Slashdot Mirror
Three Privacy Groups Challenge The FBI's Malware-Obtained Evidence (eff.org)
In 2015 the FBI took over a Tor-accessible child pornography site to infect its users with malware so they could be identified and prosecuted. But now one suspect is challenging that evidence in court, with three different privacy groups filing briefs in his support.
An anonymous reader writes.
One EFF attorney argues it's a classic case of an unreasonable search, which is prohibited by the U.S. Constitution. "If the FBI tried to get a single warrant to search 8,000 houses, such a request would unquestionably be denied." But there's another problem, since the FBI infected users in 120 different countries. "According to Privacy International, the case also raises important questions: What if a foreign country had carried out a similar hacking operation that affected U.S. citizens?" writes Computerworld. "Would the U.S. welcome this...? The U.S. was overstepping its bounds by conducting an investigation outside its borders without the consent of affected countries, the group said."
The FBI's evidence is also being challenged by the ACLU of Massachusetts, and the EFF plans to file two more challenges in March, warning that otherwise "the precedent is likely to impact the digital privacy rights of all Internet users for years to come... Courts need to send a very clear message that vague search warrants that lack the required specifics about who and what is to be searched won't be upheld."
The FBI's evidence is also being challenged by the ACLU of Massachusetts, and the EFF plans to file two more challenges in March, warning that otherwise "the precedent is likely to impact the digital privacy rights of all Internet users for years to come... Courts need to send a very clear message that vague search warrants that lack the required specifics about who and what is to be searched won't be upheld."
They should be tortured because they deserve it; even if it turns out they weren't guilty, we can't be too careful.
The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all.
H. L. Mencken
James Comey and friends spent 2 weeks as the biggest distributors of child porn on the planet, when they took over a child porn website, added server capacity, and kept it running. I get that we want to catch the bad guys, but the FBI is way overstepping its bounds lately. If you agree with the concept that distributing child porn harms the children over and over again, then the FBI itself is responsible for unimaginable amounts of harm to kids.
You're missing the part about this not being about them, but about unconstitutional search of *any* suspect. Just because these suspects are alleged to have committed particularly unpopular crimes does not mean a different set of rules applies. If the FBI uses child porn as the wedge issue to get precedent allowing unreasonable searches, we all suffer, not just the child porn consumers.
People who look at CP deserve everything that comes to them. Including malware
Define "Child Porn" for us.
Maybe it's just naked children? If that's the case, my parents should be in jail for life and then some.
On the other hand, I have seen very old photographs of pre-teen and teen girls that were just frolicking at the beach. They looked very happy. The name of the photographer escapes me, but outside of puritanical societies he's considered a great photographer. (DuckDucking for it is turning up nothing and I don't want to press it with Google or some other search engine that spies on people) I was at a gallery outside of the USA that doesn't have Byzantine laws written by repressed pedophiles and homosexuals that are out to prove something.
The photos were not in the least arousing in any sort of way and the children were hardly being exploited. It was just photographs of kids at play.
Some great art has naked children all over it. Some of them are called cherubs.
If the children are being hurt, we go after the producers. Going after consumers will be a never ending endeavor of whack-a-mole.
Now as far as porn where children are being victimized and abused, how about we solve the problem of HOW those children end up there in the first place.
But we won't America is all about being at "war" with symptoms of problems and not about actually solving them.
I believe their is a saying about this. It goes something like.
"For those who defend against unjust laws, they typically find themselves defending scoundrels as those are the one these unjust laws first target".
Basically it comes down to you either defend against an unjust law even when it is used against someone you hate because otherwise that legitimizes it and set the precedence to be used on you and others like you as well.
Foreign countries try to hack the computers of US citizens all the time.
But the legal argument is shaky. Banks will put marked bills in a stack of money, so that if the bank gets robbed, they can hopefully track those marked bills back to the thief. What the FBI did here is very similar. They didn't trick anyone into visiting the site serving the CP, they merely marked the people that visited with some malware so they could be tracked down. They didn't issue a blanket warrant to search 8000 homes in the hopes of finding a crime. It would be the same as the police monitoring the home of a known drug dealer and recording the license plates of all the cars that pull up for a quick visit.
