3 ms·

> And are you really going to try to sue the police for shutting down the lab and locking the door on their way out? If the police enter your property without

by dcow 3y ago

> And are you really going to try to sue the police for shutting down the lab and locking the door on their way out? If the police enter your property without a warrant then sure. The potential presence of illegal activity does not grant the police special powers to skirt judicial process (unless there’s imminent danger to someone’s life or something, obviously). If the police unduly lock you out of your own property on the way out then doubly sure. Obviously most people will be relieved that their machine no longer has malware on it (save willing participants, which is a different question altogether…). What would piss me off is not being notified, and not being given the chance to remediate myself (what if the police damage other pieces of property on the way and I could avoid the damage if I’m simply made aware), etc. So let’s go back to the meth lab example: do you think it’s okay for the police to show up on your property unannounced in the middle of the night while you’re sleeping to silently shut down the meth lab without notifying you that they’re trespassing and then slap a lock on your basement door behind which you store your emergency cash, medical supplies, prescription drug refills, personal protection equipment, defensive firearms, etc. without leaving the keys or so much as a word? Edit (two more things): 1. It’s possible someone might have been running a copy of the botnet for research purposes, so presumably this copy is not engaged in illicit activity and only installed on lab hardware. I wonder if the FBI’s program considered this scenario. Maybe they only targeted IPs involved in actual DDOS attacks? That’d be cool. 2. You can question something without implying it’s wrong. One can both believe the FBI is acting in a responsible and just way while also being curious how this would play out in court. The fervor in your responses seems slightly out of place considering the comment you’re responding to is simply raising a question.

mandevil 3y ago
Oh hey, look at that, the FBI did get a warrant authorizing this action, and signed off by a United States Magistrate Judge: https://www.justice.gov/d9/2023-08/23mj4244_application_redacted.pdf https://www.justice.gov/d9/2023-08/23mj4244_application_reda... Now, are judges sometimes too easy with warrants? Certainly. But this is definitely not the same as entering your house without a warrant, because the FBI did get a warrant. The warrant involves them promising to a judge under penalty of perjury that the Qakbot Uninstaller they are using makes no further changes and collects no additional data on any of the victim computers they are running on. So, the FBI is aware of your concerns and is taking steps to alleviate them. Does that make you feel better?
- dcow 3y ago
  > Oh hey, look at that (…) Does that make you feel better? What? Why such snide? I am aware of what happened in this case. I was responding rhetorically to GGP since they were presenting an abstract scenario where the police show up and shut down the meth lab in your basement and then lock you out of your property on the way out… My goal was to highlight the cases where it is and isn’t okay for the police to do whatever they want. It’s not clear if GGP is aware that there are in fact restrictions on what the police can do on your private property in the US. And that even with a warrant there are limits on how the warrant is conducted.
  - networkchad 3y ago
    [dead]
reaperducer 3y ago
If the police enter your property without a warrant then sure. The potential presence of illegal activity does not grant the police special powers to skirt judicial process (unless there’s imminent danger to someone’s life or something, obviously). I guess you've never heard of "probable cause."
- dcow 3y ago
  I have, in fact. Probable cause is what police need to have in order for a judge to issue a warrant.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
tw04 3y ago
>If the police enter your property without a warrant then sure. The potential presence of illegal activity does not grant the police special powers to skirt judicial process (unless there’s imminent danger to someone’s life or something, obviously). So like a computer system actively participating in ID theft and DDoS attacks? >If the police unduly lock you out of your own property on the way out then doubly sure. But patching a system doesn't lock the owner out... >What would piss me off is not being notified, and not being given the chance to remediate myself (what if the police damage other pieces of property on the way and I could avoid the damage if I’m simply made aware), etc. So you're volunteering your tax dollars for the FBI to track down hundreds of thousands of people across the globe to let them know their systems were patched? I'm not. If this upsets you: don't put unpatched systems on the internet? >So let’s go back to the meth lab example: do you think it’s okay for the police to show up on your property unannounced in the middle of the night while you’re sleeping to silently shut down the meth lab without notifying you that they’re trespassing and then slap a lock on your basement door behind which you store your emergency cash, medical supplies, prescription drug refills, personal protection equipment, defensive firearms, etc. without leaving the keys or so much as a word? You're taking the analogy to a place you know doesn't exist. The police don't have a way to notify everyone that's infected, expecting them to do so before shutting down a major botnet is just silly and arguing for the sake of arguing. Nobody said they were adding a lock, I said they were locking the door on their way out: the lock is already there, you already have the key. When they patched these systems it didn't somehow make the owner unable to login.
- dcow 3y ago
  > You're taking the analogy to a place you know doesn't exist. The police don't have a way to notify everyone that's infected, expecting them to do so before shutting down a major botnet is just silly and arguing for the sake of arguing. I don’t think I am. If the FBI can remotely execute code on my machine then they could certainly drop a notification with a link to a page explaining the situation and how to remediate. Or they could use any number of emergency alert systems to make people aware of a potentially harmful botnet. Or they could email the owner of the machine instead of running their own malware. Anyway as I’ve stated I don’t really disagree with the outcome here. I just don’t think your “let the police do whatever they want to people’s property it’s for the greater good” mentality is healthy, especially not in the US where we very carefully limit the power we grant over violence because we recognize property and privacy rights. I’m not arguing for the sake of arguing. I think it’s fair to ask: “could this have been conducted in a manner where people were aware and could have provided consent or intervened if necessary and still achieved a similar result”? (Misunderstood you about the lock part, thought you were saying they were locking the premises because it was a crime scene or something and not notifying you.)
nradov 3y ago
Police can legally enter private property unannounced and shut down a meth lab if it presents an imminent safety hazard. This isn't trespassing. They will not be liable for any loss you suffer as a result as long as their actions are judged to be "reasonable". There is an extensive body of case law on this (at least regarding physical places, not computers).

