U.S. Supreme Court Allows FBI To Hack Anyone In Any Jurisdiction, Congress Could Reject New Rule

[Lucian Armasu]

The Supreme Court approved an amendment to the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule 41, which would give the FBI expanded powers to hack anyone from any jurisdiction, even abroad, with a single warrant.


U.S. Supreme Court Allows FBI To Hack Anyone In Any Jurisdiction, Congress Could Reject New Rule : Read more

 

[Math Geek]

pretty easy read if you take the time to view the pdf file of the rules changes.

rule 41(b)(6)(B)
"in an investigation of a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(5), the media are protected computers that have been damaged without authorization and are located in five or more districts. "

not sure what the definition of "protected computer" and "damaged" means in this context and this appears to be where folks have a problem with the change. does seem like the victim is hackable as well. so basically if someone "damages" a computer by infecting it with a virus, then anyone hit with the virus can be hacked and searched? not sure i like this idea much without more info on the definitions.

seems like a stretch but if you read the code the rule refers to, getting a virus or malware seems to open you up to being searched under this rule.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1030

"(5)
(A) knowingly causes the transmission of a program, information, code, or command, and as a result of such conduct, intentionally causes damage without authorization, to a protected computer;
(B) intentionally accesses a protected computer without authorization, and as a result of such conduct, recklessly causes damage; or
(C) intentionally accesses a protected computer without authorization, and as a result of such conduct, causes damage and loss."

the definition of "damaged" really seems to be important here and i don't see it defined at all so far.

 

[Darkk]

It's known that the feds would use middle in the man attacks to inject viruses / trojans on the target they are trying to break into. This is getting harder as time goes on when more and more websites are using SSL encryption. So they're looking for more broader ways to to reach that target.

 

[Math Geek]

not sure it's "ways" they need so much as more "reasons" to do it.

it is getting very touchy and i'm willing to let a couple bad guys go to protect the mass majority if that's what it takes. i'm not sure how to take this one since it let's them hack victims as well as the bad guys. not sure what they hope to get from that one. could they infect folks with a virus/malware themselves and then use this rule to get warrants to search? kind of silly but it's not ruled out here.

i can see why this is needed to hack folks who are hiding where they are at (ala tor network and vpn's) but not sure this has to include victims of attacks well.

 

[Shubus]

When this new rule goes into effect I just wonder how the rest of world will react knowing that the FBI will be monitoring them via NSA, too.

 

[Math Geek]

lol, they already know the nsa is monitoring them. even our allies know we spy on them and they spy on us as well. that's pretty much common knowledge.

most of the point of the rule is to issue a search warrant to a non specific person. if someone is using tor or otherwise masking their ip address, then the fbi won't have a specific ip or person in mind to search. so they do need a way to search something without knowing exactly what will be at the other end. think of the child porn sting the did that is in the news. they did not know who was involved only that they traded on the tor site. so they had to see who was on the other end. getting a specific warrant was not able to be done in this case. without this rule some judges are already dropping cases against those caught in the sting and others are still pending review.

this rule would have allowed them to get the needed warrant and legally figure out who the people were even if it led out of the US. this is not a bad thing since they are clearly bad guys. they could follow the breadcrumbs and see where they went.

the objections are the other part that let's them follow to the victims and beyond as well. being a victim should not open you up the same as it does being the bad guy. i'm sure they could get some victims to hand over evidence on their own once identified without the need to search them all.

 

[Shubus]

My objection is to the global sweeping up of all information which is then used by bad actors in these 3 letter agencies for nefarious purposes.

 

[jasonelmore]

so the Department of justice can just arbitrarily go to the supreme court to change rules? Without going through other courts or congress first?

That's messed up

 

[Shubus]

Hay, Obama does this all the time and the Supreme back him up. The process hasn't been the way we thought it was for quite some time now.

 

[oenomel]

Seems like this is an avenue for expansion for the big dogs (G, FB, AP) The first guy that can offer constant end to end encryption seems to be in line to make some cash!

 

[RedJaron]

There have been plenty of people able to offer true end-to-end encryption, they've hit a lot of gov't hurdles in doing so because the feds demand a back door into everything ( [strike]insert joke here[/strike], just kidding, please don't ).

 

[buborg]

Use latest version of Debian instead of Windows.

 

[scubadog40]

If you have something to hide that is bad don't do it on your phone or computer. I see know problem with this as we need ways to protect us in the USA. If your not doing any thing wrong you have nothing to worry about. They already know where your are at all the times, what your doing, what your spending your money on, it is a way of life in the digital age. You want a smart phone then they will know everything.

 

[LORD_ORION]

Subadog, that is the wrost possible argument to ever be made. Go look up the Milgram experiment and than read Bob Altemeyer's "The Authoritarians". A few leaders at the top with antisocial personality disorders have stacked the departments with yes men who will do anything they are told.

 

[Math Geek]

it is a rather lazy and downright silly argument. you may only be sitting on the couch with your family watching a movie doing nothing wrong. but that does not mean you want me watching through the window. you're not doing anything wrong, but you still deserve your privacy to enjoy the movie with your family.

people like to make these kinds of arguments until it is they who are directly affected. ban cigarettes, no problem it's a bad habit anyway. ban soda in a large cup, or super fatty foods, or fight obesity with healthy school lunches and OMG WHO THE FRACK DOES THE GOV THINK IT IS TO TELL ME WHAT I CAN AND CAN'T PUT INTO MY BODY!!!!????

in the end, that complacent attitude only leads down a path that hurts everyone.

 

[Zaphod42]

Isn't it an interesting coincidence that the MPAA and RIAA have been trying to bypass VPNs for years?

 

[shrapnel_indie]

If you have something to hide that is bad don't do it on your phone or computer. I see no problem with this as we need ways to protect us in the USA. If your not doing any thing wrong you have nothing to worry about. They already know where your are at all the times, what your doing, what your spending your money on, it is a way of life in the digital age. You want a smart phone then they will know everything.

There have been many people in the past who in reality were doing "nothing wrong"... right up to the point their government decided they were... and then their problems started despite them being 100% law abiding. You forget, that many illegal search and seizures were nothing more than a way to remove someone, or silence them in the past. If you wish to believe all governments are 100% benign and helpful to their citizens/subjects/<insert whatever term you wish> then you have woefully ignored history, current and past. For example, the U.S. Government can't even tell other parts of the government and the rest of us the truth. (If you believe Bush lied about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. You make my point. You believe that Clinton has told lies about her email servers and Benghazi, you make my point.) Look at Obamacare... The SCOTUS really dug around and looked for ways just to make it legal, even if it went against something it being sold to the rest of us on.