Slashdot Mirror
Senator Urges Colleagues to Prevent Expansion of Government Hacking (onthewire.io)
Thursday Sen. Ron Wyden urged the Senate to block a pending change to federal Rule 41, which starting in December will allow judges to authorize remote access to an unlimited number of computers. An anonymous Slashdot reader quotes On The Wire's update on the "Stopping Mass Hacking" Act:
In May, Wyden introduced a one-sentence bill that would prevent the change. The Senate has taken no action on the bill thus far and Wyden on Thursday warned that continued inaction on the issue would be dangerous. "If the Senate does nothing, if the Senate fails to act, what's ahead for Americans is a massive expansion of government hacking and surveillance powers..."
Wyden asked the Senate to pass his bill by unanimous consent, but Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) objected, saying that the change to Rule 41 was a simple one that would help law enforcement agencies know which venue is the correct one to ask for a warrant... Cornyn cited recent reports about hacks of the election systems in some states, possibly by foreign governments, as evidence of the need for the change. "This isn't a time to retreat and allow cyberspace to be run amok by cybercriminals. This is a very sensible tool of venue."
Google, PayPal, and the Tor Project are all opposing the pending rule change, along with the EFF, which is gathering signatures online for a petition arguing that vaguer warrants "could impact any person using a computer with Internet access anywhere in the world."
Wyden asked the Senate to pass his bill by unanimous consent, but Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) objected, saying that the change to Rule 41 was a simple one that would help law enforcement agencies know which venue is the correct one to ask for a warrant... Cornyn cited recent reports about hacks of the election systems in some states, possibly by foreign governments, as evidence of the need for the change. "This isn't a time to retreat and allow cyberspace to be run amok by cybercriminals. This is a very sensible tool of venue."
Google, PayPal, and the Tor Project are all opposing the pending rule change, along with the EFF, which is gathering signatures online for a petition arguing that vaguer warrants "could impact any person using a computer with Internet access anywhere in the world."
[redacted]
Is this where we see the unveiling of the true nature of windows 10, to allow any agent of govt full access to your computer without a warrant?
This is my congressman. Senator Cornyn, the Straw Man of the Senate, is proof positive that you don't have to be born with Zika to have no brains. Sadly he keeps proposing measures that would have unfortunate and undesirable effects.
For example, months ago Cornyn proposed a bill that would ban persons on the no-fly list from purchasing firearms. His incredibly naieve and idiotic characterisation of his bill was that it would stop terrorists from buying guns. As if all we needed to do was tell them to quit buying! And there was no consideration of the fact that the no-fly list is riddled with innocents who have no way to investigate or change their status on the no-fly list. Cornyn seemed blithely unaware of the constitutional questionability of the bill. Luckily it was discarded by more intelligent men and women.
So Cornyn's at it again. We (his constituency) need to vote this fool out of office and get a different conservative, one with a brain instead. And there are plenty out there, you jokesters!
The programmers and software engineers must implement strong security and encryption to protect their users. They should not trust governments not to snoop or to snoop only on the "right" people. Give people the powerful tools necessary to make their own decisions and don't give in to the fear of those who say nonsense like "omg, the terrorists"! The governments of this world are at least as dangerous to the ordinary citizen as a bunch of guerilla fighters in Elbonia.
Americans get all riled up when you post a picture of your dog sitting on a star spangled banner, but nobody seems to give a fuck when the government pisses all over the constitution.
As a US citizen, this makes me sad...
This will help keep us on our toes and build better defenses against them.. The war is already on, and no stupid law is going to stop them anyway, so let's keep it out in the open and guard against complacency on our part.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
This bill rejects an amendment to rule 41 (Search and Seizure) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure adopted by the U.S. Supreme Court and transmitted to Congress for review on April 28, 2016. (The amendment allows a federal magistrate judge to issue a warrant to use remote access to search computers and seize electronically stored information located inside or outside that judge's district in specific circumstances.)
Politics; n. : A religion whereby man is god.
The rule 41 change does NOT allow for "hacking an unlimited number of computers", nor does it allow for hacking of American's computers without a warrant.
The rule change says that IF a target computer is concealing itself through some technical means, like a VPN or TOR, which would prevent the government from going to the magistrate local to the district the computer is physically located in, THEN the government can go to a different magistrate to get a warrant.