Probably David Hamilton, who recently committed suicide under suspicion of having raped some of the underage girls he photographed decades ago. Perhaps not the best example to be used in defense of photographs of naked children.
The US Hacked Brazil (not only Petrobras, but also Brazillian Government websites) , as revealed by Snowden and by US Courts (https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/exclusive-how-an-fbi-informant-helped-anonymous-hack-brazil) and nothing happened. It was the FBI, not even the CIA! ..And we are a friendly nation to the US.
I have a belly laugh every time I see americans complaining about Russia hacking your elections, EVEN if its true.
No. It was a French name and he was alive over a hundred years ago. These were glass plate photos. And by turn of the century I meant 1900.
Not the same thing at all. The marked bill thing only comes into play after other collaborative evidence is revealed, like the video footage of the theft. Simply possessing the marked bill does nothing and even if you where handed a "hot" marked bill by a robber won't place you in the same legal boat that he is in.
Yes child porn is very bad, but our laws on unreasonable searches don't allow for blanket searches (by law enforcement, private security into a private venue is not the same, you can walk away from the door, not a police search). IMO, child porn and drunk driving are two subjects that america is playing with fire with the whole "these things are so bad they must supersede the constructional protections we all enjoy to stop it."
I'll make sure they add your name to the list of people to be tortured. I mean really. We all know the only people who use the term CP are paedophiles that look at that stuff.
The whole mantra of paedophiles being dangerous to children is little more than fear mongering by bigots and opportunists (media, politicians, prison industry, etc) to profit or otherwise make a name for themselves. They've blown the rare terrible tragedy of psychopaths raping and murdering little children into a "paedophile epidemic" totally ignoring the statistics and facts on the subject.
The majority of child rapists are parents, friends, and people close to families. Child rape is a crime of opportunity not paedophilia. There are certainly going to be some overlap just like there are men who rape, but most men are not rapists. It's easy to target paedophiles due to child porn and not so easy to target child rapists. Everybody involved in the fear mongering wins except the actual victims of rape. Nearly all of those on the sex offender lists (which came about from opportunists taking advantage of a story on a murdered child who was raped) are or were children or young adults and for which there were no actual victims. It consists largely of three categories: College students pissing in garbage cans outside of bars at 3AM that happen to be next to playgrounds/schools, children in awkward situations where one child lies about their age (13 year old says she 16 and has sex with 17 year old) to trick an older young person into having sex with them, and most of the other 1/3 are paedophiles who got caught with child porn. Few of these consist of actual rapists who pose a threat to anybody. On the other hand there is a small small percentage of those whom are rapists and that list is mostly made up of family, step-parents, friends, and similar.
I doubt very seriously that they advertised "kiddie porn here!", or worked to pump up their page rank on search engines. I'm reasonably sure that all of the visitors to their operational website were fully aware of exactly what they were doing, including the illegal nature of the material they were looking for. The website surreptitiously installed malware on their hosts, but this seems little different from police forces lying to suspects during interrogation or undercover operations in order to elicit useful information. Not so much like putting marked bills in a bundle (a technique described elsewhere) as adding a dye-pack designed to undetectably transfer an ultraviolet ink onto the hands of those who handle the ill-gotten money.
Now, whether they can prove exactly who used the specified hardware to view the illicit material - that's a different matter. My laptop (for example) is only used by me. Even my wife doesn't use my PC as she has her own system. I would guess that most of the suspects the FBI has identified are also sole users of the systems in question, but that will be a matter for the prosecution to prove in court. I would guess that some small percentage of the systems in question are not so single-user dedicated, so this may possibly be an issue to resolve.
Probably David Hamilton, who recently committed suicide under suspicion of having raped some of the underage girls he photographed decades ago. Perhaps not the best example to be used in defense of photographs of naked children.
