Precisely what the Investigatory Powers act in the UK has done. It's all very sordid: "We've been doing something illegal in secret? Well, let's just make it legal and pretend it's new." Ugly stuff, and risky for our collective future, but it's where we in the west are now as a society, and we weill have to make the best of it.
The thing is, technology alone will not be enough as a protection. We need a sane legal framework. They have a virtually unlimited budget (our taxes) that they can use against us and they will always find new ways to carry out their mass surveillance.
If we allow our governments to take our money to make us puppets, then we're pretty much f#cked until the next big revolution (in whatever form that will have to be).
Yes. My belief is that the balance of power has already slipped too far against us and that actively attempting to change the situation is no longer possible without tearing down the bulk of modern society at the same time. I may be viewing things too negatively, but on balance I think that I am not.
"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.
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.
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 :).
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
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.
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.
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.
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".
I'm no lawyer but this does not say the FBI can hack anyone anywhere in the world. It explicit says a judge may authorize the search warrant if, among other things (mostly related to where the target is within the US):
(B) the premises—no matter who owns them—of a United States diplomatic or consular mission in a foreign state, including any appurtenant building, part of a building, or land used for the mission's purposes; or
(C) a residence and any appurtenant land owned or leased by the United States and used by United States personnel assigned to a United States diplomatic or consular mission in a foreign state.
So it says clearly "owned, leased, used by... US diplomatic or consular mission in a foreign state". Not that any laws have prevented the FBI/NSA from doing any of this already.
Apparently, citizens of other countries should not be worried (with this particular law). Could anyone with more knowledge in this area double check this?
The EFF is not correctly describing the Rule 41 change. The amendment gives magistrate judges the same power that Article 3 judges already have.
Nor is the EFF's position reasonable - suppose you want to search a computer in an unknown jurisdiction, where the location of the computer has been obscured by Tor. What's the alternative to allowing magistrate judges to issue warrants outside of their jurisdictions? Requiring warrants for every jurisdiction that the target computer might be within?
Well I suppose that extremism is in the eye of the beholder.
The Fourth Amendment of the US Constitution:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
I would argue that the ability of the US government to have unfettered access to all of your electronic devices - even in cases where there is no indication that you have perpetrated any crime - would constitute an "unreasonable search".
To you that may be an extremist view.
To me that's a reasonable interpretation of the English language.
Please stop creating multiple random accounts to comment with, and especially to break the HN guidelines with. That's an abuse of this site, and we ban such accounts.
Every elite class has their pitbulls... Personally I prefer to be my own man, but I can understand how you'd prefer to be a pet. Ban away, I'm good. Sometimes I forget how dishonest this site is.
I just want to leave but at the same time, it's all so dishonest. People like you are doing so little to stop it. The most influential country in the world is being fucked up because people like you fucked up and won't give up your power to those who could do better. This thread is an example of what you are causing. But still it doesn't matter to you because you want a paycheck.
The difficulty here is the impossibility of perceiving others accurately through the tiny pinhole of a channel that we have online. Because we have so little information about each other—a stick drawing, if that—we fill in the rest with our imagination. To do this, we draw on our own experiences and feelings, not real data about the other person. What other information would we use? By definition, there isn't any.
The result is that we create a picture of a monster (e.g. in this case, a dishonest person fucking up the country) that has an uncanny ability to push our buttons and drive us crazy. I puzzled over my own version of this for a long time before realizing that the only being with such perfect knowledge of how to push my buttons was me.
So we're fighting demons of our own creation. That explains why we can never get away from them or ever win: they're internal creatures who have access to all our secret codes—probably better access than we do.
Knowing about this dynamic is key to not being driven crazy by it. In my case it was an occupational health hazard. I had to figure it out because the alternative was literally to have my buttons pushed and be driven crazy all day, every day. There's more than enough material on HN to fuel that, and it isn't a good way to live.
Once you realize that this process is going on inside your system and isn't a snapshot of reality, you can be more open to information that doesn't fit the picture. For example, that the person you're talking to admires your desire for honesty and has as little power to fuck up the country (or unfuck it up) as you do.
This is an extraordinarily insightful comment about online discussions. Might I suggest adding a summary of it to the HN guidelines, or perhaps even create a "philosophy of HN" page that contains these sorts of principles that ought to guide HN discussion. I'm seeing this after the political-detox-week thread, and I think it provides crucial context: political discussion online creates a "picture of a monster" that one imagines can inflict real harm to the self and to loved ones.
Thank you for so kind a reply; I'm glad I came back here and saw your comment and crusso's.
Your last sentence is a contribution of its own, and I agree with you—it's primal threat circuitry that's being activated. That's why arguments on the internet are so tiring!
I don't have much incentive to group my comments together, but I do use HN as a place to post mini-essays from time to time—to get stuff that's been on my mind off my chest. The problem is that you'd have to wade through reams of "personal attacks are are not allowed on Hacker News" and "we've detached this subthread and marked it off topic" to find them.
The relevant part of article six of the United States Constitution.
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."
