Slashdot Mirror
Is the Outrage Over the FBI's Seattle Times Tactics a Knee-Jerk Reaction?
reifman writes The Internet's been abuzz the past 48 hours about reports the FBI distributed malware via a fake Seattle Times news website. What the agency actually did is more of an example of smart, precise law enforcement tactics. Is the outrage online an indictment of Twitter's tendency towards uninformed, knee-jerk reactions? In this age of unwarranted, unconstitutional blanket data collection by the NSA, the FBI's tactics from 2007 seem refreshing for their precision.
Whoever thinks this is remotely a good thing needs to be beaten with a lead pipe. Not only is it clearly illegal, it's also a serious breach of trust.
Betteridge's Law: No.
Yes, it's a knee-jerk reaction. However, our government agencies have done this to themselves. Most of the outrage is probably coming from people who saw "FBI" and "website" in the same sentence and just assumed they did something bad. I can't say I really blame them all that much.
We're well past the time when you can no longer trust that the sites you're visiting are who they say they are. If the government can read your email, steal your data, redirect your domains and have your CA issue fradulent certificates, what is the point of using the Web?
Is the wording of this post just trolling on a serious topic?
No.
"There are lies, there are damn lies, and there are statistics"
Please, cite the violated law. Thank you.
Trust between which parties? The fake was sent to only one person — the suspect, who then became a convict. The suspect knows very well now, that it was a fake — so he continues to trust the actual Seattle Times as much as he did before.
Also, we all know, that it is perfectly legal for police to lie — except, of course, under oath. So, which trust are you talking about?
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
If they did not have a warrant, then it is an illegal invasion of privacy.
They electronically entered his computer and that is no different than entering his home. The fact that he had to click on it is meaningless. The creation of the malware would be illegal, without the warrant.
Now, the police may not be smart enough (or ethical enough) to have asked for the warrant, but that is what is clearly needed.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
There was no entrapment. The person did a bomb threat, all they were doing was locating him.
When you cant win, ad hominem.
If the FBI knew he had a Myspace account and had his MySpace ID (since, after all, they emailed him there), why didn't they just ask MySpace (and by "ask", I mean "force them to hand it over with no recourse to question the 'request'") to hand over IP address?
From TFA:
If there is a slashdotter, who — from reading the above "description" — does not realize, that there was no "malware" installed on the doofus' computer and the suspect's IP was obtained simply from the FBI's web-server log, ought to close his account (and change his name)...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
"except under oath"? Don't tell that to Mark Furhman, who perjured himself in the O.J. Simpson trial, and was fined $200, YES TWO HUNDRED DOLLARS and had ZERO days in jail.
And the 32 cops of 8 divisions who watched Rodney King be beaten to a pulp, then PERJURED their sworn reports? Not one single arrest, no fines, no jail
Cops most certainly CAN lie under oath, since it costs them nothing and they do not go to prison!
I'm having a hard time being outraged by a guy dumb enough to click a seattletirnes link on his myspace account.
There are real things to be outraged over, like the time the government used a MITM attack at the ISP to serve malware on the real slashdot site.
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
I posted a reply to an Times article about some local goings-on. Usually, comments go up with no delay (i.e. no editorial review or filtering). But a comment mentioning problems at Juanita High School, Marysville Pilchuck High and Sayreville N.J. get blocked.
Paranoia over anything that doesn't tow law enforcement's P.R. line* over thes problems? Perhaps.
*Isolated incidents. Not sports hazing. Nothing to see here, move along now. We'll look again after football season.
'nuff said.
The double standards between law enforcement and the public are exactly the opposite of what they should be. As a trusted public official (with years of training dollars poured into them) they should be held to a higher standard, and face worse penalties for breaking the law than the general public. Sadly, our failing state is more intent on preserving power than protecting justice, truth, and the public.
As a regular slashed dot user I think this is all over-reaction. I've been checking www.slashdorrt.org every day for the latest news articles about my tablets and e-phones, and even sometimes the governments totally patriotic spying but this article is just goofy. The FBI wasn't anymore interested in the Sea-tultymes.com as they would have been in slishdart.org, they were just trying to protect americans and preserve freedom.
now if we could just get back to talking about that
EDWARD SNOWDEN
and maybe what we all think about
WIKI
LEAKS
I think that would be a much better topic of investig....er discussion....