Of course he's a witch! He wouldn't have been accused of witchcraft if he wasn't a witch. Stands to reason.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
It's a sting/honeypot.
today its who everyone hates tomorrow....
The FBI should have kept this site running, announced a blanket amnesty that anyone in possession of child porn with a hash matching any of the images would no longer be considered guilty of any offense, and allowed free access to the server to anyone who wanted. In return, anyone caught in possession of NEW images, would be sentenced more severely than at present.
Those pictures have already been taken, the children involved already harmed, and that can't be undone now. The focus should be on preventing future production of images, and avoiding harm to future children. You do that by offering people who get their kicks from these images free access to a stock of them on the understanding they don't go looking for, or aid the ecosystem for new ones. Offer an amnesty like that? I bet 99% of child porn consumers would likely take up the offer, leaving resources free to focus on the 1% of people who, for whatever reason, would prefer to remain underground.
Think about it. Government offers a massive stock of child porn images along with a guarantee not to be prosecuted as long as you stick to it? Where's the incentive to go producing new ones any more, or go looking for them? At a stroke, future harm will be prevented, children will be saved. Logically, it makes total sense.
in this case i agree. its the equivalent to a sting.
People who look at CP deserve everything that comes to them. Including malware
To me, the key point is: can the FBI be dead certain that anyone who runs this malware got it from their salted CP images?No possibility that the malware could spread to innocent parties? No possibility that it could be contracted by someone who misspells a URL?
its not naked children its normally sexually explicite and exploitation. these guys get a riseout of children which asks the question what would they do if one had the chance or if in thier eyes a willing young child. looking at it is only one spectrum. normal people are sexually attracted to others and act on it(in a good way) people rape people too and when a child it is even more grievious though it is horible no matter what.
" (DuckDucking for it is turning up nothing and I don't want to press it with Google or some other search engine that spies on people)"
You know Google saves search results because that's part of their business model. Because you don't know what DuckDuckGo's business model is, you don't know whether they are spying.
Define "Child Porn" for us.
K
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2256
(8) “child pornography” means any visual depiction, including any photograph, film, video, picture, or computer or computer-generated image or picture, whether made or produced by electronic, mechanical, or other means, of sexually explicit conduct, where—
(A) the production of such visual depiction involves the use of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct;
(B) such visual depiction is a digital image, computer image, or computer-generated image that is, or is indistinguishable from, that of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; or
(C) such visual depiction has been created, adapted, or modified to appear that an identifiable minor is engaging in sexually explicit conduct.
What's a "minor"?
(1) “minor” means any person under the age of eighteen years;
What's "sexually explicit conduct"?
(B) For purposes of subsection 8(B)[1] of this section, “sexually explicit conduct” means—
(i) graphic sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex, or lascivious simulated sexual intercourse where the genitals, breast, or pubic area of any person is exhibited;
(ii) graphic or lascivious simulated;
(I) bestiality;
(II) masturbation; or
(III) sadistic or masochistic abuse; or
(iii) graphic or simulated lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person;
I presume, AC, that should you be curious about how the US legal system defines any of the remaining above listed terms that you could just fucking google them, rather than just pull strawmen examples out of your ass.
The FBI software simply ran a Javascript program to retrieve the real IP address of the host system. That's enough to complete an investigation on that person.
The bank is not the FBI. The bank isn't actively investigating you or attempting to persecute you. Many of the restrictions that prevent the governments from tracking their citizens do not apply to private companies for good reason.
In any case, the bank identify their product, they do not track the end user. This is more akin to the uploader watermarking the picture so it can be identified later when the FBI goes searching through files. This is very different from the FBI pretending to be a bank and saying: Here's your $50 and then ask you take it they drop a GPS into your pocket.
