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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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!”
...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!
No fraud took place. Hoax, perhaps, but not fraud...
Keep trying...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
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.
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!”
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
No fraud took place. Hoax, perhaps, but not fraud...
Keep trying...
So first you demand that people cite actual laws, and you refuse to accept things like "copyright infringement", "slander of title", or "defamation of character".
And then when someone cites chapter and verse of the law you reply with a wikipedia link saying it isn't correct.
No, for the law cited above it was fraud. The definition in that chapter is clear: "For the purposes of this chapter, the term “scheme or artifice to defraud” includes a scheme or artifice to deprive another of the intangible right of honest services." They were expecting the honest service of the specific newspaper. Instead they received a different service, an intentionally deceptive site that transmits something called a "computer contaminant" in the law. Chapter 63 (criminal fraud) doesn't have any of the now-common exceptions "except for law enforcement as part of an investigation". Officers can commit quite a lot of what would normally be crimes when they get court approval, but fraud is not on that list.
Their malware is covered under at least one of the variations in the state law, RCW 9A.52.110, 120, and 130. Since the government may argue it wasn't done with the intent to commit another crime (since they were intending to enforce laws but accidentally committed crimes in the process) then 110 may be out, but 120 and 130 both apply.
For copyright, you can pick quite a few different laws under title 17. Several of the exclusive rights in 106 were violated, as were 113. Their designs were protected so 1301. You can pick and choose quite a few more under Copyright as well, with a notable absence of court-authorized police action exemption.
For trademarks the newspapers have certainly trademarked their logos, names, and probably a few other distinctive elements.15 USC 1114 seems to have that covered quite thoroughly, including penalties against DNS hijacking. And thanks to 15 USC 122, they cannot claim immunity for that one.
Defamation is pretty strong since their use injures the newspaper's reputation. People will now pause and think "why should I go there since the government hijacks them"? While there is the statute, it is now the court's test that qualifies it. The four-prong test by the court is, first, a false element purported to be fact (in this case, they communicated that the false website was true), second that it was published (clearly the fact was published), third, actual fault on the person making the statement amounting to at least negligence (in fact, it amounts to the level of fraud, as covered above), and fourth, some harm to the subject of the statement (which can be shown as a harm to trust and harm to their stock). Again, there is no "official government action immunity" to commit fraud thanks to 42 USC 1983. Now if they had limited it to the very specific individuals under investigation this one might not apply as a legal intercept, but since they chose to throw a broad net and infected thousands, causing a huge impact to their brand the single authorized intercept exemption doesn't apply.
I'm sure there are many more, but while some laws make exception for court-authorized police action, these specific laws do not.
//TODO: Think of witty sig statement
The citation requested must not only refer to actual law, but the referenced law must be applicable. Fraud is not — in my opinion.
No, I don't see, how the "victim" was deprived of anything, tangible or not. He could still go to the real seattletimes.com, nothing was taken away from him, nor was tricked into performing services. The law you are offering protects merchants (purveyors of tangible goods) and service providers (intangibles) against, essentially, non-payments.
Under your reading, most April 1st jokes would be "wire fraud"...
Finally, the law is limited to interstate communications, which probably did not occur. But that — had it been my only rebuttal — would've been weaseling out on my part.
What malware? They sent him a link, which he clicked, thus revealing his IP-address...
False. Go back to law school. The 15 USC 1114 starts with "... use in commerce ...". The FBI did not engage in any commerce...
There is no law named "defamation" — you know, what "citation" means, you've offered quite a few already (even though none apply). Why did you change to a generic legal term again?
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
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!”
...what the fuck?
I think the ACLU is trying to turn that whole situation into some sort of bizarre ADA claim that will ultimately give them leverage in future immigration lawsuits as well as profiling and discrimination complaints.
... 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.
Or perhaps a slave. Now do what we tell you or it's off to the Gulag, or worse.
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.