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.
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.
... 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. . . .
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.
The physical issue you bring up doesn't really prevent them from *issuing* a search warrant. But it does inhibit their ability to *execute* the warrant. Executing it might require working with another government, or remotely hacking a server, or something like that. Do warrants state *how* they will be executed? Ex: If they get a warrant to search a computer, does the warrant state that they can or cannot hack it -vs- that they can sieze it -vs- they can copy the HD contents?
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.
What's to stop someone from setting up a bogus server, planting a lot of fake 'evidence' on it, and allowing the government to hack into it and discover whatever they want them to discover?
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
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.
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.