Therefor, being that such a warrant system is in violation of the fourth amendment (they key here, for those naively claiming this isn't such a big deal, is the interpretation by the executive that such warrants give them the power to hack thousands of computers without description of their location, their probable cause, and the person that owns them):
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,[a] against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
The FBI and every congress-scumbag who passed this, or blocked the delays, is very close to being in violation of their oath, technically and in spirit. Now, for congress they must sign an affidavit that (5 U.S.C. 3333) will not violate their oath while in office, the punishment of which (18 U.S.C. 1918) is removal from office and confinement or a fine, but the criteria is hard to pin down legally.
(5 U.S. Code § 7311) "An individual may not accept or hold a position in the Government of the United States or the government of the District of Columbia if he—
(1) advocates the overthrow of our constitutional form of government;
(2) is a member of an organization that he knows advocates the overthrow of our constitutional form of government;
(3) participates in a strike, or asserts the right to strike, against the Government of the United States"
My question is, are the executive officers also supposed to sign that affadavit? If so, that's a starting point, but if not, what punishment is there, what legal recourse, to get rid of people in the executive or judicial who are pushing or acquiescing to blatantly unconstitutional expansions of power?
Bonus question: does the third amendment apply here as well, since they are putting their own malware in our houses?
"No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law."
"[...] the FBI can now legally hack [...], and even overseas, [...]"
I don't think that's really true. If for instance a FBI agent hacks into a computer located in Brazil and owned by a Brazilian citizen, he is still breaking Brazilian law, no matter what a USA judge says.
The point is that if it's legal in the US the agent will never be extradited. Actually its identity will never be disclosed to the Brazilian authorities. Most likely the US will deny it all.
I think this depends entirely on the Extradition Treaty with said country and what offence has been made. Just because what you are doing is legal in you own country does not mean you are necessarily protected from extradition if you break a law in another.
The US won't extradite them, but that only helps while they stay in US ground. Their vacation choices are far more limited, and visiting Black Hat or the Chaos Communication Congress is out of the question.
It's unlikely for foreign governments to identify FBI individuals. Until the recent leaks "nobody" complained about NSA hacks let alone individual NSA agents. What makes you think it will be different when FBI leads the hacks?
I wouldn't use word "legally" here, but rather "without worrying about consequences for its employees". First off, it's still illegal in the foreign countries, secondly US claims for its jurisdiction worldwide is not respected by that world itself and such actions may cause some diplomatic consequences which cannot be explained by US' local regulations.
It's amazing, on the back of technical ignorance they have combined unprecedented powers (this isn't merely a "search") with a crass reduction in warrant requirements. It's squaring the circle, do more with even less oversight.
There is a lot of ink being spilled on what is really a pretty minor technical change. The FBI can break into your house so long as it gets a search warrant. So why shouldn't it be able to hack into your computer with a warrant too? What the rule changes do is just change the jurisdictional requirements for obtaining those warrants. Those changes make sense: the FBI may have no idea what district a particular computer is in. Under those circumstances, the rules permit the FBI to get a warrant from a judge in any district.
> when FBI breaks into your house you always know it
That's not true.
In January 2014, the bureau obtained a court-issued “sneak and peek” warrant,
allowing agents to secretly search Raphel’s northwest Washington home while
she was away.
The FBI sent a special Evidence Response Team trained in surreptitious
searches. Raphel’s home had an alarm system, which the FBI team bypassed.
Yes, very disturbing and reminiscent of that Richelieu quote, "If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him."
Im just guessing but: So if they can't find or contact the owner of a building they have to wait to break in? I'm pretty sure they do the knock once break the door down thing in this case.
This enables the equivalent of getting a warrant for everyone who might have visited a mall, and breaking into thousands of houses, which doesn't meet the constitutional requirements for a warrant. Thats the problem here. They aren't getting a warrant for every computer they hack, they are getting a general warrant, which is an abuse the colonists endured under the monarchy that spurred them to create that part of the constitution in the first place!
Do you think that distinction is substantive? Do you think there's some reason to believe that FBI agents are morally superior to the DEA and Secret Service?
As I see it, the illegal and immoral activities of individiuals within acronym agencies comes down to group think, tribalism, and a removal of separation of powers which this country was founded on. If a DEA agent does it, I think that increases the odds the FBI will do it.
Well, no that's a little different. If one out of thousands of police organizations were corrupt, that would offer little evidence that the average one is.
If one out of 5 acronym agencies is corrupt, that's a 20% corruption rate.
Now of course one incident doesn't prove a whole organization is bad. But it does show the processes used by that organization have insufficient oversight to prevent it.
Moreover, it's not simply one case. Yes, the comment brought up an isolated case, but there are many more known cases, and I'm curious how many unknown cases there are....
I feel like your arguments have been willfully oversimplifying and I question what your dog in this fight is.
I understand your point, but the corrupt Silk Road agents (at least the ones that are known at this time) were actually from the DEA and Secret Service.[1] Corrupt FBI agents, while they exist and can cause incredible damage, are reasonably rare. For instance John Connolly[2], Robert Hanssen[3], Paul Rico[4]
What evidence do you have that corrupt FBI agents are rare? Just because OUTSIDERS have only publicly caught a few does not suggest those are the only ones.
