody in the world because of ... what ... divine right of kings?
Then does that come with the grown up understanding that, anything anybody else does to Americans is pretty much justified because you're a bunch of assholes who think you run the world?
Fuck you America. The world is not subservient to you, and if it is your opinion you can do anything you want ... you should pretty much expect the same.
Every hack on the planet now has carte blanche to hack anything in the US. And if Americans are going to act like they can kill civilians while committing war crimes, you should expect your own citizens to be subject to the same thing.
Is this really what you idiots want?
America has become a pathetic excuse for what it once was. They've decided the rule of law only applies to them.
Fuck you America, you bunch of whiny cunts. I can't see how this doesn't mean that everybody will decide that killing Americans, and hacking into your computers isn't fair game.
You cowering, simpering morons are letting this happen. If you think the world is going to trade our rights for your security, you're sadly mistaken.
I'm absolutely appalled that a country which still likes to act like it's the champion of truth, justice, and freedom have sunk to this level.
You no longer have any moral right to claim to be the good guys. You've become the problem.
Doesn't this give any nation-state the permission to hack the servers of any other nation-state if they are deemed to hold "criminal" content?
So China can outlaw working for an American defense contractor, and without violating law wage unrelenting cyber-war, right? That is what this argument is legalizing, right?
Remember, the government is trying to argue that Silk Road was owned by Ulbricht, a US citizen. So what they're really claiming is that the 4th Amendment doesn't apply to a US citizen's papers and effects, if they happen to be physically located outside of the borders of the US. The Constitution imposes no such limitation; therefore, this is clearly unconstitutional.
The government's argument also begs the question -- and I mean that in its proper sense, as in, the government is making a circular argument. From the summary:
There is no such thing as a "blatantly criminal" anything until it has be ruled as such in a court of law. Getting a warrant is exactly what they must do as a first step towards proving something is illegal; they don't get to simply "assume" it's illegal and skip that step. It is exactly the job of the judge issuing the warrant -- and nobody else -- to decide what is "given!"
That concept is so basic and fundamental that it's an axiom upon which the entire US legal system is founded; it boggles the mind to think that any lawyer so incompetent as to make such an argument could even exist!
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Does this mean that the authorities in the country the server was located in can file charges against the FBI employees that performed the hack? Could they then have them extradited for prosecution?
So the government says that servers hosted outside of the US are not protected by any US laws. Meanwhile, the government says that servers hosted outside of the US are subject to US laws: http://news.slashdot.org/story/14/07/14/2050240/obama-administration-says-the-worlds-servers-are-ours
Typical mind boggling nonsense.
U.S. citizens and residents enjoy 4th amendment rights regardless of where the data or property resides.
What court would grant a warrant for an action outside that court's jurisdiction? They don't need a warrant because there is no "do something in Iceland" warrant that can be obtained from a US court, at least not one that the local authorities would recognize.
If US protection laws such as the 4th amendment don't apply to someone in another country, then neither do the US criminal laws that they are trying to prosecute them on.
a search of foreign property known to contain criminal evidence, for which a warrant was not necessary.
The reason we require you to get a warrant is to distinguish between the two meanings of "known to contain":
1. I can reasonably demonstrate the probability that this server contains.
2. I have a gut feeling that this server contains.
The problem is not that the actual Silk Road server got hacked, which is what the FBI is arguing. The problem is servers that do not contain criminal evidence getting hacked based gut feelings. That is why we require a warrant. We don't want our government hacking into servers on a whim and without a record, regardless of where those servers are physically located.
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
The arrogance of these assholes is incredible. Doing this used to be called an act of war. When is the UN going to start leveling economic sanctions against US till we reinstate a legitimate government?
I don't want to see any more news articles about the government being enraged because Chinese hackers stole military secrets, our own government says its now legal for them to do so.
Hope and change you can believe in!!
Obummer lied; thousands died.
...other nations don't need a warrant to hack US-Based Servers.
The US needs to be very careful here, because under International Law this could very well be considered an Act of War.
