4 ms·

Might be wrong but it also appears to give the right to access any cluster of (5+) machines that were hacked together AND download the contents of those machine

by nxzero 10y ago

Might be wrong but it also appears to give the right to access any cluster of (5+) machines that were hacked together AND download the contents of those machines WITHOUT any notice or due process for the owners of those machines. If anyone feels I'm wrong, please explicitly state the line of logic used. If true, given the scope of exploited devices in the wild - anyone may randomly get there computer searched and unless they're able to prove the search was illegal anything on the device is fair game. Worst case, they hack machines to create "probable cause" using shell companies or contractors; no idea how this would be legal, but no idea how this ruling is legal either.

tomku 10y ago
See my post in this thread that quotes the rule change. This is entirely about venue for search warrants. A valid warrant is still required, ALL this rule change does is expand which jurisdictions the government can apply for the warrant in.
- nxzero 10y ago
  Yes, read the full ruling and your comment when it was posted. I do not see a conflict with what was said and what my statements. Meaning currently say there are 5000 devices in NYC the FBI is already legally allowed to hack into them and remotely copy all the contents of those files without due process or notice to the owners? ________ EDIT(Re: "General warrants" comment below) Just to be clear, me reading of your comment is that "general warrants" that allow the FBI to download the contents of any computer that's in a botnet within the jurisdiction of the warrant provided is legal and the owner is not required to be notified unless that owner happens to be the defendant in the filing. Further, unless that warrant is later proven illegal, owner is legally accountable for the contents of the computer unless they're able to prove that they are not the party responsible for in illegal activities "discovered" in the process.
  - JoshTriplett 10y ago
    As ridiculous as I find this particular change, in general, warrants do legally constitute "due process" for a search. EDIT: added a comma after "in general" for clarity.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
    - nxzero 10y ago
      Meaning you're saying that all device owners would be notified of that there computer was remotely accessed and all the contents were copied, right? To me, ruling reads that only the defendants, if known, must be notified.

by nxzero 10y ago

tomku 10y ago

See my post in this thread that quotes the rule change. This is entirely about venue for search warrants. A valid warrant is still required, ALL this rule change does is expand which jurisdictions the government can apply for the warrant in.

nxzero 10y ago
Yes, read the full ruling and your comment when it was posted. I do not see a conflict with what was said and what my statements. Meaning currently say there are 5000 devices in NYC the FBI is already legally allowed to hack into them and remotely copy all the contents of those files without due process or notice to the owners? ________ EDIT(Re: "General warrants" comment below) Just to be clear, me reading of your comment is that "general warrants" that allow the FBI to download the contents of any computer that's in a botnet within the jurisdiction of the warrant provided is legal and the owner is not required to be notified unless that owner happens to be the defendant in the filing. Further, unless that warrant is later proven illegal, owner is legally accountable for the contents of the computer unless they're able to prove that they are not the party responsible for in illegal activities "discovered" in the process.
- JoshTriplett 10y ago
  As ridiculous as I find this particular change, in general, warrants do legally constitute "due process" for a search. EDIT: added a comma after "in general" for clarity.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - nxzero 10y ago
    Meaning you're saying that all device owners would be notified of that there computer was remotely accessed and all the contents were copied, right? To me, ruling reads that only the defendants, if known, must be notified.