Good people go to bed earlier.
As someone that has worked for both the Seatle Times and the Seattle PI, you are correct that this is the Republican's fault. The Times is infested with their kind and is controlled with an iron-fist by the GOPpers. I was fired since my father was discovered by a PI that the PI hired (ha!) to have been taking unemployment. My editor considered that leaching off of the government. That is how batshit crazy these Republicans are. They think taking all you can from the government is wrong. They call us lazy, but they are the ones too lazy to work with the system to take as much as they can.
Yes. Always yes.
My main issue with this is that the FBI spoofed a web page of a newspaper, along with an AP headline. Doesn't seem that much different than posing as a reporter, and using the information gathered that way. Smells like entrapment.
I would not tell him that, alright. What's your point? That punishment for perjury could range from nothing to a small fine to impeachement? Nothing new here — my point was, such lying is illegal — not what the punishment for it is (or should be).
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Though I agree with you in general, we are yet to find an actual law, that the FBI have broken dealing with this case... All of the accusers so far have been unable to offer a citation.
There are a number of problems with our law enforcement, but that's not the topic here.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
What about the copyright implications? Did the FBI obtain permission from the Seattle Times to reproduce their site...
I'm confused. They emailed a "fake" story to someone's MySpace account. Clicking on the "fake" story exposed his IP address.
Why exactly, did that make him guilty? What if they emailed me a link? What if I was genuinely interested in the "fake" story? How does reading a story an a news site make me guilty of anything?
Fraudulently transmitting the signs and symbols of the Seattle times for purposes of obtaining information of value by false pretenses:
Whoever, having devised or intending to devise any scheme or artifice to defraud, or for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises, transmits or causes to be transmitted by means of wire, radio, or television communication in interstate or foreign commerce, any writings, signs, signals, pictures, or sounds for the purpose of executing such scheme or artifice, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both. If the violation occurs in relation to, or involving any benefit authorized, transported, transmitted, transferred, disbursed, or paid in connection with, a presidentially declared major disaster or emergency (as those terms are defined in section 102 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5122)), or affects a financial institution, such person shall be fined not more than $1,000,000 or imprisoned not more than 30 years, or both.
I reached out to them. They didn't reach out to me. I thought the Internet was seeing this case wrong - and I stand by what I wrote.
Sorry, sir. We failed the state by not watching over it and correcting the problems. Our own laziness and cravings for convenience produced this... Next Tuesday, all that can change, or everybody can just keep on voting for big money. The Koch Bros and Soros can't force you to vote for their guy. That choice will always remain yours alone.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
If you understand technology (and most people don't) and its complexity in additional computer forensics you'd quickly realize that ANYTHING a law enforcement agency does remotely is going to taint the evidence. There is a reason that a write-blocker is used when copying data from a hard drive in a computer forensics lab.
I'm going to say computer forensics is a joke in and of itself as you can't confidently link a person to the computer's user(s). While I'm upstairs taking a shower it could be my BF who uses it (and I might not even be aware). Password or no password physical access to the machine means others can compromise whats on it even if it is in my 'possession'.
It really shouldn't be called 'forensics' at all. At least with DNA testing of something found at a crime scene you can confidently argue that the person either had to be present or the evidence is old (ie transferred from somewhere else) at which point it needs to be dated . Thus you can connect the dots if the person was at the scene or not.
With computer forensics none of that applies. As a result your relying on 'experts' who are merely trained to use a program to decipher what was on a computer that may or may not have been used by the defendant(s) at the time in which the purported evidence was created/modified/downloaded/copied/etc.
It is better that a 1000 murder suspects go free than a single innocent person be convicted of a crime not committed (by said person).
...because over there someone is doing something obviously much worse! That's how it works, right?
Don't just stand there, get that other dog!
Worse, the O J Simpson trial had a pattern of misconduct, some of which was particularly about technology and knowledge based abuses, and so fell in the "News for Nerds" category. Two of the jurors discussing the case after the trial revealed that they had been told that the prosecution obtained multiple hair samples from O J, with each subpoena seeking more and more hairs per sample, yet the same lab analysts 'explained' that there was no problem with the original samples and no difference in accuracy whether they took just six hairs or 216. The jury didn't see why the second and third samples had been requested at all in that case, and the prosecution speech 'explaining' that is a masterpiece of veiled threats against the two jurors who raised the question themselves and flat out lies about how chemical analysis and statisitical science works.
