4 ms·

So when these devices reboot, the FBI is now going to have control of ~500,000 home routers? That's, uh, "reassuring".

ocdtrekkie 8y ago
Presumably if they intended to use this maliciously, they wouldn't have told you about it. But in most cases, the FBI having control is still better than a random malicious actor having control, unless you belong to a certain high risk segment of the population. In the long term, you want a fix for your router, or you want a new router. Mine is similar to one of the affected units, enough so that it's likely vulnerable. I'm looking at replacing it.
- lisper 8y ago
  > unless you belong to a certain high risk segment of the population. I don't think we are so far from the day that "high risk" will mean anyone who opposes the government. > Mine is similar to one of the affected units, enough so that it's likely vulnerable. I'm looking at replacing it. That's probably wise.
  - ocdtrekkie 8y ago
    People in an adversarial relationship with the government they live under would definitely be that segment of the population, yes.
    - hedora 8y ago
      So, 100% of the US population, based on: - the continued militarization of police - classifying 66% of houses as constitution-free border crossings - holding citizens for years without charges or trial - a for-profit prison system that engages in de facto forced labor - criminalizing mental health issues and withholding psychiatric care from insured people. For the record, these things have all been going on for multiple presidential administrations, and have enjoyed bipartisan support.
      - ybrah 8y ago
        No, he meant criminals.
      - adventured 8y ago
        > 100% of the US population [has an adversarial relationship with the government] You're going many steps beyond simple exaggeration and pushing into extreme hyperbolic territory. > classifying 66% of houses as constitution-free border crossings You're inventing that, such a thing has not been classified by the US Government. If the government - local, state or federal - wants to search your residence in NYC or Los Angeles, they still need a warrant or equivalent court approval. If you were right, that wouldn't be the case. > holding citizens for years without charges or trial Show me the specific figures you have on how many times that has occurred in relation to the total number of people that have been arrested over a relevant time frame. It's extraordinarily rare in fact. Using events with very few instances to argue a premise of widespread occurrence, is an immense logic fail. > a for-profit prison system that engages in de facto forced labor The government prison complex (the supposedly non-profit oriented mass incarceration machine) is and has been dramatically worse. Over 95% of all people that have been put into prison in the last 40 years, during the war on drugs and mass incarceration phase, have gone into government prisons. During the epic Reagan and Clinton prison boom, the private prison industry had a single digit share of the prison inmates. And now the incarceration rate is rapidly declining and has been for a decade. We're also pursuing the end of mass incarceration policies, with wide bi-partisan support. And we're also pursuing the end of the war on drugs, via legalization and decriminalization policies all over the US. If I were to use your argumentation approach, that means the expansion of private prisons is causing all of those things and is a good thing: as the private prisons have expanded their market share the last decade, all of those good things have finally started to happen. > criminalizing mental health issues and withholding psychiatric care from insured people What share of the population has suffered from the criminalization of which mental health issues? How many insured people are being kept from psychiatric care? Being vague doesn't support your topline premise, it detracts from it. You've made an extraordinary claim and you didn't support it with much of anything.
        jessaustin 8y ago
- StanislavPetrov 8y ago
  >But in most cases, the FBI having control is still better than a random malicious actor having control, unless you belong to a certain high risk segment of the population. That's like saying liver cancer is better than pancreatic cancer - true but not comforting.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
duxup 8y ago
I belive they've done this before. In one case they went to court to get an OK from a judge to use the malware and seized domain(s) to then activity remove it from people's computers. They asked a judge because while they can seize a botnet, actually altering people's computers might be seen as bad so it seems they went about it the right way. If they were going to be all evil I doubt they'd be talking about rebooting routers and such ;)

Presumably if they intended to use this maliciously, they wouldn't have told you about it. But in most cases, the FBI having control is still better than a random malicious actor having control, unless you belong to a certain high risk segment of the population. In the long term, you want a fix for your router, or you want a new router. Mine is similar to one of the affected units, enough so that it's likely vulnerable. I'm looking at replacing it.

lisper 8y ago
> unless you belong to a certain high risk segment of the population. I don't think we are so far from the day that "high risk" will mean anyone who opposes the government. > Mine is similar to one of the affected units, enough so that it's likely vulnerable. I'm looking at replacing it. That's probably wise.
- ocdtrekkie 8y ago
  People in an adversarial relationship with the government they live under would definitely be that segment of the population, yes.
  - hedora 8y ago
    So, 100% of the US population, based on: - the continued militarization of police - classifying 66% of houses as constitution-free border crossings - holding citizens for years without charges or trial - a for-profit prison system that engages in de facto forced labor - criminalizing mental health issues and withholding psychiatric care from insured people. For the record, these things have all been going on for multiple presidential administrations, and have enjoyed bipartisan support.
    - ybrah 8y ago
      No, he meant criminals.
    - adventured 8y ago
      > 100% of the US population [has an adversarial relationship with the government] You're going many steps beyond simple exaggeration and pushing into extreme hyperbolic territory. > classifying 66% of houses as constitution-free border crossings You're inventing that, such a thing has not been classified by the US Government. If the government - local, state or federal - wants to search your residence in NYC or Los Angeles, they still need a warrant or equivalent court approval. If you were right, that wouldn't be the case. > holding citizens for years without charges or trial Show me the specific figures you have on how many times that has occurred in relation to the total number of people that have been arrested over a relevant time frame. It's extraordinarily rare in fact. Using events with very few instances to argue a premise of widespread occurrence, is an immense logic fail. > a for-profit prison system that engages in de facto forced labor The government prison complex (the supposedly non-profit oriented mass incarceration machine) is and has been dramatically worse. Over 95% of all people that have been put into prison in the last 40 years, during the war on drugs and mass incarceration phase, have gone into government prisons. During the epic Reagan and Clinton prison boom, the private prison industry had a single digit share of the prison inmates. And now the incarceration rate is rapidly declining and has been for a decade. We're also pursuing the end of mass incarceration policies, with wide bi-partisan support. And we're also pursuing the end of the war on drugs, via legalization and decriminalization policies all over the US. If I were to use your argumentation approach, that means the expansion of private prisons is causing all of those things and is a good thing: as the private prisons have expanded their market share the last decade, all of those good things have finally started to happen. > criminalizing mental health issues and withholding psychiatric care from insured people What share of the population has suffered from the criminalization of which mental health issues? How many insured people are being kept from psychiatric care? Being vague doesn't support your topline premise, it detracts from it. You've made an extraordinary claim and you didn't support it with much of anything.
      - jessaustin 8y ago
StanislavPetrov 8y ago
>But in most cases, the FBI having control is still better than a random malicious actor having control, unless you belong to a certain high risk segment of the population. That's like saying liver cancer is better than pancreatic cancer - true but not comforting.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

duxup 8y ago

I belive they've done this before. In one case they went to court to get an OK from a judge to use the malware and seized domain(s) to then activity remove it from people's computers. They asked a judge because while they can seize a botnet, actually altering people's computers might be seen as bad so it seems they went about it the right way. If they were going to be all evil I doubt they'd be talking about rebooting routers and such ;)