5 ms·

"Legally"? Seriously misleading title, a foreign nation state hacking people has not been made legal outside the US at all. It might be legal in the US, but sur

by sklivvz1971 10y ago

"Legally"? Seriously misleading title, a foreign nation state hacking people has not been made legal outside the US at all. It might be legal in the US, but surely it's still computer crime where it's committed.

benevol 10y ago
It's legal when they feel it's legal. That's how this works.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
edblarney 10y ago
It's not misrepresenting, as it's clearly in the context of on e governments laws. It seems rather nefarious, but there is Judicial oversight, meaning they need permission in each instance, which is at least one good thing.
- sklivvz1971 10y ago
  Surely you are not suggesting that US laws have any bearing outside of it, correct?
  - bluejekyll 10y ago
    I think what is trying to be said is that it's in accordance with the US' own laws, not that those laws somehow cause non-US citizens or land to fall under US jurisdiction. The only thing that prevents the US from spying on non-US citizens are treaties, and those seem to often be ignored.
  - edblarney 10y ago
    I'm not saying that, I'm just referring to the comment about 'misrepresentation' in the headline. As for the FBI hacking outside their borders ... Obviously, this is immediately problematic, no doubt. But we live in a new, globalized world, and it includes not just social issues and business, but law enforcement. A lot of pernicious crimes like sex-trafficking and child pornography etc. are very international in nature. Ideally, we'd want authorities to work with one another, which is obviously the case in many ways ... but ... it's not always so easy. A lot of these regimes are totally corrupt, inefficient, have other priorities, or are politicized. Remember that we are trying to achieve actual justice - and the rules are there to enable that - not the other way around. I'm not exactly comfortable with what the FBI might be doing - that said, it depends a lot on what they are actually doing. If the FBI hacks into the computers of some sex-traffickers in Burma, Ukraine, Belarus and is able to catch them ... then all the power to them. I think it's probably for the greater good, even if it does bend some rules. Now if they start to go after political dissidents, and journalists, well, we have a problem :).
  - elif 10y ago
    Are you suggesting that, for instance, the spooks that we now know spied on Merkel will be prosecuted on German soil? I'm not saying it's impossible, it would just be the first I'm hearing of it.
  - nkw 10y ago
    FWIW, right or wrong the United States takes the position that a wide variety of its laws apply outside of the territorial boundaries of the United Sates.[1] (And in practice their interpretation is much broader than the Wikipedia article suggests.) How motivated they are to enforce such laws outside of the United States, however varies from case to case. e.g. Edward Snowden, Marc Rich[2], however cf. Manuel Noriega[3], Ahmed Abu Khattala[4] or generally[5] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraterritorial_jurisdiction#Federal_Law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraterritorial_jurisdiction#... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marc_Rich https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marc_Rich [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manuel_Noriega https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manuel_Noriega [4] https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/us-captured-benghazi-suspect-in-secret-raid/2014/06/17/7ef8746e-f5cf-11e3-a3a5-42be35962a52_story.html?Post+generic=%3Ftid%3Dsm_twitter_washingtonpost https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/us-ca... [5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraordinary_rendition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraordinary_rendition
    - Taniwha 10y ago
      It's one thing to say that laws in the US apply to what US residents do outside the US, it's quite another to pretend that a US law overrides laws in sovereign nations. Of course they can't, FBI Hackers are likely liable to arrest and/or extradition if caught, while it's possible that the US might abrogate its extradition treaties in this case, suspects may find themselves arrested by 3rd countries the moment the leave US borders, or, depending on the country even tried in absentia
  - fulldecent 10y ago
    See the PROTECT act.
  - xiaoma 10y ago
    Try telling that to the IRS. Just any international bank just about anywhere in the world with any US citizens as customers can tell you all about it.
- devoply 10y ago
  Putin disagrees, Russian government hackers and Chinese government hackers will be able to hack anywhere around the world to investigate crimes against their nations. Justice will be done.
- mtreis86 10y ago
  Unfortunately, judicial oversight is often a rubber stamp.
  - elif 10y ago
    In this case, the rules are being specifically changed so that any judge can approve, whereas previously it had to be a judge from the jurisdiction they were hacking. Judicial review is likely now or soon to be a button in their hacking tools.
  - nkw 10y ago
    Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Some judges will actually hold the Government's feet to the fire and independently inquire into the sufficiency of the Government's probable cause in a warrant application. Some will not. The issue is, the prosecutors/Justice Department know which ones will and which ones won't and with the new amendments to Rule 41, they can pretty much pick which judge hears their application.
- halomru 10y ago
  Sure, the FBI can legally hack anywhere in the world in the same sense that Russians can hack anywhere outside Russia: it's legal in their host country. But if a Russian hacker leaves Russia, or if a FBI hacker leaves the US, they can be prosecuted for those hacks. That's not what most people expect as the outcome of a "legal" action. I think "government sanctioned" is the word we usually use for these cases, not "legal".
  - chii 10y ago
    Legality and gov't sanctioned is one and the same to many people.
- nkw 10y ago
  > meaning they need permission in each instance Where is this requirement located?
PhasmaFelis 10y ago
I think you're nitpicking. The title is a little oddly phrased, but it's quite clear that it means "legal in the US." Nothing misleading about it.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

benevol 10y ago

It's legal when they feel it's legal. That's how this works.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

edblarney 10y ago

It's not misrepresenting, as it's clearly in the context of on e governments laws. It seems rather nefarious, but there is Judicial oversight, meaning they need permission in each instance, which is at least one good thing.

