6 ms·

Anybody else afraid to click some of the links in that post until you hear about legality of accessing (and controlling!) a DEA camera that's likely part of an

Anybody else afraid to click some of the links in that post until you hear about legality of accessing (and controlling!) a DEA camera that's likely part of an active investigation?

dsfyu404ed 6y ago
As a practical matter I'm not worried about clicking a link that's been clicked tens of thousands of times today. There's enough ambiguous laws they could likely come after anyone who accesses it if they wanted but given the facts of the situation I doubt they'd be able to make anything stick and it would be a giant PR snafu.
- ashtonkem 6y ago
  I believe there is precedent that you’re allowed to enter any computer system until you’re specifically warned. It’s a bit like traveling through open land, you can’t get in trouble for trespassing until you’ve been warned that you’re entering private property. IANAL.
  - akersten 6y ago
    > I believe there is precedent that you’re allowed to enter any computer system until you’re specifically warned. Didn't work that well for weev
  - bityard 6y ago
    Absolutely untrue. In the US, the law is written such that you may only legally access a system that you own or have explicit authorization from the owner to access. It mirrors common law where you're not generally allowed to enter someone else's home even if they leave the door unlocked. You can, of course (and plenty of people do), debate the specific application of the word, "access" in the context of computer networks.
    - 101404 6y ago
      So accessing a web site is illegal? I rarely see explicit "you are allowed to access the HTML files on this server" anywhere.
      - kube-system 6y ago
        It can be if it was not intended to be public. It's really not much different than walking around outside. You can walk in an unlocked retail store and it's okay, but if you walk into your neighbors bedroom it's not okay.
        da_chicken 6y ago
        Yes, and opening an unlocked door will still qualify as breaking and entering if you don't have permission to enter it. Just like taking something that isn't yours is still theft even if you find it in a public space. The crime isn't circumventing the locks. It's accessing what you don't have the right to access.
        tptacek 6y ago
        People on message boards really want to believe there's a black -letter rule about what you can and can't do, but that's not how our criminal codes work. These cases will come down to the state of mind of the person accessing the website, as well as an argument about what a reasonable person would conclude upon reading what's on that website.
        eloff 6y ago
        I think programmers especially like to view law through the lens of rules they could implement in code. Often they think it can be hacked by violating the spirit of the law while upholding the letter. Law in reality is a much more human thing that takes into account intention on the party of both legislators making the law and the people it is being applied to. Good thing too. Is this that makes me think attempts to codify law on some blockchain is a doomed exercise most of the time.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- elicash 6y ago
  What about panning the camera to the right when there just may happen to be a drug deal you didn't notice happening to the left? I'm not telling people what to do or not do. Only expressing my own fear!
- syshum 6y ago
  >> I doubt they'd be able to make anything stick and it would be a giant PR snafu. Both of those are true, however your life would still be massivly impacted and you would still be out thousands of dollars in legal fees with almost no hope of collecting them Also better hope they do not find any other things in your life to charge you with, and you do not respond to any question in a way that could be seen as a lie, or about 100 other ways a federal agent can fuck you. No it is best to simply avoid the system instead of putting your faith that "everything will work out in the end" The only people that win in criminal cases are the courts, law enforcement, and the lawyers. as even if you "win" you lose
  - duxup 6y ago
    In theory your life could be massively impacted at random by such organizations, that's just how the justice system works. I think the risk here is very very low to consider such a wildcard situation.
101404 6y ago
That's why VPNs exist.
syshum 6y ago
I am, I can see the DEA or other Federal Agencies doing to me something like they did to Aaron Schwartz and abusing the CFAA to claim simply clicking a link is "Exceeding authorized access"
duxup 6y ago
I'm not sure I've heard anything like "random web surfer who visits site charged with X" when they're not already the focus of some investigation or something. Plenty of law related to tech that gets stretched to absurdity out there but I haven't seen anything to make me think hitting a rando site is a real risk in the US.
aasasd 6y ago
I'm having a chuckle from comments on Reddit: “It's an IPv4 address pointing directly to the camera, not so sure that there are any logs.” Wonder how many of the VPN-employing folks in fact use something like NordVPN and pay for it with their credit card.
- dylz 6y ago
  This is amusing to read because they largely/all seem to be AT&T mobile IPs, which get allocated from an absurdly sized pool with barely working geoip.
  - TrowthePlow 6y ago
    Well AT&T does own an entire /8 block (12.0.0.0/8) so they certainly have plenty to choose from
    - dylz 6y ago
      I guess for clarification what I mean is mobile pools are generally heavily mixed/NATed/etc all over the place, and the reddit OP claims that they're all hidden VPNs or something due to geo - mobile IP space geo literally does not work half the time and is an absolute mess. They're almost certainly just hotspots or an LTE SIM attached to the cameras with nothing else hiding it.
- verylittlemeat 6y ago
  I use nordvpn that I purchased with a credit card. Before using it I would get notices from my ISP for pirating but not anymore. As far as I'm concerned it just makes me not the lowest hanging fruit and that's good enough for me. Even if they wouldn't cut off my service from those notices I consider it worth $50 a yearfor peace of mind. Plus it comes in handy for getting around some geo restrictions.
  - aasasd 6y ago
    Case in point: thinking that any of this is relevant in a thread about people logging into government-setup cameras. Btw, you might want to look into what came out of this story: https://medium.com/@derek./how-is-nordvpn-unblocking-disney-6c51045dbc30 https://medium.com/@derek./how-is-nordvpn-unblocking-disney-... — it's mostly guesswork but I'm not sure how a company buys 32 million residential ips otherwise.
wolfgke 6y ago
> Anybody else afraid to click some of the links in that post until you hear about legality of accessing (and controlling!) a DEA camera that's likely part of an active investigation? In Tor (or Tails), we trust.
swarnie_ 6y ago
Only 350m people in the world need to worry, the rest of us are outside of your (legal) jurisdiction.
- fapjacks 6y ago
  Ohhh boy, do I have some bad news for you...
fapjacks 6y ago
I know what your risk-management matrix says, but there's a whole world out there to explore, buddy!
znpy 6y ago
Good Luck, I'm Behind 7 Proxies.