In other words they lied in court, they were caught, and now they're claiming that even though they lied its OK because if its outside the US they can do anything they want? Wouldn't this get your average person thrown in prison for perjury, that and an extradition order from the country in question so they could be tried for crimes committed on their soil?
I am in the EU. Thank you US Government for giving me permission to hack into servers in your country, them being overseas from where I am an all. I'll get right on that.
9/11: Never forget it was a false-flag operation
What could you expect from a bunch of idiots possessing federal powers which have blown up tens of thousands of americans on NY soil just to save some corps from bankruptcy?
So are we working to hack Swiss banks or other off-shore financial institutions, looking for tax evasion by US citizens?
It would be a dragnet, but we know there is tax evasion occurring.
This would seem reasonable if the precedent stands. Especially if the evidence can be used for further warrants.
I need to watch Sneakers again...
BlameBillCosby.com
This discussion is rather meaningless if it is not known in which country the servers are, since it is the law of that country that applies. However, I highly doubt there is a single country where it is illegal for foreign agencies (such as the FBI in this case) to hack into servers without the permission of their owner.
This sounds like a case of getting caught using parallel reconstruction to me. The FBI gets caught with their hand in the cookie jar and now is changing their story. If we had a real system of justice in this country, the courts would be imprisoning the FBI agents involved for contempt and perjury. Once that prison sentence has been served, send them to Iceland to stand trial for hacking.
The authorities also disputed assertions that they found the servers through illegal wiretapping.
"However, no wiretap of any kind was used in the FBI’s investigation—let alone any wiretap intercepting Ulbricht’s communications,"
The government is so adamant that "no illegal wiretapping" was used that I'll bet that is a lie too.
To any foreign country out there that doesn't like the US government, please come liberate us and bring us democracy again. As a person that is stuck living in the hell hole that is the USA, I am begging you, please help us -- we are fucked.
Thanks,
-- Brian
-- http://anonet.org -- The internet the way it was meant to be. Check it out, you may be surprised.
... but SHOULD they?
Since when do hackers need a warrant to hack??
... Be extradited, tried, and receive prison time. I'm done with the states opinion that's it's ok when they break the law. It's not. It time to get rid of these guys.
Fuck them!
That is, US courts don't have jurisdiction in Russia, so a US warrant to go to Russia and search a home there is worthless.
Any search in Russia would either be a) illegal, or b) need a Russian Warrant.
So if they don't get a Russian warrant, the Russian government could rightfully choose to charge them with a crime committed on Russian soil.
That said, the question then becomes, can the US government present evidence found in another country that was in violation of that other countries laws, as evidence in a US court room.
On the other hand, the US is not supposed to send US officials to illegally kidnap a human being and bring them back to the US without an extradition process approved by the foreign country. They do however allow bounty hunters to do that, and then arrest and charge the person the bounty hunter returns to the US. The bounty hunter often commits a crime in the foreign country, but the US does not arrest them, instead they simply take the criminal back.
If I were the judge, I would say that YES, the Government can in fact do this, but that the members of the government must identify themselves in the US court (chain of custody), and that they might face charges in the foreign country.
Clearly such actions could have significant affects on international relations, and it might be in the US's best interest to decline to do this.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
How did the FBI know it was a foreign server? Before getting the IP address the server could have been located anywhere... so did they know the server was located outside the country before hand, and if they did how did they know?
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects if located in the United States, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
I wonder when they passed that amendment?
The owner is. If the owner is a US citizen, then you're searching a US citizen's property without a warrant; where the property currently resides is immaterial. If the owner is foreign, you're just being a douche.
Does that mean they think they're allowed to hack whatever banks and stock markets they want in foreign countries?
If so - imagine how effectively they might go after financial crimes.
Or is this just for when the FBI wants to overlap with the DEA on wars on drugs?
When law enforcement hacks an foreign web server, they are no different to an individual hacking a foreign server. If this argument was upheld, then no one can be prosecuted for hacking foreign servers.