The photos were not in the least arousing in any sort of way
To you. Remember we live in a world where people get aroused by the correct looking trees. I'm not saying anything about the legality of the picture, just know that whatever photo you were looking at, someone somewhere has likely masturbated to it. The probability of it goes up if the photo is of a person.
The other issue is the use of malware. They could easily have used it to plant evidence.
There is a danger of such tactics being used by others too. Imagine if Pizzagate had been enhanced by planting illegal material on servers and PCs owned by Democrats. Imagine if someone gets into Trump's Twitter account and posts a browser screenshot that happens to show a dodgy background tab along side the thing he wants to show, "by accident".
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
>No possibility that it could be contracted by someone who misspells a URL?
In a Tor domain? No, only users logging into one of the sites hosted on the server got spyware served to them.
Define child porn for us.
Fair enough.
Child pornography is a form of child sexual exploitation.
Federal law defines child pornography as any visual depiction of sexually explicit conduct involving a minor (persons less than 18 years old). Images of child pornography are also referred to as child sexual abuse images.
It is important to distinguish child pornography from the more conventional understanding of the term pornography.
Child pornography is a form of child sexual exploitation, and each image graphically memorializes the sexual abuse of that child. Each child involved in the production of an image is a victim of sexual abuse.
While some child sexual abuse images depict children in great distress and the sexual abuse is self-evident, other images may depict children that appear complacent.
In most child pornography cases, the abuse is not a one-time event, but rather ongoing victimization that progresses over months or years. It is common for producers of child pornography to groom victims, or cultivate a relationship with a child and gradually sexualize the contact over time.
Furthermore, victims of child pornography suffer not just from the sexual abuse inflicted upon them to produce child pornography, but also from knowing that their images can be traded and viewed by others worldwide.
Once an image is on the Internet, it is irretrievable and can continue to circulate forever.
The permanent record of a childÂs sexual abuse can alter his or her live forever. Many victims of child pornography suffer from feelings of helplessness, fear, humiliation, and lack of control given that their images are available for others to view in perpetuity.
Unfortunately, emerging trends reveal an increase in the number of images depicting sadistic and violent child sexual abuse, and an increase in the number of images depicting very young children, including toddlers and infants.
Child Pornography
It can be a useful exercise for the geek to have a look at the registry of sex offenders for his state or county. No better way I think to dispel the fantasies he promotes about child pornography.
one can argue the same with a phisical warrant though in that case it would be easier to do such a thing. there just doing there job with the tools they have and im sure the software they deployed is known to the parties that need to.
OH NOES!!!! Somebody did something bad to a child somewhere! THIS IS AWFUL. Here, let me surrender all of my rights and freedoms so the nice men in their cheap suits can bring the wrongdoers to "justice." I mean, it's totally ok because they'll only ever go after evil kiddie porn hoarders, right?
This is a thing you'll hear about called "the slippery slope." A person who isn't interested in seeing the big picture and the long term game might see it a justifiable breaking of the law and basic due process. One thing you have to remember is that what is legal today might not be tomorrow. Just look at how the authorities have reacted to people criticizing the government in the United States in the past decade or so. It's easy to forget that there was a time when that wouldn't bring multiple federal agencies down on you like a ton of bricks.
Due process of law and constitutional protection applies to EVERYBODY, and there should not ever be any exceptions under any circumstances.
"Lascivious is an American jargon indicating immoral sexual thoughts or actions. It is generally used in the legal description of criminal acts in which some kind of sexual activity is prohibited to differentiate that activity from an “innocent” conduct. It is often used to describe pornography. However, lascivious is not limited to pornography. For example, lascivious cohabitation refers to living with a member of the opposite sex, and having sexual intercourse with him/her without entering into a legal or religious marriage"
https://definitions.uslegal.co...
Then Facebook and everywhere else should not allow any pictures of an identifiable person of any kind or at least none of minors.
>You're missing the part about this not being about them, but about unconstitutional search of *any* suspect.
