5 ms·

I don't really understand the outrage. This is like bank thieves protesting the use of a dye pack. Or addicts complaing that cops sit outside their dealers hous

by dexwiz 11y ago

I don't really understand the outrage. This is like bank thieves protesting the use of a dye pack. Or addicts complaing that cops sit outside their dealers house. People's didn't stumble on to this site, they searched it out. It sounds like the FBI infected computers that visited the site. They didnt release malware to the world to randomly scan for illegal content. Child pornagraphy is a particularly heinous crime is today's society. So don't ever expect the courts to be lienent.

davorb 11y ago
Correct me if I'm wrong (I'm not from the US), but I cannot for the life of me see how it could be legal for the FBI to break into people's computers. When you have a police force that sees itself as above the law, then you have a very big problem.
- jonnybgood 11y ago
  > I cannot for the life of me see how it could be legal for the FBI to break into people's computers. They got a warrant. It's exactly what they're suppose to do.
  - davorb 11y ago
    > They got a warrant. I understand that they got a warrant for the server, but can it really be so broad so that it gives them the legal right to hack into any computer that visits the site?
  - adventured 11y ago
    A warrant approach without a very narrow, extremely well defined scope, completely destroys the original point of warrants. From the article: > But Fieman said that the warrant “effectively authorizes an unlimited number of searches, against unidentified targets, anywhere in the world.” That blatantly isn't a warrant. It's a new form of unlimited government surveillance and hacking. Half the comments on here are falling for the all-too-obvious: but it's for a good cause, spin. Hey, just leave your doors unlocked, and invite in the police to search every inch of your home and electronics any time they like, we'll catch far more criminals that way.
    - jonnybgood 11y ago
      > That blatantly isn't a warrant. You're telling me your opinion. I would like to know how you don't think it's a warrant by the definition of the law.
      - adventured 11y ago
        It's not an opinion, it's backed by two centuries of vast US rulings on what a warrant is: intentionally narrow in scope, no broader than absolutely necessary, well defined in its purpose and target, leaving as little room for abuse as possible. The 'warrant' granted in this example is extremely broad, almost entirely undefined in how it's to be implemented, and allowing for the targeting of essentially any person on earth. It's close to being the exact opposite of what the law has defined a warrant as throughout US history. One of the primary complaints of the founding fathers was the abuse by the British when it came to general warrants. They specifically attempted to limit warrants just for this very reason, so abusive agents of the government couldn't turn them into general warrants. The fact that this example warrant allowed for infinite targeting (ie had no actual specific targets in mind), means that it is not a warrant by the definition set over the prior 200 years in the US. It is an obvious general warrant, and non-constitutional.
        SCHiM 11y ago
        I think you are correct in your interpretation of what the US judges and founding fathers had in mind for warrants over the course of the past 200 years. However computer networks haven't been around for 200 years, and they do change the circumstances somewhat. The warrant in question might have a vague list of targets, but in practise it applies to any and all people that connect to these services. And it's not like you can stumble upon them by googling...
        dawnbreez 11y ago
        The issue isn't that the warrant did what it was supposed to do. It's that you can issue such a warrant and target massive numbers of people regardless of whether or not you specifically suspect them. The point of the warrant system is to prevent LEOs from searching (you|your property) without knowing what you supposedly did. The warrant issued here allows arbitrary attacks against arbitrary targets, and that's not good, regardless of technology.
throwawayhdhe 11y ago
How does child porn stack up against torture? How about indefinite incarnation without trial for innocents, ie kidnappings? Mass murder, the indiscriminate bombing of hospitals, weddings, the a la ' double tap ' , GENOCIDE? Heinous crimes, except I'm not forced to fund child porn, only the mass murder of Millions.
- Nutmog 11y ago
  It might be cognitive dissonance. You're not forced to fund it though. Move to another country if you don't want to. Or at least avoid buying American made products or take other small protest actions that people often do when they don't like a country.
  - zo1 11y ago
    Your suggestion is like the mafia telling a store owner: "Don't like the protection tax? Move your business elsewhere". Never mind the blatant lack of "elsewhere" to go to in a real-world scenario.
    - Nutmog 11y ago
      That would actually the safe and ethical response to a mafia. The real world has plenty of elsewhere, they're just not all so effective for doing business in. But does that make it OK to pay for an unjust war just so you can make more money? Sounds like an argument an arms dealer could make.
belorn 11y ago
I have several problems with FBI's activities, but the hoarding of software vulnerabilities is the most serious. If the FBI get knowledge of a considerable risk to people lives, they should be required to protect people rather than use that knowledge as a weapon. I would have the same objection if the FBI had been given information about a string of armed robberies and decided to just catch the criminals after the fact. Protecting innocents and preventing that lives are ruined should take precedence of catching criminals. I can't understand how the people working on this case can live with the knowledge that criminals might have used the Firefox vulnerability to defraud elderly with ransom-ware, or steal information which are later used for identity theft.
- joopxiv 11y ago
  There is absolutely no proof that they used a zero-day exploit in this case.
wfo 11y ago
It's more like getting a "warrant" (it's not really a warrant if it's absurdly general as this one was) that since bank robberies were happening, gives the police the right to send a SWAT team to break into the house of anyone who walks into the bank. Why not just have a judge sign a warrant that gives the police the right to search the homes of "all bad guys?"