I don't see this being upheld.
They can kill foreign people, what's a bloody server.
Human rights don't work that way. The US Constitution is very carefully worded, especially regarding where it says "person" or "people" and where it says "citizen" or "citizens".
Here's the Fourth Amendment:
That doesn't say "citizens". It says "The right of the people".
According to the US, if you are born in the US you have right. If not then you have zero rights.
And they wonder why people pity/hate the US.
For a country with so many "christians", they certainly care very little about "Do unto others as you would have them do to you".
This is a very bad thing to come out and state. It is the long term ramifications that will destroy this country, for if we believe in a lawless world several events will occur. The first will be the New Order, Third Way, Third Reich, take your pick. There will be cries for a single international body to set laws on EVERYTHING! All ready the world court is attempting to overrule US Law regarding what the US can and cannot pass laws on, such as on-line gambling and banking laws.
Once the US is seen as 'We are the lords of the world and bound by no law', the US will not only feel backlash but a growing dislike and avoidance, allowing countries like China, Russia, etc. to gain a stronger political influence in the world.
So if the US wants to become the spoiled child who bullies everyone and is despised and hated by all, WAY TO GO!!! KEEP IT UP! USA USA
U.S.A. Utterly Stupid Arses!
US Says It Can Hack Foreign Servers Without Warran
Isn't this what all hackers do, all the time?
If it's illegal, call an informant-hacker. Informants / agents can do anything. Anything right?
Yup, so much for sovereign nations...
So now it appears that our government sees sovereignty as an old, outdated and out moded concept and this includes doing acts of aggression at will with the expectation it will not be considered as aggression. Wow. Just wow.
The law is whatever the government says it is. From the federal government to "civil forfeiture" by the local cops. In 'murica, we now live in a police state. Deal with it.
Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
Technically? I believe the CAN!
Legally? This may be termed an "act of war". Best to be careful here.
You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
...when this was called espionage and it was conducted by the CIA. If the FBI needed something from outside of our borders, it asked the local police for it because that is how law enforcement is supposed to work...within the rule of law.
That means that if the US gov does something illegal by my government's standards, it is ok to go hack their servers then.
Logically, this is the equivalent of invading a foreign country's territory and seizing property. Wouldn't this be considered an act of war?
By what authority can the FBI declare war on another nation without the consent, or at least consultation of Congress? And then there's the whole United Nations Charter (of which the USA is a signatory). Shouldn't such an activity be subject to the authority of the United nations Security Council?
I wouldn't be surprised if Ulbricht, upon losing his case in US court, appeals to the International Court of Justice
Have gnu, will travel.
The documents clearly state that the NSA monitors users of Piratebay and wikileaks in the "ask zelda" release. What makes anyone think they weren't going after Silkroad in that case?
That said, while I agree that this is clearly a case of the police violating the law in the course of an investigation and the case deserves to be thrown out as a result, claiming 4th amendment protections might not work.
At the time, the NSA (FBI my ass), was hacking a computer, not going after Ulbricht. The identity of Ulbricht was discovered, it can only be assumed, only after the SR server was hacked. Passing off this data to the FBI was the problem.
This is because the data:
1) was gathered as a result of a crime (in another country), and what the US considers an "act of war" which the US thinks it is acceptable to retaliate against with physical bombs. And
2) allowing the FBI or any domestic law enforcement agency, to outsource activities it is not allowed to do itself to other government agencies and then claim them as the same as "informants", render all constitutional protections meaningless for everyone.
In addition, the prosecutor and the FBI should be charged with perjury for presenting the first set of false documents.
When has an act of war ever required a warrant?
quiquid id est, timeo puellas et oscula dantes.
I don't think anyone really contests whether the US govt can hack foreign servers, the real issue is whether the fruits of that hacking should be admissible evidence in a US court against US citizen defendants. The answer is pretty obviously no. Just as cops in the US can't drive a suspect out into international waters to torture an admissible confession out of them, cops can't perform warrantless searches outside the US and expect it to be admissible against defendants in US courts.
