Slashdot Mirror


Google Has Notified At Least Dozens of People Targeted by Secret FBI Investigation (vice.com)

At least dozens of people have received an email from Google informing them that the internet giant responded to a request from the FBI demanding the release of user data, news outlet Motherboard reported Tuesday, citing several people who claimed to have received the email. The email did not specify whether Google released the requested data to the FBI. From the report: The unusual notice appears to be related to the case of Colton Grubbs, one of the creators of LuminosityLink, a $40 remote access tool (or RAT), that was marketed to hack and control computers remotely. Grubs pleaded guilty last year to creating and distributing the hacking tool to hundreds of people. Several people on Reddit, Twitter, and on HackForums, a popular forum where criminals and cybersecurity enthusiast discuss and sometimes share hacking tools, reported receiving the email. [...] The email included a legal process number. When Motherboard searched for it within PACER, the US government's database for court cases documents, it showed that it was part of a case that's still under seal.

40 of 103 comments (clear)

  1. "Smart move?" by tsa · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    Is this aing in avoiding arrest, or obstructing an investigation?

    --

    -- Cheers!

    1. Re:"Smart move?" by Bobrick · · Score: 2

      If only there was an article that could answer that question, maybe accessible through an hyperlink of some sorts...

    2. Re:"Smart move?" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I applaud Google for this.

      Subpoenas are supposed to be served. Getting around this by serving the holder rather than the owner is an abuse.

    3. Re:"Smart move?" by tsa · · Score: 1

      Hey, I'm just keeping up the tradition here! :)

      --

      -- Cheers!

    4. Re: "Smart move?" by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      Remember when Nixon spied on a campaign?

      Nixon didn't get busted for "spying on a campaign". He got busted for hiring a bunch of actual criminals to burglarize the DNC headquarters.

      Sound familiar? Stealing stuff from the DNC in order to help a Republican candidate?

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    5. Re: "Smart move?" by guruevi · · Score: 2

      Remember when Obama did. Rules have changed since Nixon.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    6. Re:"Smart move?" by Nutria · · Score: 1, Funny

      As if Vice would know the truth if it smacked the in the face with a tuna.

      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    7. Re: "Smart move?" by whoever57 · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      I don't think Nixon was actually "busted". There was no impeachment, no criminal case.

      So arguing over what he was "busted for" would seem to be moot.

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    8. Re: "Smart move?" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Remember when Nixon spied on a campaign?

      Nixon didn't get busted for "spying on a campaign". He got busted for hiring a bunch of actual criminals to burglarize the DNC headquarters.

      Sound familiar? Stealing stuff from the DNC in order to help a Republican candidate?

      This is just flat wrong. He got in trouble for trying to cover it up after he had been made aware that it took place. You make it sound like he was in on it from the get go.

    9. Re: "Smart move?" by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      This is just flat wrong. He got in trouble for trying to cover it up after he had been made aware that it took place.

      As with the infamous "Trump Tower Meeting", it's simply naive to believe the principle beneficiary, on whose behalf the entire enterprise was undertaken, was not "in on it". Especially with a famous micromanager like Nixon (or Trump).

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    10. Re: "Smart move?" by HeckRuler · · Score: 1

      Those "bunch of actual criminals" were actual CIA operatives. I thought all of them had moved on from the CIA at the time of the burglary, but Eugenio Martinez was still getting paid.

      James W. McCord Jr., GS-15 (top pay) in the CIA. Served 2 months in prison.[97]
      Virgilio Gonzalez, the locksmith that got them busted. Cuban-born activist. Original sentence of up to 40 years in prison.[92][96] Served 13 months in prison.[97]
      Bernard Barker, undercover agent of the FBI and CIA. Original sentence of up to 40 years in prison.[92][96] Served 18 months in prison.[99]
      Eugenio Martínez, a "paid asset" of the CIA at the time of the break in. Original sentence of up to 40 years in prison.[92][96] Served 15 months in prison.[100]
      Frank Sturgis, A spy for the marines, Navy, and Army. Original sentence of up to 40 years in prison.[92][96] Served 10 months in prison.[100]

      Their boss, E. Howard Hunt, was an officer in the CIA. Original sentence of up to 35 years in prison.[92][96] Served 33 months in prison.[98]
      He and G. Gordon Liddy, FBI agent, ran nixon's "plumbers" who fixed leaks in the party. Original sentence of up to 20 years in prison.[92][96] Served 4.5 years in federal prison.[97] I consider him the only one to have served any real time behind bars. He's still alive btw. Retired from the talk-show circuit in 2012.