by dexwiz 11y ago

davorb 11y ago

Correct me if I'm wrong (I'm not from the US), but I cannot for the life of me see how it could be legal for the FBI to break into people's computers. When you have a police force that sees itself as above the law, then you have a very big problem.

jonnybgood 11y ago
> I cannot for the life of me see how it could be legal for the FBI to break into people's computers. They got a warrant. It's exactly what they're suppose to do.
- davorb 11y ago
  > They got a warrant. I understand that they got a warrant for the server, but can it really be so broad so that it gives them the legal right to hack into any computer that visits the site?
- adventured 11y ago
  A warrant approach without a very narrow, extremely well defined scope, completely destroys the original point of warrants. From the article: > But Fieman said that the warrant “effectively authorizes an unlimited number of searches, against unidentified targets, anywhere in the world.” That blatantly isn't a warrant. It's a new form of unlimited government surveillance and hacking. Half the comments on here are falling for the all-too-obvious: but it's for a good cause, spin. Hey, just leave your doors unlocked, and invite in the police to search every inch of your home and electronics any time they like, we'll catch far more criminals that way.
  - jonnybgood 11y ago
    > That blatantly isn't a warrant. You're telling me your opinion. I would like to know how you don't think it's a warrant by the definition of the law.
    - adventured 11y ago
      It's not an opinion, it's backed by two centuries of vast US rulings on what a warrant is: intentionally narrow in scope, no broader than absolutely necessary, well defined in its purpose and target, leaving as little room for abuse as possible. The 'warrant' granted in this example is extremely broad, almost entirely undefined in how it's to be implemented, and allowing for the targeting of essentially any person on earth. It's close to being the exact opposite of what the law has defined a warrant as throughout US history. One of the primary complaints of the founding fathers was the abuse by the British when it came to general warrants. They specifically attempted to limit warrants just for this very reason, so abusive agents of the government couldn't turn them into general warrants. The fact that this example warrant allowed for infinite targeting (ie had no actual specific targets in mind), means that it is not a warrant by the definition set over the prior 200 years in the US. It is an obvious general warrant, and non-constitutional.
      - SCHiM 11y ago
        I think you are correct in your interpretation of what the US judges and founding fathers had in mind for warrants over the course of the past 200 years. However computer networks haven't been around for 200 years, and they do change the circumstances somewhat. The warrant in question might have a vague list of targets, but in practise it applies to any and all people that connect to these services. And it's not like you can stumble upon them by googling...
        dawnbreez 11y ago
        The issue isn't that the warrant did what it was supposed to do. It's that you can issue such a warrant and target massive numbers of people regardless of whether or not you specifically suspect them. The point of the warrant system is to prevent LEOs from searching (you|your property) without knowing what you supposedly did. The warrant issued here allows arbitrary attacks against arbitrary targets, and that's not good, regardless of technology.

throwawayhdhe 11y ago

How does child porn stack up against torture? How about indefinite incarnation without trial for innocents, ie kidnappings? Mass murder, the indiscriminate bombing of hospitals, weddings, the a la ' double tap ' , GENOCIDE? Heinous crimes, except I'm not forced to fund child porn, only the mass murder of Millions.

Nutmog 11y ago
It might be cognitive dissonance. You're not forced to fund it though. Move to another country if you don't want to. Or at least avoid buying American made products or take other small protest actions that people often do when they don't like a country.
- zo1 11y ago
  Your suggestion is like the mafia telling a store owner: "Don't like the protection tax? Move your business elsewhere". Never mind the blatant lack of "elsewhere" to go to in a real-world scenario.
  - Nutmog 11y ago
    That would actually the safe and ethical response to a mafia. The real world has plenty of elsewhere, they're just not all so effective for doing business in. But does that make it OK to pay for an unjust war just so you can make more money? Sounds like an argument an arms dealer could make.

belorn 11y ago

I have several problems with FBI's activities, but the hoarding of software vulnerabilities is the most serious. If the FBI get knowledge of a considerable risk to people lives, they should be required to protect people rather than use that knowledge as a weapon. I would have the same objection if the FBI had been given information about a string of armed robberies and decided to just catch the criminals after the fact. Protecting innocents and preventing that lives are ruined should take precedence of catching criminals. I can't understand how the people working on this case can live with the knowledge that criminals might have used the Firefox vulnerability to defraud elderly with ransom-ware, or steal information which are later used for identity theft.

joopxiv 11y ago
There is absolutely no proof that they used a zero-day exploit in this case.

wfo 11y ago

It's more like getting a "warrant" (it's not really a warrant if it's absurdly general as this one was) that since bank robberies were happening, gives the police the right to send a SWAT team to break into the house of anyone who walks into the bank. Why not just have a judge sign a warrant that gives the police the right to search the homes of "all bad guys?"