4 ms·

>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 jud

by 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.)
- tw04 3y ago
  >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. You're making a ton of leaps of faith that a user is going to both read and follow the instructions. >Or they could use any number of emergency alert systems to make people aware of a potentially harmful botnet. So... you want the FBI to reach out to all of the world's governments and have them issue an "emergency alert" to get people to patch their computers? And you think that's a reasonable stance to take? >Or they could email the owner of the machine instead of running their own malware. And they're getting these email addresses how? >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. And I think you're arguing for the sake of arguing. Literally nobody said "let the police do whatever they want with people's property". The machines in question were ACTIVELY PARTICIPATING IN ILLEGAL ACTIVITIES. This isn't some philosophical debate.
  - dcow 3y ago
    I’m literally telling you I’m arguing in good faith because this intrigues me. Some day you’ll cool off and have a more level head about you. Then we can continue the conversation.

by tw04 3y ago

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.)

tw04 3y ago
>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. You're making a ton of leaps of faith that a user is going to both read and follow the instructions. >Or they could use any number of emergency alert systems to make people aware of a potentially harmful botnet. So... you want the FBI to reach out to all of the world's governments and have them issue an "emergency alert" to get people to patch their computers? And you think that's a reasonable stance to take? >Or they could email the owner of the machine instead of running their own malware. And they're getting these email addresses how? >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. And I think you're arguing for the sake of arguing. Literally nobody said "let the police do whatever they want with people's property". The machines in question were ACTIVELY PARTICIPATING IN ILLEGAL ACTIVITIES. This isn't some philosophical debate.
- dcow 3y ago
  I’m literally telling you I’m arguing in good faith because this intrigues me. Some day you’ll cool off and have a more level head about you. Then we can continue the conversation.