      There were also 42 other government officials found guilty. Mostly for the coverup and lying to the investigation. Get your ass ready for another such draining of the swamp.

    11. Re: "Smart move?" by HeckRuler · · Score: 1

      Nixon was BUSTED as all bloody get-out. They had him dead to rights and were about to nail him as the blatent crook that he most certainly was. But he stepped down before it happened because he knew he was busted. If you ever even remotely THINK that "he wasn't technically busted" then you have absolutely ZERO sense for politics.

      So arguing over what he was "busted for" would seem to be moot.

      No, the details are actually quite pertinent as it comes to precedence for current affairs.

    12. Re: "Smart move?" by HeckRuler · · Score: 2

      You and everyone else need to read up on The White House Plumbers.

    13. Re: "Smart move?" by sphealey · · Score: 1

      "Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?"

    14. Re: "Smart move?" by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      Not technically true. Only if you are an applicant plowing through the Justice Department the hard way.

      The president is under no such constraint if he does not wish to be, nor can Congress add conditions to the exercise of a direct presidential power.

      Nixon (and draft dodgers under Carter) are such examples.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    15. Re: "Smart move?" by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      There is a difference between covering up said crime under investigation, and some tangential crime, such as Clinton lying under oath about sex "with that woman".

      It was just as well he wasn't removed from office for such a thing, as opposed to the reason for the investigation, Whitewater.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    16. Re: "Smart move?" by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      It may not be illegal, but happily taking Russian hacking intel is a horrid black eye for any politician, and deservedly so.

      Ironically, paying for it might indeed implicate him in the crime as hacking is illegal. Taking it free can arguably be freedom of speech, as per a journalist organization. But woe be to he who pays for the hacking...or the leak.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    17. Re: "Smart move?" by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Also, Trump was a private citizen at the time of this event and therefore nothing that happened there has anything to do with his time in office or the laws that apply to the conduct of an administration.

      No, it was plenty illegal.

      Federal law prohibits a foreign national from giving anything of value to a campaign engaged in a U.S. election. Further, it’s also a crime to solicit a foreign national to give anything of value to a campaign, or even to "knowingly provide substantial assistance" in receiving something of value. Third, lying about the whole thing to the FBI is also a felony. Fourth, if the "oppo research" was stolen property, that's also a possible felony. Finally, the meeting is evidence of an ongoing criminal conspiracy to defraud the US government and the American people.

      If Trump wasn't president, hie'd have already been indicted. So would Don Jr. So would the other people who were present at that meeting --- oh wait, they've already been indicted. And the convictions are mounting.

      People who buy the whole line, "I didn't do it, and anyway everyone else does it and even if I did do it, it's not illegal and even if it's illegal I'm the president," will wake up one day and be embarrassed that they tried to excuse away this degenerate president.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    18. Re: "Smart move?" by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Trump Jr. gets contacted by some lawyer (who turns out to be Russian)...
      Lawyer: "I has dirt Hillary, you vaunt meet up?"
      Trump Jr: "Uh, okay. Sure."
      Meet up happens. There is no dirt, meeting turns out to be a worthless waste of time...

      Just a casual meetup that includes Trump's son, his son-in-law, and his campaign chairman (now in prison). And the president knows nothing about it. Sure, that's the ticket.

      https://www.washingtonpost.com...

      Meanwhile, Hillary pays British firm to generate dirt against Trump using questionable sources from Russia.

      First, it was the conservative Washington Free Beacon that got the ball rolling on the Trump dossier. Steele produced the dossier for Fusion GPS who was later hired by the Clinton campaign. They never had to deal with any Russians. It was all arms-length transactions, which makes all the difference in the world. Finally, everything in the Trump dossier has been verified except for the Russian hookers golden showers party, and given Trump's known degenerate behavior, is almost certainly true.

      If anyone is going down on that one, Hillary is in deeper trouble me thinks.

