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 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
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".
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.
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.
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!
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
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
You're never going to agree to the extradition of one of your own spies if they get exposed, which is why you occasionally get "tit for tat" diplomatic expulsions, as it's the only real way of showing that you know you've been spied on, as the spy will most likely have diplomatic cover.
If you get caught red-handed spying abroad, it depends on which country you're talking about. North Korea would probably execute you, Canada would pack you off home and take you off their "actual diplomats" list.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
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".