It's not an unconstitutional search because it violated the 4th amendment. It was ruled unconstitutional because the warrant was deemed invalid because it was issued by a magistrate judge in the Eastern District, which, at the time was procedurally prohibited because of the "Rule 41(b) Venue for a Warrant Application" in the Search and Seizure section of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. If the FBI had gotten the warrant from a federal judge, then there wouldn't be an issue about the unconstitutional nature of the search.
> Define "Child Porn" for us.
The kind of child rape and torture that's on that sort of site is so bad that the people who work on these cases develop PTSD. Yes iffy cases exist, but a dedicated CP site on Tor is not the kind of place that is dedicated to random innocent pictures.
This malware is the digital equivalent of a bait car. If they're actually innocent, they should be challenging how it was determined that they were using the computer. There's a safe harbor for people who stumble across CP accidentally, as well, but I'd guess that most of you haven't bothered to read that part of the US code, just to preempt the old Slashdot complaint that maybe they accidentally connected to Tor, hunted down a CP site, downloaded one picture and noped the hell out of there.
The text reads, "lascivious simulated sexual intercourse where the genitals, breast, or pubic area of any person is exhibited" That's pretty specific in this context which is why your own definition makes note that its a term commonly used in the description of criminal acts of a sexual nature. Are you arguing that the cp that was on the servers depicted "innocent" sexual conduct? You should look up the the legal decisions issued about the playpen cases to learn what the material consisted of. You would be quickly disabused about any "innocence" attributed to what those fuckers were uploading/downloading.
zOMG!! Won't somebody please think of the trees?
Spying on the population was a big driver behind the THIRD amendment:
While forcing the colonists to provide housing and upkeep for the soldiers sent to oppress them was an economic issue, there was more to it than that.
A soldier "quartered" in a colonist's house also served as a spy for the crown and its army. He eavesdropped on the conversations of the family and visiting friends. He had the opportunity to view their records when they weren't home (or even if they were). He reported anything suspicious to his unit. His presence inhibited getting together with others to hold private discussions, especially about opposing (by protest or otherwise) anything the government was doing. He was a continuous walking search, fed and housed by the people he was investigating.
It seems to me that law-enforcement and intelligence agency spyware, such as keyloggers and various data exfiltration tools, is EXACTLY the digital equivalent: It is a digital agent that "lives" in the home or office of the target. It consums the target's resources (disk space, CPU cycles network bandwidth) to support itself. It spies spying on the activities and "papers" of the target, reporting anything suspicious (or anything, actually) back to its commander, to be used as evidence and/or to trigger an arrest or other attack. It is ready, at a moment's notice, to forcefully interfere with, destroy, or corrupt the target's facilities or send forged messages from him.
Spyware is EXACTLY one of the most egregious acts (one of the "Intolerable Acts") that sparked the American Revolution. I'd love to see the Third brought back out of the doldrums and used against these "digital soldiers" the government is "quartering" inside our personal and private computing devices.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
It's not going to. The only chance we have is migrating liberty-minded people to New Hampshire for the purpose of forming a free society. That can only happen in a state like New Hampshire that is small enough population wise to gain an influence politically while having the prosperity and jobs necessary for such a migration to work. These are reasons the Free State Project's participants voted New Hampshire in. This and of course it's one of the best states in terms of various freedom indicators already. From the majority being neither affiliated with democrats nor republicans and of which both democrats and republicans being unlike that of the rest of the country. The other reason being New Hampshire has shown itself to be welcoming to freedom.
Ok, with you so far...
There are no car insurance requirements, no seat belt laws, no general purpose sales taxes, no gun control laws (we just got rid of mandatory concealed carry permitting), among various other laws/factors. The state is low taxes and taxes are a violation of ones rights in that they depend on force to achieve largely social and political objectives. But to do that you must steal other peoples property and otherwise utilize violence to achieve those objectives.