sklivvz1971 10y ago
Surely you are not suggesting that US laws have any bearing outside of it, correct?
- bluejekyll 10y ago
  I think what is trying to be said is that it's in accordance with the US' own laws, not that those laws somehow cause non-US citizens or land to fall under US jurisdiction. The only thing that prevents the US from spying on non-US citizens are treaties, and those seem to often be ignored.
- edblarney 10y ago
  I'm not saying that, I'm just referring to the comment about 'misrepresentation' in the headline. As for the FBI hacking outside their borders ... Obviously, this is immediately problematic, no doubt. But we live in a new, globalized world, and it includes not just social issues and business, but law enforcement. A lot of pernicious crimes like sex-trafficking and child pornography etc. are very international in nature. Ideally, we'd want authorities to work with one another, which is obviously the case in many ways ... but ... it's not always so easy. A lot of these regimes are totally corrupt, inefficient, have other priorities, or are politicized. Remember that we are trying to achieve actual justice - and the rules are there to enable that - not the other way around. I'm not exactly comfortable with what the FBI might be doing - that said, it depends a lot on what they are actually doing. If the FBI hacks into the computers of some sex-traffickers in Burma, Ukraine, Belarus and is able to catch them ... then all the power to them. I think it's probably for the greater good, even if it does bend some rules. Now if they start to go after political dissidents, and journalists, well, we have a problem :).
- elif 10y ago
  Are you suggesting that, for instance, the spooks that we now know spied on Merkel will be prosecuted on German soil? I'm not saying it's impossible, it would just be the first I'm hearing of it.
- nkw 10y ago
  FWIW, right or wrong the United States takes the position that a wide variety of its laws apply outside of the territorial boundaries of the United Sates.[1] (And in practice their interpretation is much broader than the Wikipedia article suggests.) How motivated they are to enforce such laws outside of the United States, however varies from case to case. e.g. Edward Snowden, Marc Rich[2], however cf. Manuel Noriega[3], Ahmed Abu Khattala[4] or generally[5] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraterritorial_jurisdiction#Federal_Law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraterritorial_jurisdiction#... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marc_Rich https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marc_Rich [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manuel_Noriega https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manuel_Noriega [4] https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/us-captured-benghazi-suspect-in-secret-raid/2014/06/17/7ef8746e-f5cf-11e3-a3a5-42be35962a52_story.html?Post+generic=%3Ftid%3Dsm_twitter_washingtonpost https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/us-ca... [5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraordinary_rendition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraordinary_rendition
  - Taniwha 10y ago
    It's one thing to say that laws in the US apply to what US residents do outside the US, it's quite another to pretend that a US law overrides laws in sovereign nations. Of course they can't, FBI Hackers are likely liable to arrest and/or extradition if caught, while it's possible that the US might abrogate its extradition treaties in this case, suspects may find themselves arrested by 3rd countries the moment the leave US borders, or, depending on the country even tried in absentia
- fulldecent 10y ago
  See the PROTECT act.
- xiaoma 10y ago
  Try telling that to the IRS. Just any international bank just about anywhere in the world with any US citizens as customers can tell you all about it.
devoply 10y ago
Putin disagrees, Russian government hackers and Chinese government hackers will be able to hack anywhere around the world to investigate crimes against their nations. Justice will be done.
mtreis86 10y ago
Unfortunately, judicial oversight is often a rubber stamp.
- elif 10y ago
  In this case, the rules are being specifically changed so that any judge can approve, whereas previously it had to be a judge from the jurisdiction they were hacking. Judicial review is likely now or soon to be a button in their hacking tools.
- nkw 10y ago
  Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Some judges will actually hold the Government's feet to the fire and independently inquire into the sufficiency of the Government's probable cause in a warrant application. Some will not. The issue is, the prosecutors/Justice Department know which ones will and which ones won't and with the new amendments to Rule 41, they can pretty much pick which judge hears their application.
halomru 10y ago
Sure, the FBI can legally hack anywhere in the world in the same sense that Russians can hack anywhere outside Russia: it's legal in their host country. But if a Russian hacker leaves Russia, or if a FBI hacker leaves the US, they can be prosecuted for those hacks. That's not what most people expect as the outcome of a "legal" action. I think "government sanctioned" is the word we usually use for these cases, not "legal".
- chii 10y ago
  Legality and gov't sanctioned is one and the same to many people.
nkw 10y ago
> meaning they need permission in each instance Where is this requirement located?

PhasmaFelis 10y ago

I think you're nitpicking. The title is a little oddly phrased, but it's quite clear that it means "legal in the US." Nothing misleading about it.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]