8 ms·
U.S. high court approves rule change to expand FBI hacking power
- lucasjans 10y agoI am not a lawyer but I am curious what affect this will have. Does this mean that the FBI can cherry pick to it's favorite judges to get any wiretap subpoena they need? Is there a source of public information to monitor judges actions in giving out these subpoenas?
- wrong_variable 10y agoDoes it only apply to computers within the borders of the US or also outside of it ?
- cloudjacker 10y agoThis applies to computers outside of the US. The FBI has already been doing this, Congress authorized the FBI to conduct all of the state sponsored hacking. It was just a little complicated.
- wrong_variable 10y agoThat makes absolutely no sense - how are they doing to enforce this rule for countries like china or russia ?
- cloudjacker 10y agoThey typically don't because there are consequences for the US if it tried. It is all the other countries where they do enforce it. Its okay, everyone believes what you believe, this isn't reality though.
- kempe 10y agoI believed it was CIA and NSA that operated beyond u.s. borders. But of course, patterns that fbi finds could lead to other countries as well.
- cloudjacker 10y agothey do. although the FBI is a domestic enforcement agency, Congress specifically gave it the ability to hack any computer anywhere in the world. Despite whatever concepts you have ever heard about any agency's mission or limitations, Congress has the ability to delegate tasks to whatever agency it thinks have resources, and then those laws stay on the books.
- mark_l_watson 10y agoIn the 1990s, the FBI and NSA did a lot of good work persuing organized computer crime operations around the world. Back then they also seemed to care more about the security of US infrastructure.
- 10y ago
- phkahler 10y agoMy first thought on reading the headline is: Everyone use full-disk encryption so they need to order the user to unlock it. You know, since they seem to think the electronic world is separate from people in the real world. But upon reading TFA it sounds like they're hacking them anyway, so no user intervention required.
- pessimizer 10y agoSuspect jailed indefinitely for refusing to decrypt hard drives https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11590421 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11590421 I'm sure President Trump will be a wise steward of his new security apparatus.
- trvz 10y agohttps://xkcd.com/538/ https://xkcd.com/538/
- pessimizer 10y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rubberhose_%28file_system%29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rubberhose_%28file_system%29
- phkahler 10y agoBut that person had a choice, and the warrant was probably issued locally.
- ptx 10y ago> The U.S. Justice Department, which has pushed for the rule change since 2013, has described it as a minor modification needed to modernize the criminal code for the digital age, and has said it would not permit searches or seizures that are not already legal. So... "Don't worry about this seemingly bad change, because it will have no effect!"? I have a counter-proposal then: Let's not make the change, as that will also have no effect, and everyone will be happy.
- fweespee_ch 10y agoThere is a different between "legal to do" and "within one's jurisdiction". They are clearly lying through indirection unfortunately. :P
- cloudjacker 10y agoCongress gave the FBI the role to hack any computer anywhere in the world, no matter who those computers were suspected to belong to. When it needed a warrant it had a pretty complicated process, and frequently resorted to gaining cooperation with the local authorities in another country and getting dual local warrant equivalents in another country. A costly redundancy and not always achievable. The FBI is just getting the US court system to help with the mandate Congress already gave them.
- Intermernet 10y agoOr, rephrased, Congress gave the FBI a mandate they couldn't legally fulfil.
- tptacek 10y agoCan you be more specific here? Normally, when Congress tasks an agency with something, that tasking defines the contours of what is and isn't legal. Defining "legal" is Congress's job.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- Spooky23 10y agoI think this makes sense at one level -- say they are investigating a crime in NYC where players are located in NYC, North Jersey, Ulster County NY, and Connecticut. It seems weird that 4 judges should be involved in that sort of thing. On the other hand, if routine motions to squash or otherwise deal with a case in NYC need to be filed and litigated in Northern Oklahoma or Hawaii, obviously that becomes a big overreach that makes doing business with the court a major hassle and very expensive, as you need lawyers accredited in multiple places.
- jessaustin 10y agoWhether the latter scenario motivated this change or not, it will be the dominant result of this change. FBI are nationwide; few of their targets are. The fact that any particular suspect has the means to challenge a warrant on the other side of the country will be used as proof that suspect is sitting on a pile of ill-gotten gains that ought to be frozen. The fact that any other particular suspect doesn't have such means will be used as proof that the warrant is valid.
- us0r 10y agoI wonder if this is related to Microsoft's case (which has also been going on since 2013)? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Corporation_v._United_States_of_America https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Corporation_v._Unite...