So what you're telling me is that New Hampshire has no models in place to mitigate or prevent abuses and that essentially people can't be held accountable for their actions, so people that abuse others are free to continue to do so without being forced to make amends for the ills they commit.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
It is in fact the same thing. The marked bills and the malware serve the very same purpose in each example. I go to a bank and rob it, I end up with marked bills. The FBI then, through all the information at their disposal, requests a warrant and it is granted. They find said bills in my possession and I am charged. Same situation but this time I go to a kiddi porn site and while there I pickup a bit of identification malware that reports back to the FBI markers that are then used to obtain a warrant. Said warrant is then used to raid my home or place of business or where ever and they find kiddi porn on my computer as well as the malware. I am charged with the crime and take my chances in court. It is very much the same thing. The fact that there are others that are outside of the jurisdiction of the FBI also being marked in this is not relevant. If the FBI chooses to forward the information to the proper authorities in the offenders country and they are able to then prosecute them then I still don't see your point as to this being a non constitutional search. No search happens until after the offender visits the site, is marked with the Malware, Identified, and then a warrant is obtained in a court from a judge.
And if you do not defend the rights and freedoms of scumbags, pretty soon, nobody will have rights or freedoms. That is the thing so many idiots (like you) do not understand.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
First they came for pedophiles, then they came for me.
dammit, it wasn't meant to be a pun, it was meant to be an insightful commentary on how we can judge a society by how it treats the most despised and how they can use the same tools on the rest of us, dammit I did it again, I mean spy tools. Now because of you people and your twisted imaginations nothing can undo iterations of that pun from being in my head.
This is the problem with infringing anyones rights, it turns wisdom into a bad joke.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
Indeed. There is nothing so bad that ignoring constitutional protections is a good idea. That is why these protections were created. Otherwise you end up with the "despicable crime du jour" being enough to not give people constitutional protection. It starts with CP, then there are a few steps, and then it becomes being gay, or having sex while not being married, or being an atheist or disagreeing with the government. That is exactly the reason why these limits on government power are not conditional.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
Well, see, that's the beauty of it. Without government and bankruptcy law, debt slavery becomes a valid option. After all, if you cannot discharge your debts, the only thing you can do is keep working and hoping to make enough payments to at least cover the interest.
Of course, without government's shield of limited liability, it would be insane to incorporate in New Hampshire, which is why everyone will continue incorporating in Delaware while enslaving peons living in the "Libertarian utopia".
Tell me again, how many years have people been trying to re-litigate Roe vs Wade?
In fact, it is so easy to plant evidence using malware without leaving a trace (except the malware itself), that I would be extremely surprised if that is not already being done. In any sane legal system, anything obtained by techniques beyond purely passive observation (and planting malware is anything but) needs to be regarded as tainted and inadmissible.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
Incidentally, the US military bombing children seems to be completely fine....
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
A conservative who has just been arrested...
Of course a conservative is a liberal who has just been mugged...
Given that they have demanded the extradition of British citizens who have spied on US government websites from their homes in the UK, logically the FBI can be charged with the same offence...
Time to start blocking the tor network by packet sniffing at the edges - problem solved. if people in the US can't get to the tor network, then no need to worry about searches.
And, the scumbags arrested and challenging all this - need all of their names, etc, to somehow leak. Then nature will take it's course. The scumbags will deserve everything they get
One such person
http://www.seattlepi.com/local/article/FBI-Special-ed-teacher-caught-with-infant-rape-6384373.php
Investigators searched Michaud’s home Friday, seizing electronics they claim contained images depicting child rape. According to charging papers, several images showed infants being raped.
This is a digital bait car. Just being infected isn't enough to convict you, but it's more than enough to investigate. When they pull up an HD full of CP, it'll be pretty clear on whether you accidentally stumbled onto that Tor hidden service or not.
Slashdot likes to forget that we've seen more than a few stories about people who had CP planted on them where the investigators figured that out right away once they examined the hard drive (and then charged the real culprit). It's not hard when they've been doing things for a long time that can be corroborated with other evidence. They generally end up having a conversation on cross examination that goes something like this: "So you say that it wasn't you at the computer at this time, but our data shows someone logged into your Facebook at the same time from that IP, you posted several status updates and sent several emails and also were chatting with several friends. And there are twelve separate instances like this. Yet you never once did anything that would indicate that someone who wasn't you posted to your Facebook dozens of times in the past year, did you?"