      I realize that's the Q fantasy. Every day that passes it gets farther out of your reach, and you have to work harder to maintain the fantasy.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
  2. Was the tool itself malicious? by mysidia · · Score: 1

    Or software that could technically be used for good / neutral purposes? There's plenty of "Remote Access Tool" products such as TeamViewer and GoToAssist; TV and others are occasionally used in security breaches and social-engineering scams by hackers. Don't see any managers of those companies going to jail for "distributing a remote access tool/tool that can be used for hacking"

    1. Re:Was the tool itself malicious? by ramriot · · Score: 2

      And even if the tool is evil incarnate, that does not mean possession of it is a crime. Many security researches possess much worse items for the purpose of reverse engineering the hacks so that systems can be patched against the exploits contained. If the FBI perseus litigation against such people I can see no way it would not blow up in their face.

    2. Re: Was the tool itself malicious? by guruevi · · Score: 1

      In many cases these people plead guilty to gain immunity while avoiding a trial in exchange for cooperating with the feds. It's easier to get guilty verdicts on criminals if their cohorts (even if they did technically nothing wrong) pleaded guilty in exchange for immunity. This is exactly what happened in the Manafort case. Mueller got a bunch of people to plead guilty on technicalities in exchange for immunity and then a jury trial on unrelated issues is primed to vote guilty.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    3. Re:Was the tool itself malicious? by Narcocide · · Score: 2

      I think that depending on how it was marketed, buying one can constitute probable cause.

    4. Re:Was the tool itself malicious? by dissy · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Or software that could technically be used for good / neutral purposes?

      That's what seems especially strange here.

      From the original case, the author was originally targeted for "producing hacking tools", but that later got dropped because he only advertised it to be used for lawful purposes on your own hardware.

      The FBI then came back showing he used it himself for unlawful purposes and with charges to match.

      At the time that seemed fair enough, but now going after other buyers and users of the tool, one has to wonder how trumped up that claim might have been...

    5. Re:Was the tool itself malicious? by Jahoda · · Score: 1

      Or software that could technically be used for good / neutral purposes? There's plenty of "Remote Access Tool" products such as TeamViewer and GoToAssist;

      JFC dude. It's right in the fricking summary.

      > The unusual notice appears to be related to the case of Colton Grubbs, one of the creators of LuminosityLink, a $40 remote access tool (or RAT), that was marketed to hack and control computers remotely. Grubs pleaded guilty last year to creating and distributing the hacking tool to hundreds of people.

    6. Re:Was the tool itself malicious? by Jahoda · · Score: 2

      And even if the tool is evil incarnate, that does not mean possession of it is a crime.

      Tell you what. Carry around a set of lock picks with you and see what happens if you get noticed by the police. Be sure to have this quote printed out for them.

    7. Re:Was the tool itself malicious? by ramriot · · Score: 1

      I do, never had a problem, but if there was a question I can show them my locksmith certification.

    8. Re:Was the tool itself malicious? by mysidia · · Score: 1

      Tell you what. Carry around a set of lock picks with you and see what happens if you get noticed by the police.

      I think the police aren't going to care unless you engage in suspicious activity such as going to a neighborhood where they are on patrol, or where the police are called to report a suspicious person, and you are seen wandering around with apparently no obvious reason for being there.

      Even then you are likely to be free to go if you show ID and provide a remotely plausible reason for being there: they would be more concerned about drugs -- without probable cause to search, lockpicks or other things you might have on you are immaterial, unless you are seen physically holding tools.

      Furthermore, you can legally carry around lockpicks all day long if you want, unless you've already been convicted in the past --- general possession of lockpicks and even use of them (On your own locks or locks you have permission to open) is legal in most states.
      With exception of a few places; having them is only illegal if you possess lockpicks with an actual intent to commit a crime such as burglary.

  3. Probably part of the SCO-IBM case by jfdavis668 · · Score: 3, Funny

    It will never end.

    1. Re:Probably part of the SCO-IBM case by hotelpraga · · Score: 1

      Wow.

      --
      Hotel Praga w https://www.petithotelprague.com/pl. Moja pasja to hotele i noclegi w Czechach!
  4. I'll Play Devil's Court Appointed Attourney by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Well, if the FBI wasn't researching users of hacking tools, then they'd be wasting your tax dollars, eh?