Anybody else afraid to click some of the links in that post until you hear about legality of accessing (and controlling!) a DEA camera that's likely part of an active investigation?

dsfyu404ed 6y ago

As a practical matter I'm not worried about clicking a link that's been clicked tens of thousands of times today. There's enough ambiguous laws they could likely come after anyone who accesses it if they wanted but given the facts of the situation I doubt they'd be able to make anything stick and it would be a giant PR snafu.

ashtonkem 6y ago
I believe there is precedent that you’re allowed to enter any computer system until you’re specifically warned. It’s a bit like traveling through open land, you can’t get in trouble for trespassing until you’ve been warned that you’re entering private property. IANAL.
- akersten 6y ago
  > I believe there is precedent that you’re allowed to enter any computer system until you’re specifically warned. Didn't work that well for weev
- bityard 6y ago
  Absolutely untrue. In the US, the law is written such that you may only legally access a system that you own or have explicit authorization from the owner to access. It mirrors common law where you're not generally allowed to enter someone else's home even if they leave the door unlocked. You can, of course (and plenty of people do), debate the specific application of the word, "access" in the context of computer networks.
  - 101404 6y ago
    So accessing a web site is illegal? I rarely see explicit "you are allowed to access the HTML files on this server" anywhere.
    - kube-system 6y ago
      It can be if it was not intended to be public. It's really not much different than walking around outside. You can walk in an unlocked retail store and it's okay, but if you walk into your neighbors bedroom it's not okay.
      - da_chicken 6y ago
        Yes, and opening an unlocked door will still qualify as breaking and entering if you don't have permission to enter it. Just like taking something that isn't yours is still theft even if you find it in a public space. The crime isn't circumventing the locks. It's accessing what you don't have the right to access.
      - tptacek 6y ago
        People on message boards really want to believe there's a black -letter rule about what you can and can't do, but that's not how our criminal codes work. These cases will come down to the state of mind of the person accessing the website, as well as an argument about what a reasonable person would conclude upon reading what's on that website.
        eloff 6y ago
        I think programmers especially like to view law through the lens of rules they could implement in code. Often they think it can be hacked by violating the spirit of the law while upholding the letter. Law in reality is a much more human thing that takes into account intention on the party of both legislators making the law and the people it is being applied to. Good thing too. Is this that makes me think attempts to codify law on some blockchain is a doomed exercise most of the time.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
elicash 6y ago
What about panning the camera to the right when there just may happen to be a drug deal you didn't notice happening to the left? I'm not telling people what to do or not do. Only expressing my own fear!
syshum 6y ago
>> I doubt they'd be able to make anything stick and it would be a giant PR snafu. Both of those are true, however your life would still be massivly impacted and you would still be out thousands of dollars in legal fees with almost no hope of collecting them Also better hope they do not find any other things in your life to charge you with, and you do not respond to any question in a way that could be seen as a lie, or about 100 other ways a federal agent can fuck you. No it is best to simply avoid the system instead of putting your faith that "everything will work out in the end" The only people that win in criminal cases are the courts, law enforcement, and the lawyers. as even if you "win" you lose
- duxup 6y ago
  In theory your life could be massively impacted at random by such organizations, that's just how the justice system works. I think the risk here is very very low to consider such a wildcard situation.