So then by that account: We must never fix security bugs, so that the malware can do it's job of reporting you. (Interfering with a police investigation.) That or all computers must respect the government's desire to allow government approved malware to infect them. Or better come with it built into the silicon.
I can think of a few reasons not to do this.... but something tells me you'd reject all of them as "necessary to ensure the safety of our democracy." Sadly, you can't figure out why that is not actually protecting anything.
But I'll bite and give you a hint: Law enforcement is always looking for new criminals, and loves it when they get new weapons in their fight. Similarly: Network Admins are always looking for hackers, and love it when they get new policies. We all have a desire to flex newly found power, the problem is some of us have issues determining where the boundary that defines acceptable vs. abuse lies. Even if it's done with good intentions.
You know Google saves search results because that's part of their business model.
In an aggregate sense that's true. It's also true that they save searches and attach them to your Google account if you make them while signed in. Whether or not they can attribute a search made while not signed in to a particular identity is an open question, but I suspect that the answer ranges somewhere between maybe and probably not. First off, google is more interested in the search itself and the results that it returned compared to other similar searches and what was ultimately clicked on. Attributing these searches to specific identities is probably of secondary importance to Google since advertisers don't pay for individual ad targeting but rather targeting groups of users with certain probable characteristics or search terms. In fact, trying to attribute searches to specific users is likely more of a legal headache for Google than it's worth. Think about it. Having a specific record of a specific individual's, rather than like group of individuals (plural), searches is of marginal advertising value and it tends to attract unwanted attention from governments and law enforcement. Indeed, Google's business is arguably harmed severly when it's seen to publicly cooperate with governments and law enforcement against individual users. It makes sense for Google to say what is necessary to placate governments without actually providing them much assistance. Remember, Google and those who invest in it are trying to make money. Anything that interferes with that, including meddlesome governments, is undesirable.
It took 58 years for before Brown v. Board of Education (1954) overturned the state sponsored segregation of public schools supported by Plessy v. Ferguson (1896). Roe v. Wade was decided in 1973 -- only 44 years ago. There's time.
>Basically it comes down to you either defend against an unjust law
What is the "unjust law" at stake here? Do you even know?
The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all.
H. L. Mencken
It's not the same. A marked bill is still just a bill. You can legitimately spend one and in no way does it interfere with the operation of your wallet. Malware is more like the bank giving you a counterfeit bill that catches fire when you try to spend it.
So 300 million people multiplied by 44 years living under unjust rule is just the price we have to pay so we can lock up a handful of deviants. That's some pretty whack moral calculus, my friend.
Sure, but what if you just don't care? I certainly don't give a fuck about some online account. Hell, I don't even care about physical property. Say I leave my shitty car out front of my house, keys in. Rather than stealing it outright, local punks take it and return it. I just don't care, so I don't report it. Some time later I'm brought in for questioning and I tell the cops that no, I didn't report the car stolen because I don't care about it. Cops act on suspicion of guilt and collect evidence as part of the investigative process. What you've written above is textbook "what cops do". However, it is NOT sufficient to convict someone in a court of law. The difference is HUGE yet I worry how most forget the difference these days...
"Attributing these searches to specific identities"
That's exactly how you do the aggregating, by knowing as much as possible about the individuals.
"Google, show me the number of searches for "razor" and/or "Gillette" from Oct to Nov 2016 in men 18-25 living in households over $80k total income."
That's exactly the kind of question a marketing/advertising drone would want to know, most particularly so they can gauge the effectiveness of the TV advertising campaign they just ran.
The days when proper investigations were conducted are long gone.
With 'proper' needing to be interpreted very loosely anyway.