- cloudjacker 10y agoIt is related to the Silk Road case as well as Playpen users
- disposition2 10y agoPossibly with a little nudge, Congress can be convinced to get behind blocking this. Provided the argument against is framed as, would you Congress-person be okay with a judge in (county / state across the country) having the legal authority to hack in to your machine here in (home county / state)? Because unless I'm confused, this law would apply to Congress-people as well as citizen Joe.
- CaptSpify 10y agoThe problem I see is the "it won't happen to me!" attitude. That's how these bills get passed in the first place, and Congress think they are so high up the food chain that it won't affect them.
- charonn0 10y agoRemind them of NSA spying on the Senate Intelligence Committee.
- Zigurd 10y agoIf they did it to us that would be state-sponsored cyber-terrorism!
- rayiner 10y agoThe actual proposed edits are here: http://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/frcr16_8mad.pdf http://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/frcr16_8mad.p... (page 6 of the documents after the letters). Note that "jurisdiction" in this context is primarily referring to "venue." Venue is a set of rules within the federal courts' rules of procedure that specify which of the 94 judicial districts within the federal court system particular matters must be brought to. Generally, a warrant must be issued by the court in the district where the person or property to be searched may be found. This change relaxes that requirement under specific circumstances: 1) the location of the computer to be searched has been concealed by some technological means; or 2) for cases under 18 U.S. Code § 1030 (fraud in connection with computers). In that case, a judge in any jurisdiction where some of the criminal activity occurred can issue the warrant.
- Pyxl101 10y agoYour facts and legal insights are always appreciated.
- jasonjei 10y agoThe title of the submission isn't clear. "[A]ny jurisdiction" implies those extralegal jurisdictions outside of the United States.
- dang 10y agoWe changed the title to that of the article, as the HN guidelines request when the article title is neither misleading nor linkbait. The submitted title was 'US judges can now issue warrants for computers located in any jurisdiction'. Submitters: please don't rewrite an article's title to make a point. That's editorializing and not allowed in post titles here. You're welcome to share what you think is important about a piece by posting a comment in the thread.
- nkrisc 10y agoI assume this affects Federal judges, is that correct? I couldn't tell for sure from article.
- anseljh 10y agoYes, federal magistrate judges.
- known 10y agoMay not work in NK/China
- benevol 10y agoLet's admit it, we are at the stage where we are discussing nothing but semantics anymore. Anyone who's actually followed and understood the Snowden leaks knows that the government will get all the data it wants, legally or not. And it wants all of it. Unless somebody like Snowden gets elected President and credibly rolls back the surveillance state we have now, we have absolutely no right to privacy anymore and have become completely manipulable.
- cgearhart 10y ago> somebody like Snowden gets elected President It's hard to predict what exact conditions would be required to make a difference, but a privacy/security-aware President is not sufficient. We need a more educated population and congressional representatives (and perhaps supreme court) far more than the presidency. We are headed for something bad with the cavalier way we treat data, the only real question is how terrible the consequences will be when it happens.
- matt_wulfeck 10y agoWhy do they need to hack? What's wrong with them showing up at the door with a gun and a warrant and walking off with everything they need? My guess is this expansion is for doing things in secret. If they show up at the door of a civil liberties office and issue a warrant people are going to get pissed.
- Zelphyr 10y agoThis and other stories lately are making it clear that the FBI is becoming a military organization instead of a police organization. But the real problem is that their enemy is the American people.
- drawkbox 10y agoFreedoms/rights only go in one direction, they slowly erode unless reset and fought for. People lose sight of why it is important to have privacy for short term reasons, and why the Constitution and Bill of Rights are what they are. It will eventually come back around to these FBI guys (and politicians), we'll all be burned by it one day. Even the ones taking away rights/freedoms/privacy, they all have something to hide because they like personal privacy, one day they won't have it.
- dmix 10y agoThis is the realistic solution to fighting encryption. Not banning encryption. I don't know why this took so long to be clarified in law. Even though they've been doing it for quite some time. The "Going Dark" thing was always bullshit. They just have greater difficulty doing passive surveillance now... and actually have to do targeted searches of peoples computers now using warrants. Things like Stingrays can't be used to warrantlessly intercept SMS (as people move to WhatsApp) and most internet traffic is becoming HTTPS. Additionally, warrant-based wiretaps on ISPs and mobile traffic is becoming less useful. Mostly thanks to Snowden. This is a good sign IMO, which means that encryption is finally becoming widespread enough that law enforcement has to up their game. It means law enforcement will be forced to do targeted searches, similar to searching houses, and dragnets become less effective.
- duaneb 10y agoThis is pretty scary, but highly preferable to gag warrants.
- nxzero 10y agoAnyone able to explain why explicitly not an attempt to circumvent due process and create a kangaroo court: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kangaroo_court https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kangaroo_court
- Fjolsvith 10y agoSo, how do you keep the FBI out of your computer?