Slashdot Mirror
Supreme Court Gives FBI More Hacking Power (theintercept.com)
An anonymous reader cites an article on The Intercept (edited and condensed): The Supreme Court on Thursday approved changes that would make it easier for the FBI to hack into computers, many of them belonging to victims of cybercrime. The changes, which will take immediate effect in December unless Congress adopts competing legislation, would allow the FBI go hunting for anyone browsing the Internet anonymously in the U.S. with a single warrant. Previously, under the federal rules on criminal procedures, a magistrate judge couldn't approve a warrant request to search a computer remotely if the investigator didn't know where the computer was -- because it might be outside his or her jurisdiction. The rule change would allow a magistrate judge to issue a warrant to search or seize an electronic device if the target is using anonymity software like Tor."Unbelievable," said Edward Snowden. "FBI sneaks radical expansion of power through courts, avoiding public debate." Ahmed Ghappour, a visiting professor at University of California Hastings Law School, has described it as "possibly the broadest expansion of extraterritorial surveillance power since the FBI's inception."
...because apparently most people just don't get it.
You wanted big government? THIS IS IT.
Stated another way, you can't have big government without gross violations of civil rights. It's absolutely impossible. The only way to eliminate those gross violations of civil rights is to place strict limits on the size and scope of government, which naturally rules out the notion of big government.
welcome our web browser monitoring overlords and wish them well in their endeavors at world domination.
Sig Follows: "Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." -- Mark Twain
This seems to be the only reasonable outcome although I'm sure the conspiracy theorists will have a heyday with it. If somebody has effectively disguised the physical location of their machine, there's no way to know which jurisdiction should issue the warrant. This creates a Catch-22 situation that is untenable. The only reason to consider this problematic is if you are of the belief that those with a certain level of technical skill should be exempt from the law.
"search or seize an electronic device if the target is using anonymity software like Tor"
They basically ruled that using the Tor Browser or any anonymity software is an admission you must be doing something wrong so therefore the warrant covers it all.
What is innocent until proven guilty?
"immediate effect in December"
Either the effect is immediate (this means NOW) or in December (which means later). What is the English language?
>> "FBI sneaks radical expansion of power through courts, avoiding public debate."
This is the same route that everyone is pursuing today. Witness the recent changes in gay marriage (court decision), our new national health care "tax" (court decision), political speech contribution limits (court decision) and more.
It's getting to the point where "public debate" leading to "legislation" or "constitutional amendments" (i.e., changes in the law) almost seems like a thing of the past. Instead, you just stack the highest court you can find with like-minded people, then shove court cases involving your favorite issues at them until they issue the ruling you want - no messy democracy needed!
Let's be clear what the rule change actually does. It allows a judge to issue a search warrant affecting computers outside his or her jurisdiction.
The rule only allows an expansion in the geographic scope of warrants. It is NOT an order permitting the hacking of anyone using anonymity. That's a very misleading statement.
I'm actually not sure this is a bad thing, either. Instead of seeking warrants in each jurisdiction, it allows law enforcement to seek a single warrant that covers all jurisdictions. One of the biggest issues with government surveillance is that the courts just don't have the resources to properly scrutinize all the requests for warrants they get. For example, the FISA court can't properly review all the requests they get, so in some ways they rely on the NSA to police themselves. If there are fewer requests for warrants it allows, at least in principle, more thorough scrutiny of each request.
Could someone please explain to me exactly what the Supreme Court does? I didn't even know that they do this kind of thing. I thought they heard cases and made rulings on the cases.
Reading the Wikipedia article on the US Supreme Court doesn't help, either. It's all about hearing cases.
... is "the officer must make reasonable efforts to serve a copy of the warrant and receipt on the person whose property was searched or who possessed the information that was seized or copied. Service may be accomplished by any means, including electronic means, reasonably calculated to reach that person." So after they search your machine and identify you, they still have to let you know they did it. If it happens too often, voters might start to care. Of course, the cameras everywhere one turns don't seem to bother voters much, so perhaps that's a bit optimistic.
Oh, I'm sorry sir, I thought you were referring to me, Mr. Wensleydale.
y'all are missing the point.
the fact that REMOTELY BREAKING INTO OUR MACHINES has been allowed by the courts; that's the real news, here.
everyone government seems to do it, too. I remember reading about malware that the german government uses to break into their citizen's computers.
its amazing that we have given up due process and we have fallen prey to 'ends justifies the means'. this is not, at all, what america used to stand for.
but as I said, this is not really just about the US. all authorities seem to think anything's fair game as long as they get their man. and conservative-driven countries (like the US, currently) have zero problems giving authorities any damned thing they ask for, as long as they keep us in perpetual fear and promise to keep the Bad Guys(tm) away.
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
They don't have an IP address. The computers are using Tor/anonymizing services, etc
This sounds like a direct response to the recent ruling covered here a few days ago:
https://yro.slashdot.org/story/16/04/21/1718230/in-a-first-judge-throws-out-evidence-obtained-from-fbi-malware
"Based on the foregoing analysis, the Court concludes that the NIT warrant was issued without jurisdiction and thus was void ab initio,"
And now:
"Previously, under the federal rules on criminal procedures, a magistrate judge couldn't approve a warrant request to search a computer remotely if the investigator didn't know where the computer was -- because it might be outside his or her jurisdiction."
Would be nice to hear from a lawyer if the previous ruling was taken to the supreme court and amended based on... no clue, but some legal reason.
I think remotely breaking into machines (if a warrant was issued) was already allowed before this. This only changed how the warrants are issued, not the power granted by the warrants themselves.
Only crack the nuts that crack. You don't put the ones that don't crack in the sack.
don't be an idiot.
firewalls are not very strong; when a TLA that has more money than god wants to get in.
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
The article itself notes that anyone under active investigation. The summation of the /. post seems to leave that out, making it sound like anyone using TOR or similar would be a potential target of FBI hacking as it would be assumed they would be criminals. That is how I read the summation.
The article says no such thing, rather it says that for people under investigation, when a warrant would have been issued under normal circumstances, if they are using anonymity software, then the FBI can still apply for a warrant, but the jurisdiction issue would be less of an issue.
I am okay with this. However, it is a double edged sword, while the FBI as a whole probably has good intentions, it is the individuals within who tend to abuse their powers, and I see this entire process ripe for abuse.
I came, I conquered, I coredumped
FBI HQ is still named after that tyrant J Edgar Hoover, who gathered so much power, even Presidents feared him.
The FBI hasn't changed; they will never change.