5 ms·

This is the same rule change that says if you use a VPN or TOR you can legally be hacked by the FBI, yes? I wonder if people who use work VPNs will be exempted

This is the same rule change that says if you use a VPN or TOR you can legally be hacked by the FBI, yes? I wonder if people who use work VPNs will be exempted since afaik the wording is about services that obscure your location, and most business VPNs aren't concerned with that (especially if they have split routing configured properly).

existencebox 10y ago
To be honest the answer seems simple. Get _EVERYONE_ on VPNs, regardless. Even if you don't really use it for much, make it connect automatically via some browser plugin and send some trash random data. As a "data scientist" the most painful thing I have to deal with is data cleaning and data quality. Add to that the difficulty of actually getting into a (hopefully broad) array of VPN providers and tracking every person yelling into the pipe will make their (FBI/NSA) lives very very difficult, and this makes me happy on a rather visceral level.
- lettergram 10y ago
  That's actually why my group of friends all tag each others faces on Facebook as the other. Rather than not posting our faces, Facebook auto tags me as random people now (most often my wife).
  - owly 10y ago
    Why not completely abandon FB? Build your own personal free network.
    - lawnchair_larry 10y ago
      The network would have one person, challenging the definition of network.
  - petre 10y ago
    That's silly. If they have your wife, your kids, your friends, your sister's cousin's aunt, they have you.
thomaskcr 10y ago
> This is the same rule change that says if you use a VPN or TOR you can legally be hacked by the FBI, yes? Emphatically no. This rule changes absolutely nothing about what is required to get a warrant, including the specificity of it (must identify a specific computer and/or person - that doesn't change at all, so how they identify TOR, VPN, etc users is already enough and has been challenged up through the supreme court). Simply using concealment does not lower the bar or change the requirements for getting the actual warrant. The literal only thing that changes is if you are located in District 8 and commit a crime with a victim in district 4, if the FBI can show you are using technological means to hide your location - they may handle getting the exact same warrant they are already allowed to get with the same amount of evidence in the victims district instead of having to find yours. In the past, if you were concealing your location in a way that they filed in District 5, that evidence would have been subject to challenge due to improper venue. They are now saying that where the crime actually occurred is a valid place to get a warrant if they can also show you are using technological means to hide your location. Concealing your location isn't a crime and doesn't demonstrate that a search of a computer would uncover evidence of a crime (it's actually right there in Rule 41 (c)). It explicitly doesn't change what methods they are allowed to use - so everything they can do after this change, they were already allowed to do.

existencebox 10y ago

To be honest the answer seems simple. Get _EVERYONE_ on VPNs, regardless. Even if you don't really use it for much, make it connect automatically via some browser plugin and send some trash random data. As a "data scientist" the most painful thing I have to deal with is data cleaning and data quality. Add to that the difficulty of actually getting into a (hopefully broad) array of VPN providers and tracking every person yelling into the pipe will make their (FBI/NSA) lives very very difficult, and this makes me happy on a rather visceral level.

lettergram 10y ago
That's actually why my group of friends all tag each others faces on Facebook as the other. Rather than not posting our faces, Facebook auto tags me as random people now (most often my wife).
- owly 10y ago
  Why not completely abandon FB? Build your own personal free network.
  - lawnchair_larry 10y ago
    The network would have one person, challenging the definition of network.
- petre 10y ago
  That's silly. If they have your wife, your kids, your friends, your sister's cousin's aunt, they have you.

thomaskcr 10y ago

> This is the same rule change that says if you use a VPN or TOR you can legally be hacked by the FBI, yes? Emphatically no. This rule changes absolutely nothing about what is required to get a warrant, including the specificity of it (must identify a specific computer and/or person - that doesn't change at all, so how they identify TOR, VPN, etc users is already enough and has been challenged up through the supreme court). Simply using concealment does not lower the bar or change the requirements for getting the actual warrant. The literal only thing that changes is if you are located in District 8 and commit a crime with a victim in district 4, if the FBI can show you are using technological means to hide your location - they may handle getting the exact same warrant they are already allowed to get with the same amount of evidence in the victims district instead of having to find yours. In the past, if you were concealing your location in a way that they filed in District 5, that evidence would have been subject to challenge due to improper venue. They are now saying that where the crime actually occurred is a valid place to get a warrant if they can also show you are using technological means to hide your location. Concealing your location isn't a crime and doesn't demonstrate that a search of a computer would uncover evidence of a crime (it's actually right there in Rule 41 (c)). It explicitly doesn't change what methods they are allowed to use - so everything they can do after this change, they were already allowed to do.