O J was probably guilty, but some of the people who tried him equally probably deserved RICO based prosecution for felony fraud and perjury, both with especially aggrievating levels of malicious intent, and should have gotten sentences in the 20 year range.
Furman himself was just a flunky and probably didn't deserve more than a year or two, although it might have been worth it to set out to make him the BIG EXAMPLE of why cops shouldn't do these things, if only it had gotten him to spill who gave him his marching orders..
In practice (throughout all of history and in all cultures) those with power use that power to avoid needing to take responsibility for their actions. So, the general rule of thumb is, trusted public officials are held to lower standards than normal civilians.
I realize that this is not how things should be. But the here-and-now isn't some anomaly. Things are never how they should be (at least in this respect).
The point is morality. It is immoral for the FBI, without permission, to impersonate another entity. If it is the press, that has a chilling effect on the trust of the public at large.
But this is one of those times where a knee jerk reaction is correct. The public should be morally outraged at this.
Fraud?
Misrepresentation.
Entrapment?
You sound like all of those apologists for the banks after the mortgage fraud scandals. "But, but, they broke no laws!!" Yeah, if you don't consider fraud a crime, sure..
In this case, nail them with all of the same bogus charges they bring against any computer crime they don't like. Computer Trespass, Wire Fraud, Unauthorized use of a computer, and maybe something regarding interstate laws since the packets might have been routed out-of-state.
After a constant barrage of post-wikileaks / snowden sensationalist coverage, I think The Public has been conditioned to outrage at any hint of Gov't maleficence.
Then again, the good old USA has developed instant outrage over anything, over everything, ever since Facetwit came into being.
In any case, the Gov't earned it. Bad Gov't, BAD! *THWACK*
The "Civilized World" jumped the shark ca. 1973.
I'm pretty damn sure that this violates the CFAA in about a dozen different ways, and everything involving electronic communications is wire fraud. Given the standards set for Gary McKinnon, this would also probably constitute some form of property damage.
It's virtually impossible to not break the law in your everyday life, and this was an act of deception that distributed malware.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
State Troopers and standing outside the house of Kaci Hickox the nurse who tried to help the Ebola stricken peoples of West Africa.
Now, a standoff, Mexican Standoff, is in place thanks to Maine Gov. Paul LePage, a known sex offender and pervert, though his efforts and payoffs to high ranking Federal Officials have largely kept him out of the public eye.
The battle of wills is ON. Will Hickox succumb to the perverted urgings of LePage or will she defy his Male Sexuality.
The Maine State Troopers, given $50,000 cash each, do the dirty and kill Hickox or lower their weapons.
LePage assures each Maine Trouper than after the kill, they can butt-fuck Hickox for as long as they like.
High Noon in Maine.
Uh sure. We can vote for the Koch and Comcast guy, or we can vote for the Koch and Time Warner other guy, or we can vote for an independent Koch and Bank of America guy, or perhaps this other newcomer, the unknown person not actually on a ballot.
Sounds like you slept through the primaries :-)
Sorry, man, those guys are only winning because people voted for them.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Hey don't lie! They get punished with cake, ice cream, and a paid vaspension.
From the article: "Every effort we made in this investigation had the goal of..."
Their whole rationale is nothing more than "the end justifies the means."
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
Hey, let's turn it around then. How about the press being able to impersonate a FBI agent?? Hmm, wonder how they feel about that. IMO, the press performs as much of a service to us as any government agency. Sure, as a Democrat I might think Fox is full of it, as a Republican I might think MSNBC is a crock. But as a citizen who has lived through through the times of J. Edgar Hoover, Watergate, et.al. I still have more faith in the press getting the truth out than I do in our government being truthful. I'm not saying I don't believe anything the FBI says, I'm just saying I feel more comfortable knowing that I can resource the news sources I'm comfortable with to see what they think about things. Based on the above, I believe the FBI tactics were the first step on a slippery slope. I don't care if the target was a 15 year old kid(at the time of the crime) or Bin Laden. The bottom line is the only people who approve of these tactics believe that the end justify the means. It doesn't. Oh, and you've gotta love the FBI's ideas on oversight. Get somebody in the Justice Department to OK things. Great, that sure makes it OK. Or, if that doesn't work then just get somebody higher up in the agency! Come on! It sounds to me like they are already running any kind of operation they want to with little or no 'real' oversight. Which is exactly why it's a slippery slope and exactly why a lot of people are wondering how far down the slope the agency has already traveled.
