Slashdot Mirror
Computers and Warrants: Some Senators Oppose Justice Plan (go.com)
A group of bipartisan senators introduced a bill on Thursday that blocks a pending judicial rule change allowing U.S judges to issue search warrants for remote access to computers in any jurisdiction, even overseas. Associated Press reports: Justice Department officials say that requirement is not practical in complex computer crime cases where investigators don't know the physical location of the device they want to search. In instances when cybercriminals operate on networks that conceal their identity and location, the government wants to ensure that any magistrate in a judicial district where a crime may have occurred can sign off on a search warrant that gives investigators remote access to the computer. The Obama administration says that authority is especially critical in cases involving botnets, which are networks of computers infected with a virus that spill across those districts. As it now stands, federal officials say, they might have to apply for nearly identical warrants in 94 different courthouses to disrupt a botnet.The U.S. Justice Department has pushed for the rule change since 2013. It has assumed it as a "procedural tweak" needed to modernize the criminal code to pursue sophisticated 21st century criminals, reports Reuters. Congress has until Dec 1 to vote to reject, amend or postpone the changes to Rule 41 of the federal rules of criminal procedure. If lawmakers fail to act, the change will automatically take effect, a scenario seen as likely given the short timeline. ZDNet has more details.
So said the kookoo Debbie Harry.
What are they going to do to figure out the jurisdiction anyway? Use Maxmind Geoip? Thats hopelessly unreliable! How else are they supposed to do this?
Hey, I know! Lets set up a special UN taskforce!
We can call it UNIT; United Nations Internet Taskforce! Need some kind of doctor and brigadier though.
In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
I don't see how this could apply to a computer anywhere in the world. Last time I checked, the US courts did not have authority to conduct searches on foreign soil. If they do in fact believe they have this right, I guess they are OK with the Chinese or Russian authorities searching computers on U.S. soil for evidence of their laws being broken.
... the government wants to ensure that any magistrate in a judicial district where a crime may have occurred can sign off on a search warrant that gives investigators remote access to the computer.
And if the remote computer is located somewhere that local magistrate doesn't have any jurisdiction?
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
Then write a law specific to botnets.
A group of bipartisan senators introduced a bill on Thursday that blocks a pending judicial rule change allowing U.S judges to issue search warrants for remote access to computers in any jurisdiction, even overseas.
I saw Rand Paul on their, but certainly this is something Bernie Sanders would support as well, right? Does anyone have a link for the full list?
Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
But yet a Chinese IP "attacking" their systems is grounds enough to start a war with China.
Strange world you Americans live in.
Here in the Netherlands, and probably everywhere else as well, we have the exact same discussion. Law enforcement wants the capability to remotely hack into computers, even when the jurisdiction is unclear and the remote computer my be abroad.
This could in theory end up in a Global Hacking War where law enforcement of countries will hack law enforcement of other countries because they hacked into systems in the first countries jurisdiction which the first country considers to be illegal. repeat ad infinitum.
This is unlikely to happen between Europe and the US, they will most likely come to some kind of agreement that will, as usual, be detrimental for their mutual citizens but benefits both states.
Between other states it will just serve to be more verbal ammunition to accuse each other of wrongdoings by accusing the other of 'hacking' and claiming the moral high ground for oneself, which then escalates.. In other words, business as usual.
But yet a Chinese IP "attacking" their systems is grounds enough to start a war with China.
Strange world you Americans live in.
It depends what they're doing with the "attacks." A cyberattack that kills people can obviously be grounds for war.
Nobody is saying a cyberattack is enough to provoke a nuclear response. But if you don't want to get hit and the world has no policemen, you learn to defend yourself and you learn to hit back, until you both realize that it's more productive not to fight.
Your response doesn't need to be the same kind of hit the other person used--it just has to hurt them enough to show them it is unprofitable to continue. (But not so much that they must retaliate because of public demand).
Real lawyers write in C++
Perhaps a better idea is to create a new court that can issue warrants in a "cyber jurisdiction" - ie an IP address or address space. That court can be highly specialized and have expertise in issuing such warrants, and have no jurisdiction over any physical area. Once the results of any searches authorized under the "cyber warrant" are resolved to a physical location, then new warrants can be obtained from the traditional courts for those jurisdictions.
Surely it's a bipartisan group of senators. I find it hard to believe that anyone bipartisan could get selected by one party, let alone both.