    I write crypto and have to email nsa.gov & BIS every time I update my tool. It's a violation of export regulations not to. That puts you on the radar... if you do this kind of thing, just know you're being surveiled. If you publish tools for hacking and they include capabilities not disclosed to the proper authorities, it deserves investigation. The goal is so that if the feds come across encrypted traffic or some exploit they have a library to compare against so they can begin cracking it -- perhaps even contact the authors of said software to enlist their help.

    Imagine if it had been some Nazi Cyber-Terrorist that hacked the US power grid instead of the more negotiable Chinese government? Imagine such a hack had used an unknown remote access toolkit, and that a subsequent great recession COULD have been prevented if the toolkit had been known about in advance. Would you rather NSA / FBI / etc. do their job? Or instead sit back with hands tied so you could blame them for "incompetence" after some great cyber-terror core infrastructure attack?

    To be perfectly clear, we live in a realm ruled by Hydraulic Despotism. This means cities and states are unsustainable without external power, food, etc. resource. Only ignorant plebs dispute the fact that this control of resource supply and artificial scarcity is why we don't live in barbarism and constant war. However this means the system we live in is incredibly vulnerable. A city can't rebel because you can cut off their fuel, power, food, etc. and they'll fall into zombie-apocalypse mode. However, this means that our system is fragile, and you folks don't know the Herculean efforts carried out in secret to ensure some home-grown lone-wolf rogue Nazi Cyber Terrorist doesn't destroy your world.

    TL;DR: The Eye of Sauron is upon you when you don a ring of power, even if it's just a clever way to get CPU ring zero...

    1. Re:I'll Play Devil's Court Appointed Attourney by Nutria · · Score: 1

      Would you rather NSA / FBI / etc. do their job? Or instead sit back with hands tied so you could blame them for "incompetence"

      You already know the sad, sad answer to that question...

      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    2. Re:I'll Play Devil's Court Appointed Attourney by HeckRuler · · Score: 3, Interesting

      That's actually a well reasoned stance. Up to the 2nd to last paragraph. Then it veers off into pointless philosophy. Rebelling city-states? Really? Get off it dude. Anyway, yes, our society is fragile and the ease of wounding it is WAY easier than protecting it. Stick to that part and you're golden.

      But yes, I want the FBI to do their job. I really DO want them to catch the bad guys. All my bitching and moaning about warrantless wiretapping, mass surveillance, parallel construction, bullshit about "metadata", kangaroo FISA courts, and practically anything the CIA does is rooted in preserving the system of checks and balances that give us rights as citizens. If the cops go get a real warrant, I'm perfectly fine with them pulling out the stops and violating the fuck out of Capone's and Osama's privacy. The CIA shouldn't be operating within US borders and I'm not so sure anything they do within other nation's legal systems are all that "legal" and they've got a bad track-record of doing "good". So I'm up in the air on whether I want the CIA doing their job. It's fundamentally hard to know. And that all by itself is grounds to be skeptic.

      This story, if anything, is a sign that the system works. They had a gag on Google. Then it was removed. Then Google informed people. Because while the cops enjoy operating in secret while investigating people, there's a perfectly legit use-case for purchasing this stuff. Least we want any network engineering to be thought-crime. And so off came the gag. That probably cost Google some coin just getting the lawyers to walk through all that paperwork. Good on them. And good on the courts for actually letting the gag come off. And good on the FBI for (presumably) getting an warrant and gag in the first place as they ought to do. So while it might all sound scary... the system works. And we should celebrate that.

  5. Re:I bet the FBI skipped warrants in this case, to by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Ironically, it's the dems (not you boris) who are most likely to have russian collaborator traitors in their ranks. Or have you forgotten which head of state used to be a communist

  6. Trump is a retard, in his own words : by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/04/politics/trump-woodward-phone-call/index.html

    I picked out the most fascinating parts of the call. They're below.

    1. "It's really too bad, because nobody told me about it, and I would've loved to have spoken to you. You know I'm very open to you. I think you've always been fair."

    Trump is right -- Woodward is fair -- but the President saying this on tape(!) makes what undoubtedly will be the White House's attempt to discredit Woodward that much tougher. Also, it becomes clear time and time again in this phone call that people -- including White House counselor Kellyanne Conway and South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham -- did talk to Trump (or his scheduling team) about sitting down with Woodward, even if the President says he didn't know it.