by dcow 3y ago

mandevil 3y ago

Oh hey, look at that, the FBI did get a warrant authorizing this action, and signed off by a United States Magistrate Judge: https://www.justice.gov/d9/2023-08/23mj4244_application_redacted.pdf https://www.justice.gov/d9/2023-08/23mj4244_application_reda... Now, are judges sometimes too easy with warrants? Certainly. But this is definitely not the same as entering your house without a warrant, because the FBI did get a warrant. The warrant involves them promising to a judge under penalty of perjury that the Qakbot Uninstaller they are using makes no further changes and collects no additional data on any of the victim computers they are running on. So, the FBI is aware of your concerns and is taking steps to alleviate them. Does that make you feel better?

dcow 3y ago
> Oh hey, look at that (…) Does that make you feel better? What? Why such snide? I am aware of what happened in this case. I was responding rhetorically to GGP since they were presenting an abstract scenario where the police show up and shut down the meth lab in your basement and then lock you out of your property on the way out… My goal was to highlight the cases where it is and isn’t okay for the police to do whatever they want. It’s not clear if GGP is aware that there are in fact restrictions on what the police can do on your private property in the US. And that even with a warrant there are limits on how the warrant is conducted.
- networkchad 3y ago
  [dead]

reaperducer 3y ago

If the police enter your property without a warrant then sure. The potential presence of illegal activity does not grant the police special powers to skirt judicial process (unless there’s imminent danger to someone’s life or something, obviously). I guess you've never heard of "probable cause."

dcow 3y ago
I have, in fact. Probable cause is what police need to have in order for a judge to issue a warrant.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

tw04 3y ago

>If the police enter your property without a warrant then sure. The potential presence of illegal activity does not grant the police special powers to skirt judicial process (unless there’s imminent danger to someone’s life or something, obviously). So like a computer system actively participating in ID theft and DDoS attacks? >If the police unduly lock you out of your own property on the way out then doubly sure. But patching a system doesn't lock the owner out... >What would piss me off is not being notified, and not being given the chance to remediate myself (what if the police damage other pieces of property on the way and I could avoid the damage if I’m simply made aware), etc. So you're volunteering your tax dollars for the FBI to track down hundreds of thousands of people across the globe to let them know their systems were patched? I'm not. If this upsets you: don't put unpatched systems on the internet? >So let’s go back to the meth lab example: do you think it’s okay for the police to show up on your property unannounced in the middle of the night while you’re sleeping to silently shut down the meth lab without notifying you that they’re trespassing and then slap a lock on your basement door behind which you store your emergency cash, medical supplies, prescription drug refills, personal protection equipment, defensive firearms, etc. without leaving the keys or so much as a word? You're taking the analogy to a place you know doesn't exist. The police don't have a way to notify everyone that's infected, expecting them to do so before shutting down a major botnet is just silly and arguing for the sake of arguing. Nobody said they were adding a lock, I said they were locking the door on their way out: the lock is already there, you already have the key. When they patched these systems it didn't somehow make the owner unable to login.

dcow 3y ago
> You're taking the analogy to a place you know doesn't exist. The police don't have a way to notify everyone that's infected, expecting them to do so before shutting down a major botnet is just silly and arguing for the sake of arguing. I don’t think I am. If the FBI can remotely execute code on my machine then they could certainly drop a notification with a link to a page explaining the situation and how to remediate. Or they could use any number of emergency alert systems to make people aware of a potentially harmful botnet. Or they could email the owner of the machine instead of running their own malware. Anyway as I’ve stated I don’t really disagree with the outcome here. I just don’t think your “let the police do whatever they want to people’s property it’s for the greater good” mentality is healthy, especially not in the US where we very carefully limit the power we grant over violence because we recognize property and privacy rights. I’m not arguing for the sake of arguing. I think it’s fair to ask: “could this have been conducted in a manner where people were aware and could have provided consent or intervened if necessary and still achieved a similar result”? (Misunderstood you about the lock part, thought you were saying they were locking the premises because it was a crime scene or something and not notifying you.)

nradov 3y ago

Police can legally enter private property unannounced and shut down a meth lab if it presents an imminent safety hazard. This isn't trespassing. They will not be liable for any loss you suffer as a result as long as their actions are judged to be "reasonable". There is an extensive body of case law on this (at least regarding physical places, not computers).