At the bottom of the
If you sell a product to someone in another location, the laws of both may apply, and suit can be brought in either jurisdiction.
If a spammer sends email, he is legally required to comply with laws in the recipient's location.
Why not just apply the same rule to computer searches? If connection attempts are addressed to hardware in the local jurisdiction, the local courts have jurisdiction over the connection and can grant a search warrant affecting the remote end. That should take care of botnets being used in DDoS attacks just fine. Perhaps the rule that the connection has to originate on the other computer can be relaxed to cover malware connecting home to its control network.
Anything beyond this is overreach -- law enforcement *shouldn't* have jurisdiction over computer systems that aren't engaged in commerce and/or communications in their local area.
grounds for war? You, Sir, have obviously been throughly brainwashed. Either that, or you have no idea what you are talking about.
I hope I didn't brain my damage.
Laws get passed by default and have to be explicitly repealed?
Nice...
Except MAYBE for a single PR stunt once, this will never and was never intended to do anything about any kind of botnet, terrorist, ransomware hacker or pedophile.
There is nothing but abuse in those changes.
So what is going to happen when the FBI breaks into China Mobile and the Chinese government demands to prosecute these notorious internet hackers in the International Court of Justice (China has no extradition treaties with the US). Will the US find a scapegoat, or will we thumb our nose and be labeled a rogue nation in the eyes of the world and end up with economic sanctions levied against our companies. Just so the FBI can snoop without any restrictions or evidence.
It does not sound to me this plan is in the best interest of the US.
This is Obama, the quasi-messiah of the left, rather than some supposedly fascist GOP pig as the brain-dead stereotypes usually go, and he is being opposed by BOTH Republicans and Democrats on capitol hill. The usual fake political propaganda fails on this one.
This demonstrates several things:
First, the most left-wing president in US History is doing the dirty deed - evil is possible in ANY party
Second, even in a toxic hyper-partisan environment it's possible to get bipartisan unity on a policy IF the unity is on something sufficiently important and sufficiently correct - which is what our founders intended.
Third, for all the romanticizing of so-called whistle-blowers and the like, entire branches of government filled with lawyers and bureaucrats and political appointees will do anything they are told to do and support any policy of their leaders - something administrations of both parties have repeatedly demonstrated. This is why our founders divided powers among the branches and why a solitary guy armed with "a pen and a phone" is a VERY BAD idea completely contrary to the Constitution.
Our government is supposed to be small and it's supposed to be very hard to get it to do stuff; the "checks and balances" are there for a set of good reasons. This is supposed to make it very hard for evil leaders to arise and use the government for ill in the US. On those occasions when the machine of government in engages, it's supposed to be because it was important enough and correct enough to get broad support of representatives of all parties.
Team America fuck yeah!!!
What's the point of issuing a warrant in a jurisdiction the issuer has no authority over? That warrant won't make the action any less illegal.
The only reason we have a problem with botnets is because the systems are horribly designed and coded. The government shouldn't even be able to get a warrant to search a computer IMHO. The internet should be off limits. Computers should be off limits. What is illegal in one place is not illegal elsewhere. Even if there is something that is illegal everywhere the risk to democracy is too profound to accept warrants. Once you allow warrants you end up with censorship and intimation of expression. Warrants for speech (which *all* internet communications is) should not exist. People are prone to disregard the speech of the minority overlooking it as even speech.
If a Chinese, state sponsored, cyberattack were to cause a nuclear missile (somehow...) to launch and take out DC, would you consider that good enough to start a war? If not, why not?
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
Due to the nature of IP packets they are inherently unsuitable as a casus belli. This is common sense and whoever says otherwise wants to make sure to be able to construct grounds for war whenever necessary. If your scenario originated in Russia and the Russians made it look like the attack came from China, or from Norway, New Guinea or the Philippines, who'd you attack? Besides, where's the "I am part of a state sponsored cyberattack" flag inside the packet and why would I as an attacker set it? You've been lied to about Iraq's WMD, so why wouldn't they lie to you about the origin of TCP packets (the source of which can be spoofed)? Etc. etc. If you think of it, the whole "a cyberattack that kills people can obviously be grounds for war" nonsense is just that -- nonsense. Don't let them brainwash you into believing it's not.
I hope I didn't brain my damage.