Nowadays the objective seems to be to 'gather any intel possible',
whether an investigation is actually going on or not. And by 'all means'
possible, even if that means lowering the practices of the agency to
the near-bottom-of-the-pit level of the entities it is supposed to engage.
Federal Bureau of Insinuation would be a more proper description...
In my country, leaving your car unlocked in itself is a crime...
Indeed. What is child porn?
Everything under the age of consent, can be considered child porn.
Even computer generated images can be considered as child porn.
Some old paintings or family picture can be classified as child porn.
And people have been sent to jail for creating or possessing such material. It didn't even have to have any sexual activity attached to it.
No, it's "Google, show adds to men between 18 and 25 making over $80K". That data is way too valuable for Google to sell.
According to Amnesty, a 23 year old with a Hal-empty magazine in a warm rifle is a non-combatant child.
That's a stupid analogy. If the malware is coded well, you won't know it's there and it won't interfere with the operation of your computer. You're using the example of poorly crafted malware. How about I use the example of a poorly marked bill, where they use black ink and completely coat the bill to such a point that nobody will accept it as legal tender?
If you're not deliberately choosing to remain ignorant so that you can make accusations, you can easily find out DuckDuckGo's business model. I searched for "DuckDuckGo business model". You could have done the same in the time it took to write your post, if you weren't more interested in smearing them and exonerating Google.
That's some nanny state shit right there.
The bank however does not hand those marked bills out to their normal patrons, let alone stuff one in the pocket of everyone though the door without their knowledge.
Fundamentally the issue here IMO is that if a normal person did this they'd be in violation of federal law. So the federal government shouldn't be allowed to do it either.
zOMG!! Won't somebody please think of the trees?
You fool, thinking of trees is what got us unit this mess.
That the federal government is allowed to install tracking software on your computer without your concept or a warrant specifying their intent to search your property that was issued under probable cause, and specifically what they intend to find.
read this, it shows how insane things have gotten.
http://beforeitsnews.com/eu/20...
The prosecutors?
But we won't America is all about being at "war" with symptoms of problems and not about actually solving them.
When the factions that control the state are in perpetual war with each other, solving difficult sociological problems invokes an unnecessary risk.
You're missing the part about this not being about them, but about unconstitutional search of *any* suspect. Just because these suspects are alleged to have committed particularly unpopular crimes does not mean a different set of rules applies. If the FBI uses child porn as the wedge issue to get precedent allowing unreasonable searches, we all suffer, not just the child porn consumers.
You're missing the part about this not being about them, but about unconstitutional search of *any* suspect. Just because these suspects are alleged to have committed particularly unpopular crimes does not mean a different set of rules applies. If the FBI uses child porn as the wedge issue to get precedent allowing unreasonable searches, we all suffer, not just the child porn consumers.
Its like photo-radar. The infraction goes against the car owner, not the driver. Can they prove that the owner or another specific person did the download at that precise time?
Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada
I know you're trolling me, but the simple answer would be to get permission from the car's owner before driving it. That has certain other advantages, like not needing to hotwire the damn thing just to drive it.
There's nothing analogous for the FBI putting malware disguised as child rape onto a CP hosting site on the dark web and investigating everyone who downloads and executes it.
Thanks for the cite. It's amazing how many people on Slashdot are suddenly eager to defend the rape of children...
Yeah, I'm real sure that they're going to a Tor hidden service to show off a few innocent baby pics or people that are 1 day less than 18. Makes perfect sense /s
https://www.engadget.com/2016/... Happy?
This is absolutely true. Glenn Beck \, FOX News host writes about the "Overton Window" "which is a power technique that can shape our lives, our laws and our future. It works by manipulating public perception so that ideas previously thought of as radical begin to seem acceptable". Knowing of the public and court emotional opinion surrounding child porn it is precisely that reason they chose the pick off easy pray. It has always been the FBI objective to infiltrate your individual privacy. Now they have found an avenue in which to achieve that goal. DON'T LET IT HAPPEN.