Come to think of it, I can't remember the last time a US court issued a warrant for a location outside of its jurisdiction. Oh right, because they can't. The closest they've ever come is serving a subpoena on a US entity forcing them to turn over emails stored on a foreign server (but under their control). The US court only had control over the foreign documents by virtue of their authority over the parties to the case who controlled those documents. But this is a far cry from having jurisdiction that stretches across the entire cosmos, governing anything that might be interesting to the FBI.
And going all the way back to square one.... what suggested to the FBI that the silk road was an entity subject to US laws? If it had been openly run as a north korean operation hosted on a nigerian server farm... where is the US jurisdiction to issue a warrant? This is diplomacy and espionage territory, not legal territory. So if the FBI (or one of their friends/hirelings/agents) commits a crime in another country that leads to the discover of evidence of a crime in the US.... how does this become admissible in US courts? Since when is FBI another word for INTERPOL?
" the entire system is one realization away from collapse"
And even if realisation comes, nothing will happen. Not now, not later.
The americans are simply too lazy, ignorant, apathetic or distracted by trivial matters to do anything at all.
We have seen endless cases of increased and police brutality (also the case of stealing millions cash in the open), the many law-breaking acts of various 3 letter groups from NSA and FBI to CIA and DHS, the world-cracking deeds of the banking and sector, whole industry sectors turning into oligarchic stand-offs. All with technically zero punishment and retaliation or law-reform following. All in the last 10 or so years.
The best they were able to do was an absolutely inefficient 'occupy Wall street' thing and a few minimalistic home-riots.
Sue? Nah, I want the offended country to consider the hacking as an act of war, justifying the seizing of assets and jailing of US government officials on charges of espionage. And a big country; too big to drone / carpet bomb. I'd advise Brazil to conduct a test case.
Nothing new under the sun.
... "There are going to be any damn warrants. How do You get a warrant to do a damned illegal thing?"
Typo: "Aren't", not "are".
Weird that our fed gov't doesn't believe that warrants or Constitutional rights apply to foreign systems, but do apply to foreign terrorists.
I was unaware that the Fourth Amendment stipulated geographical boundaries. I was rather under the impression that the rules stating what the government and its agents shall not do were quite explicit about it being the actions that were prohibited, not where or to whom.
In fact, I see nothing in the Constitution that grants any exemptions for the government or its agents with regards to extraterritorial activities or the affairs of extranational citizens. Now, there are reasonable limits (well, there are supposed to be) on interpreting the Constitution. No rational person believes politicians should be free to say anything at all. But this isn't a claim of fair exception, but of inapplicability. Quite a different matter. The Constitution defines what the government may lawfully do. It does not say "except on weekends", it does not say "except on the Internet", it does not say "except when it's convenient". Reasonable situations are, by definition, reasonable. If you choose to argue reasonable situations do not exist, that is fine. Zero is still a number. But the government cannot simply argue (with any validity) that it can arbitrarily create entire classes of exemption with no reasonableness shown or claimed.
I'm purposefully ignoring the Silk Road aspect. If that isn't claimed as a legitimate exemption, then that is immaterial to the debate.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Within the US, doesn't a warrant do two things?
Presumeably, if the FBI has no intent of prosecuting the people involved, (1) is irrelevant. And (2) is only an issue if there are extradition treaties with the foreign country whereby the FBI officers and management involved could be hauled off to some gulag somewhere. Whether the State Department wants to avoid a diplomatic dust-up is another matter.
This assumes that you can put morals and ethics completely aside.
How can a foreign gov give permission, if the US Gov doesn't have the IP address/physical location in the first place? Unless, the US Gov had blanket permission from all or most foreign governments?
- Didn't the FBI have to hack the server in order to reveal it's real IP? Then and only then, would they know the location, based on who owns the IP address?
Think you mis-spelled NSA.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
they're owned in other countries, so of course we don't need warrants.
unless we have a treaty that says otherwise.