Sorry, man, those guys are only winning because sheeple voted for them.
FTFY
A man who wants nothing is invincible
Did Slashdot user reifman really write this crap? Or was it the FBI pretending to be reifman in order to give credibility to this propaganda?
But seriously, this shows how illegally using trusted names like Seattle Times or Associated Press when you are not representing either of those organizations is wrong. I don't want anyone spreading stories pretending to be me just like you *should not* want anyone spreading stories pretending to be you.
The ends do not justify the means.
If the Feds hacked the perps computer, then how can we be sure they didn't install fake evidence on the said computer?
Well, don't blame Koch for that. He didn't force them to. Human beings are supposed to have the free will to turn their backs on his money.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
I think the uproar in Seattle is predictable for that region, however, I also think this is a huge civil rights issue that is not unique by any means to the FBI. Fake news stories created with the specific intention of capturing personally identifying data from readers in order to exploit them and the news media is unlawful.
I have a suspicion that this will end of becoming a First Amendment issue as well as a Fourth Amendment case simply because the government cannot imitate the news media. This causes all kinds of journalistic integrity problems. There is supposed to be a separation between the government and the news media for a very important reason. This creates a trust problem within the public from which civil rights opponents in the law enforcement community benefit. Its another step towards becoming a police state.
... it is this belief that they can do these things without asking permission that is really troubling. The newspaper might have said yes if consulted. But the government didn't even ask. It did what it wanted to do and THAT is at the root of so many of these controversies.
The arrogance.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
I've posted a summary of common questions from this piece here: http://jeffreifman.com/2014/10...
So you're thinking of your career prospects. Carry on soldier, these are the citizens the security state needs!
xkcd is not in the sudoers file. This incident will be reported.
You know what would be nice? If Slashdot went back to posting articles instead of opinion pieces *about* articles.
Example:
"What the agency actually did is more of an example of smart, precise law enforcement tactics." - oh really? Thanks for interpreting the article for me. I may agree or I may not, but it's not Slashdot's place to interpret. Present the article and let the commenters present opinions. We don't need our food chewed for us, thanks.
There is no malware nor was his pc entered.
They just needed his ip adress which can be found in the log on the webserver after he went to the site. They did not enter his pc.
Or perhaps a slave. Now do what we tell you or it's off to the Gulag, or worse.
Seriously - are you being paid with taxpayer money to justify these criminal actions on the part of law enforcement? This looks like slashdot-based PR.
If it is not just/right/moral/ethical for one person to do it then it is not just/right/moral/ethical for any person to do it. Double standards are evil. The primary requirement for any justice system is "can it eat its own cooking". These actions unilaterally violate that.
pretending to be a long-time slashdotter. sorry, buddy, ain't buying it. this is wrong place to get good press. oh, wait, FBI burnt bridge with mainstream media by pretending to be one of them and ruining their credibility.
In this particular case, I think it is a knee jerk reaction. This happened back in the dark ages of law enforcement when they made small efforts to be legal. A warrant, who would have thought!
Whose trust was broached? The entire American public, since the Government has compromised the Freedom of the Press.
This was just wrong. Plain and simple.
Just read another bit about NSA pushing out our info to other gov.s (UK, at least)
If anyone has an opinion on something the Gov doesn't like, the gov has every right!! Oh, it's SO clear now.. (you Morons.)
.
"it sought to identify the owner of an anonymous MySpace page that was bragging about a Timberline High School bomb threat. An undercover agent sent a MySpace email to the account owner that included a fake news article blurb and a link to a web page that downloaded software" - moronic author within article
So, the Gov loads software that rapes my privacy.. yes, seems fine too me and any psycho-fem or the like, and the rest of us are just over reacting .. really!
("Why can't you all see this issue clearly, I want it?" "I don't like so they must stop!" etc all sounds like a 5 year old rational.)
.
Our loving Motherland.
Did you happen to read this? http://jeffreifman.com/2014/05... I don't think they'd have me.
What Google and Apple did is a very good thing. Let the FBI and CIA cry all they want. America land of the free subject to no one.