Slashdot Mirror
FBI's Hacks Don't Comply With Legal Safeguards
An anonymous reader writes: The FBI hacks computers. Specifics are scarce, and only a trickle of news has emerged from court filings and FOIA responses. But we know it happens. In a new law review article, a Stanford Ph.D. candidate and privacy expert pulls together what's been disclosed, and then matches it against established law. The results sure aren't pretty. FBI agents deceive judges, ignore time limits, don't tell computer owners after they've been hacked, and don't get 'super-warrants' for webcam snooping. Whatever you think of law enforcement hacking, it probably shouldn't be this lawless.
Is there anyone in the world who does not believe the American CIA/FBI/NSA don't spy on whoever they want without regard to the legal process? When you have that kind of power and secrecy, you use it. And you don't let some pesky 200+ year old document stop you. Warrants are a mere formality; by the time they get around to getting one they already have the info they want. All the warrant is for is to make it legally admissible in court.
Only that they have those in power behind them. When law enforcement is not bound by law anymore, that is a police state, the precursor to a totalitarian state. The signs are well-known from past occurrences, as is the further story: Unless constrained very tightly by the law again, these people will eventually cause a total catastrophe. Checks and balances are not fluff, they are essential to keep the likes of these people in check.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
Haven't we been reading about this for a few years now? LEO's not following the law when it comes to wiretaps and obtaining information from companies about customers they believe are connected to crimes they are investigating.
There's one thing missing in all these stories -- people at those agencies being held responsible for their actions.
The FBI doesn't give a shit about the law or the rules. Who's going to stop them?
You can't sue, because you can't prove you have standing. They use their illicitly gathered evidence to parallel-construct a case without ever revealing whatever hacks they used. They classify volumes of information to hide evidence of their own wrongdoing. They use secret tools like stingrays to gather secret evidence which they attempt to present in secret, sealed and off the record. And in the event that an "activist judge" calls them on it, they withdraw the evidence so as not to have it revealed, and then re-file charges a month later to go shopping for a different judge.
The police state is strong in America. Hoover is jizzing in his grave, I'm sure.
With the NSA and other nations providing total network access its hard to then undo the vast parallel construction effort with local malware on one computer to build a multi year case.
The problem for the use of digital and voice product in court is the mentioned "reasonable ex post notice to a computer’s owner" in an open court.
Soon the entire US judicial system and the press would be aware of methods, law enforcement friendly US developed operating systems and antivirus issues, malware providers and their experts in open court testimony.
Everyone of interest would quickly understand privacy and anonymity cannot be found on any US network or device designed or sold that connects to a US network.
Over the years many efforts have been made to support law enforcements own understanding that some networks and phones are 'safe'.
Even local, state and low level federal officials then understand and help propagate the no trapdoor, back door cover stories they saw in a local tech demo
The cover story that some brands, generations or easy to buy products are totally secure is often positioned as random talking points in the national media and on computer related sites.
The UK had many issues with advance phone tracking methods leaking from the court system in the 1970-80's as computer, phone and cell phone technology was been made public.
The US wanted to ensure the same would never happen with its cell phone tracking so it uses IMSI-catchers and light aircraft with dirtbox like units well outside the US court system. Every wifi, cell device and other signals over vast areas per year.
Onion router like networks face the same constant mapping and software/network OS layer issues.
Collect it all is the new cheap, easy way to map entire local communities every year. The real magic is keeping methods away from courts, the press, citizen journalism with walk in FOIA requests at a city or state level or other legal teams.
The hardware paper trail still exists in some city and regional bureaucracies just waiting for a correctly worded in person FOIA request.
The UK was much smarter as it centralized its expert help to law enforcement well beyond the courts, press.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
I have news for you, people who intend to be criminals, pedophiles included, flock to join law enforcement agencies.
I remember someone relating a story about having a friend in the CIA who also happened to be a pedophile ...
I find it odd that we're supposed to follow the rule of law, yet the very ones in charge of enforcing those laws seem to have no qualms at all about breaking them whenever it suits their needs. All under the guise of "protecting" us from $evilplot of course. :|
In the end, Orwell was right I guess. Some animals are more equal than others.
Giving it a fancy name like 'parallel construction' is to conceal its nature. That is perjury, that is falsification of evidence, an officer goes into court and lies about the evidence trail, in front of a judge and denies the defense the chance to cross examine the TRUE evidence trail.
Quit calling it "parallel construction" can call it what it is and that's typically falsification of evidence (a police officer lies about "bad driving" or whatever reason he invented to justify a stop), followed by perjury to back that lie.
And it gives the spooks leverage over the police too, they know the police officer lied, they know the crime that was committed, so don't expect the police force to police the military spooks. General Alexander lied to Congress and they practically wiped his ass they were so afraid of him.
Thanks god for Snowden, because Alexander was doing a tour like he was planning a Presidential bid. Snowdens revelations squashed all that. We'd have a Putin figure running for president with access to a file on his opponents. Snowden put a stop to that.
Just as we get to see for us plebs. Some people are unfit for handling certain responsibilities, so it gets taken away. From chemicals to electronic devices to fireworks and even certain kinds of ammunition and weapons. Outlawed because there have been some idiots who can't handle the responsibility.
So the FBI has shown that it cannot handle the responsibility to use the tools provided sensibly. Then they should have to do without them. Yes, that makes your life a bit harder and your job a bit more complicated, but sorry, it seems you are unfit of using the better tools, so get used to the inferior ones.
And be glad that we don't take that shit away too!
That's what would happen if the FBI was some sort of private organization or even a private person. Sadly, they are part of the government, so they are allowed to be as incompetent, obnoxious and destructive as they please without any repercussions.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.