How other countries respond to it is another issue.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
...that's what treaties are for. I haven't checked yet, but who wants to bet that a few treaties were likely breached in this case?
hypocrisy much?
"I said the police were powerless to help you, not to punish you" -Chief Wiggum
A lot of countries and IT-companies are really getting really sick of that behaviour already. And in the long run they want more prisons (!) to put us all in (!!)and call us terrorists (!!!) - at least?! Ok, 'nuff - they have to be stopped - by us. Now. Anybody?
Every couple of decades some stupid soziopathic world dominating assholes are begging for a next world war? Fukemal That just makes no sense from a macroscopic view. Cooperation is the key to survival and it needs faith in relationship. What are they trying to achieve?
Um, by definition I think anyone can "Hack" Foreign Servers Without Warrants...
The question if they can legally access foreign servers without warrants is another matter entirely.
American Judge: "Given that your client is a blatant criminal, we'll just forego on all that jazz, and we'll go straight to guilty!"
for another 'world apology tour' like he did just before and just after he was coronated the first time. It seem that this Hussein has take the mantle of power a little to seriously.
... "When you pry the source from my cold dead hands."
Not because we're "free".
Governments like a book or a drawing or a picture or any other object are inaminate objects. The actions and activities of the persons in charge seek to animate government; these so called persons in charge are called leaders and most of the time they hide behind the fasade of government. Such persons should be held accountable by the people of the world, for their acts, and the acts they order or encourage others to do, in the name of position they hold in structure of the object they claim to be. Leaders should be personally responsibe for their acts no matter if the acts are done in the name of one of the inanimate governments or in the name of God or the name of the moon or the name of a star or whatever; its still the act of a human and that human actor in charge is responsible for the outcome and the cost to achieve the outcome. Its the cost to achieve the outcome that needs scutiney; The greatest degree of accountability should be forced by society on those humans that are in charge of many humans. The more humans one person has authority over, the more accountable that person should be [our world is organized backward, at the present time, those in charge are the least accountable] to the masses of the humanity of the world. The reason accountability should increase from the bottom to top is so everyone has a fair say. Since no court has the power to curb the activities or to punish the attrocities resulting from the activities of those in charge there is no way to set the order of accountability straight; that is the reason for mass uprisings. The tension about spying between the people and the leadership exist because spying by persons using their positions within a governments to spy actually makes persons at at the bottom the most accountable and renders the spyer and persons at the top less accountable and even immune to accountability. Accountabillty at the bottom immunity at the top should be reversed!
In what country? In what jurisdiction? You've just got up and said you don't know anything about the law and you have a bunch of thugs (the fbi in this case) to go overseas and do whatever you want. The end result of this was that the person in question was acquitted and sued the government for allowing this FBI moron to have authority. The rest of the world still thinks they're power hungry morons with no notion of fairness, legality, rationality, a law, the law etc (funny because they pretend they're it's protectors). He got quite a lot of money if I remember. But not enough, I don't think the government is really sorry enough they let this type of attitude in the FBI (follow orders, serve existing power structure, maintain perceived authority, don't actually understand the philosophic basis for the law or try to be rational), we just assume the FBI are a bunch of thugs. It really gives no indication that a philosophical understanding of justice, safety or the public good are in anyway a career advancing set of qualities for a company (the police are good honorable people and I wouldn't compare what the U.S. has, to real legal enforcement civic minded police in a civilized country) like the FBI or CIA, which trades in brainwashed robot operatives to the highest bidder. And occasionally salable bullshit to parliament or for one politician to use to undermine a more noble politician ( not definitely, but one is talking to the CIA or FBI and that's probably not a good indication of honorableness). It's hard enough for normal people to be civilized and try to advance ethics and fundamentally beneficial human virtues, hiding in covert black ops bullshit just means the assholes don't have to lie as much. And when you have robots who don't really get the philosophy of law vs force, or truth vs authority it eventually transitions towards the top and you get announcements and legalities like this.
Ah well, such is America, what was it that great american philosopher once said... oh that's right... I don't know his name either.