A warrant is still required. In addition, once the computer's physical location is discovered, the government must go to the local magistrate for any additional warrants.
This is not a violation of the Constitution, or a great expansion of hacking powers, or the death of the Internet, or any of the other absurd lies that opponents have been throwing out there. This is a paperwork change. So stop panicking, stop spreading lies, and actually address the issue.
... Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) objected, saying that the change to Rule 41 was a simple one that would help law enforcement agencies ...
Sage thinking from another waste-of-space in Congress. To hell if it's right or wrong if it helps the police -- do whatever they want to do.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
Do not confuse corrupt with "brainless". He most certainly is not brainless. The people that vote for him on the other hand.... No, correction, they are just as corrupt, voting for someone that *brings home the bacon*. Why do you think people like Feinstein, Hatch, Wasserman Schultz, in fact democrats and republicans in general, always win? Everybody wants a piece of the pie, and the results you see should be expected.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Sounds like a traitor to me. Didn't he take an oath to protect the constitution?
No, not "luckily". Technically, one possibility would have been than the bill would be declared unconstitutional, but a more likely result would have been:
IMO, the best thing you can do to change a bad law is to make it suddenly affect NRA members. That's the surest way to scare your congresscritters into fixing it.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
People like Feinstein win because the Republicans run ultra-right wing-nuts against them. You can't run somebody like Emken on an anti-gay-rights platform in California. You'd be more likely to win by running a Boxer (the dog, not the Senator).
All the Republicans have to do to win California is run a socially liberal candidate—someone with a strong position on equal rights, but fiscally conservative. I know that would technically border on a libertarian candidate in a lot of ways, which is why they don't want to do it, but if they ran that sort of moderate Republican against Boxer or Feinstein, they would have at least a decent chance of winning—particularly if they did it in an off-season election (non-presidential) when fewer Democrats vote.
The fact that the Republicans keep trying and failing to push a radical right-wing social agenda in California tells me unequivocally that either Republican leadership in California is grossly incompetent or they don't actually want to win in California.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
... is a question that moral legislators often ask themselves.
they don't actually want to win in California.
They don't need to. The windfall from quid pro quo with the democrats is perfectly sufficient. Whatever "opposition" they put up is show business to make it look a little less obvious.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
This.
âoeThese arenâ(TM)t substantive changes. The government must still go before a judge and make the requisite showing in order to get a search warrant,â Cornyn said. âoeI canâ(TM)t imagine circumstances where weâ(TM)d say the Fourth Amendment is trumped by the right to privacy. We canâ(TM)t let that happen and thatâ(TM)s why these changes are so important.â
Plain language reading of Fourth: It exists to empower a judge to protect the citizen against a would-be King George's desire to search and seize everything he can get its hands on.
Conryn's understanding of the Fourth: It exists to empower the govenrment to conduct (lawful) search and seizure, and since he gets to define "lawful", us citizens ought not to expect our silly little notions of privacy to get in his way.
There's no way Conryn's misreading of the Fourth is accidental. It's not stupid; it's intentional.
I remember one of the senators claiming the proposed law (no NEW guns for no-fly list 'terrorists') would "honour the no-fly list". It's a government held list, allowed by government secret law, under government care and ad-hoc administration: Of course, the no-fly list is honourable! Some of these politicians have serious delusions of grandeur.
The failed bill got some attention lately because the Orlando nightclub shooter was briefly on the no-fly list. Since he was removed from the list, this law would have changed nothing. The Democrat party wants to bring in gun control laws, most of them sensible and well-liked. The party also acknowledges the mental-health crisis but doesn't appear to have any policies on it. Once again, congress is ignoring the fact that they cannot take take guns off anybody and as long as that is true, gun safety will never exist. Which in turn, makes gun control laws of limited use.
Didn't Australia pass that law, last year?
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.
Don't these idiots realize that attacking computers in foreign countries could be considered an act of war? The arrogant self-serving corruptness of the American justice system is truly frightening.
I don't get it, our government throws a fit whenever the Chinese, North Koreans, or Russians hack our computer systems. Now we want to do the same to them and think that because "we granted ourselves that power" will prevent repercussions? The sheer arrogance.