101404 6y ago

That's why VPNs exist.

syshum 6y ago

I am, I can see the DEA or other Federal Agencies doing to me something like they did to Aaron Schwartz and abusing the CFAA to claim simply clicking a link is "Exceeding authorized access"

duxup 6y ago

I'm not sure I've heard anything like "random web surfer who visits site charged with X" when they're not already the focus of some investigation or something. Plenty of law related to tech that gets stretched to absurdity out there but I haven't seen anything to make me think hitting a rando site is a real risk in the US.

aasasd 6y ago

I'm having a chuckle from comments on Reddit: “It's an IPv4 address pointing directly to the camera, not so sure that there are any logs.” Wonder how many of the VPN-employing folks in fact use something like NordVPN and pay for it with their credit card.

dylz 6y ago
This is amusing to read because they largely/all seem to be AT&T mobile IPs, which get allocated from an absurdly sized pool with barely working geoip.
- TrowthePlow 6y ago
  Well AT&T does own an entire /8 block (12.0.0.0/8) so they certainly have plenty to choose from
  - dylz 6y ago
    I guess for clarification what I mean is mobile pools are generally heavily mixed/NATed/etc all over the place, and the reddit OP claims that they're all hidden VPNs or something due to geo - mobile IP space geo literally does not work half the time and is an absolute mess. They're almost certainly just hotspots or an LTE SIM attached to the cameras with nothing else hiding it.
verylittlemeat 6y ago
I use nordvpn that I purchased with a credit card. Before using it I would get notices from my ISP for pirating but not anymore. As far as I'm concerned it just makes me not the lowest hanging fruit and that's good enough for me. Even if they wouldn't cut off my service from those notices I consider it worth $50 a yearfor peace of mind. Plus it comes in handy for getting around some geo restrictions.
- aasasd 6y ago
  Case in point: thinking that any of this is relevant in a thread about people logging into government-setup cameras. Btw, you might want to look into what came out of this story: https://medium.com/@derek./how-is-nordvpn-unblocking-disney-6c51045dbc30 https://medium.com/@derek./how-is-nordvpn-unblocking-disney-... — it's mostly guesswork but I'm not sure how a company buys 32 million residential ips otherwise.

wolfgke 6y ago

> Anybody else afraid to click some of the links in that post until you hear about legality of accessing (and controlling!) a DEA camera that's likely part of an active investigation? In Tor (or Tails), we trust.

swarnie_ 6y ago

Only 350m people in the world need to worry, the rest of us are outside of your (legal) jurisdiction.

fapjacks 6y ago
Ohhh boy, do I have some bad news for you...

fapjacks 6y ago

I know what your risk-management matrix says, but there's a whole world out there to explore, buddy!

znpy 6y ago

Good Luck, I'm Behind 7 Proxies.