    2. "Madeleine is the key. She's the secret. Because she's the person...."
    Trump is talking about Madeleine Westerhout, his personal assistant. And her being "the key" is no longer much of a secret.

    3. "Well, a lot of them are afraid to come and talk, or -- you know, they are busy. I'm busy. But I don't mind talking to you. I would've spoken to you."
    The President of the United States is acknowledging that many of his aides are afraid of him! That. Is. Nuts. Also, Trump reiterates here that he would have been more than happy to talk to Woodward.

    4. "And I certainly don't mind talking to you, and I wish I could've spoken to you. But nobody called my office. I mean, you went through, I guess, different people...."
    Put a pin in this. We'll come back to it.

    5. "Who were the senators? No, they never called me about it. ... Senator Graham actually mentioned it quickly in one meeting."
    In between Trump saying no senator mentioned it and him admitting Graham mentioned it comes this line from Woodward: "Senator Graham said he had talked to you about talking to me. Now, is that not true?" What happened is this: Trump made a sweeping statement. Woodward called him on it with a fact. Trump acknowledged his previous statement (seconds before) was inaccurate. Good times. (Also, see No. 4.)

    6. "So I have another bad book coming out. Big deal."
    This can be read either as false bravado (Trump is trying to convince Woodward that nothing can really hurt him with his supporters) or actual bravado (Trump is convinced that nothing can really hurt him with his supporters). I'm honestly not sure which it is.

    7. "I mean, you do know I'm doing a great job for the country. You do know that NATO now is going to pay billions and billions of dollars more, as an example, than anybody thought possible, that other presidents were unable to get more?"

    This line from Trump comes DIRECTLY after Woodward describes the way in which he used sources and described meeting in the White House. It's almost as if Trump turned on some sort of autopilot function. Because in the context of the conversation, the decision to tout your work on NATO makes a total of 0% sense.

    8. "Well, other than Lindsey [Graham], who did quickly mention it, nobody mentioned it."
    Um, no. Scroll down. (Also, see No. 4.)

    9. "Nobody told me about it. Well, let me ask her. Why don't you speak to Kellyanne. Ask her. She never told me about it."
    Trump hands the phone to Conway at this point. (I told you this was an amazing phone call!) Conway, with Trump listening, says this: "I put in the request. But you know, they -- it was rejected. I can only take it so far. I guess I can bring it right to the president next time." Then she adds: "I try to follow all the protocols, or else I'm accused of being somebody who doesn't follow protocol." Conway's shade here at the team who handles Trump interview requests is truly epic. Look, I asked. They said no. Talk to them.

    10. "If you would've called directly -- a lot of people are afraid ... Raj, I hardly have ... I don't speak to Raj."
    Raj Shah is the principal deputy communications director at the White House. He's running point for

  7. Re:I bet the FBI skipped warrants in this case, to by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    When will you Trump haters realize that's a lot bigger than bringing Trump down?

    Maybe you'll hate the out-of-control secret police when they turn on you?

    First they came for the pussy grabbers and I did not speak out—

              Because I was not a misogynist.

    So you're not a Democrat Bill Clinton, Al Franken, Keith Ellison, or Harvey Weinstein?

  8. Remote Access Tool by PPH · · Score: 2

    For sale? How could this be a problem when this is actually built into Windows?*

    *As anyone who has ever received a bogus tech support call and then dutifully executed the commands dictated to them by 'Microsoft support'. And then had their system pwned.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  9. Shucks! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I didn't get a notice. What's a guy got to do to get targeted around here!?!

  10. Some entity needs to keep an eye... by martinfb · · Score: 1

    Some entity needs to keep an eye on the corrupt, oligarchic government.
    And also, at the same time, on the idiots that put them in office!

    --


    Self-importance and self-indulgence is the root of ALL evil.
  11. https://youtu.be/XUeHi47Lovo by ASSIYA · · Score: 1

    islamic history bangla dubbing.islamic history bangla video.islamic history bangla language.islamic history books in bangla free download pdf.islamic history books in bangla.islamic history video .bangla.prophet stories.allah, islamic history bangla video download. #banglatechaaak #deathsea Thanks for Watching this video For More Video, Don't forget to subscribe.....