There is also more to the problem than corrupt individuals. Sometimes incorrect attitudes (racism, mistrust of whistleblowers, unjust patriotism) can result in organizations doing awful and immoral things even if single members are not publicly charged with a crime.
Does anyone know whether the Supreme Court has provided any clarification about whether the amended rules purport to allow American officials to search computers in foreign countries? Or whether the Justice Department has indicated how it will interpret the new rules?
I asked this question in a thread here when the rules were proposed earlier this year, but received no replies because the topic was deleted as a duplicate. In the months since then, I've seen plenty of speculation in reporting on the issue, but nothing close to an answer to the question—so let me repeat it:
Do these new rules expand the claimed foreign jurisdiction of US federal courts, or not?
The amended rules provide new authorities for issuing warrants when "the district where the media or information is located has been concealed through technological means". In other words, the new rules seem to expand the authority of federal courts when there is a question of which district court has jurisdiction. But what do these new rules mean for cases in which the location of the information is clearly outside of the jurisdiction of any US federal district court, or when there is a question of whether it might be?
Apparently the rules were previously amended to remove the definition of "district court" [0], making this question still more subtle. Note also that the rules explicitly expand the jurisdiction of US federal courts to issue warrants "inside or outside" the geography of their districts in cases of terrorism, but not explicitly otherwise. I believe that rule has been interpreted to mean that federal courts may issue warrants worldwide, without regard to sovereign geography, in terrorist cases.
>Does anyone know whether the Supreme Court has provided any clarification about whether the amended rules purport to allow American officials to search computers in foreign countries? Or whether the Justice Department has indicated how it will interpret the new rules?
Microsoft's attempt to quash a warrant forcing it to turn over emails stored in Ireland seems relevant. The last I can find the Second Circuit ruled in Microsoft's favor.
This[0] article talks about the case it's effect on Rule 41.
> whether the amended rules purport to allow American officials to search computers in foreign countries?
How relevant is this question really, if we now know that they've been doing all this already for quite some time? What does it say about their need for legal rules?
As long as there's a financial incentive tied to telling people what they want to hear, companies will bend the truth to the biases of their target audience. I don't think there is a fix for this. Our only hope is to design our institutions to withstand a starkly polarized populace.
Or, stop throwing gas on the fire to entertain the mob mentality and sell more ads. A vote by 4 individuals killed(most) unbiased reporting in the US 30 years ago.
because: Edward Snowden, who revealed illegal government activity. The government reacted by instead of admitting it was wrong, turning him into a criminal. Worse, all kinds of pseudo-news (TV, radio, internet, even NPR!) bought into this dialog that he's "Helping Russia." The fact is that he's in Russia because the US canceled his passport when he was on his way to South America.
Just because people are scared and emotional doesn't mean they're wrong (e.g. Germany in the 1930s). If you think the conclusions people are coming to are invalid, try to question in a respectful way instead of labeling.
While this is sub-optimal, I would suggest that everyone should assume this is where most countries will eventually land. I would not waste too much energy debating this, in my humble opinion.
Even if we don't all end up in dystopian bubbles that have some legal tie back to the U.S., the focus should be around proper architecture, defense in depth, plausible deniability by design, etc. If you are not required to keep logs, then don't. If you are, encrypt them with half of a key. You get half of the key and your customers get half of the key. Yes, logs per tenant. This is getting _somewhat_ easier to do these days. Design decentralized or partially centralized systems that permit delegation of control over encryption of data so that lawful intercept is less useful and so that hacking a thing is less effective both technically and legally. I.e. encrypted data-stores that you and your customers can partake in the legal custody of the data. Once you receive the NSL, you won't be able to talk about it and warrant canaries may not always be feasible either, so design your systems with that in mind.
If you code products that folks will use to protect their families freedom and/or way of life, then please consider the attack vectors and generalize your way out of them and/or create really easy to read docs that people can take away action items from and implement.
I only mention this because HN is full of intelligent creative thinkers, engineers, architects and highly experienced attorneys. Hopefully a few doc/tech writers too!
I absolutely would not give up on fighting the political angle of this. Public trust in government to be any more honest or effective than any other clump of people (corporation) is going down across the board, the time for a new political party is coming. We technically-aware people are a significant voting block.
Also, though I agree adding technical security is a MUST, what happens when the FBI hacks your computer directly to record the logs itself? Or backdoors your OS? Or even makes a law making TOR or the fundamental technologies of self protection into "hacker tools that subvert government's rightful knowledge?"
Absolutely, I am not suggesting a defeatist posture. Rather, just design around the problem because that is what folks here can do. Those are the only actionable items I envision folks at HN contributing to. That said, I could incorrectly assuming that most here are technical in nature.
In my experience there just aren't enough people that care to actually do anything more than debate issues. Debate is a great way to think through problems and try to get the facts. Until these facts cost businesses a lot of money or put excessive burden on the courts, I just don't see this changing is all I am saying. If anything, this helps feed the self feeding system, so there just isn't any incentive for those in power to change deviate from business as usual.
In a morbid sense, I am actually curious to see how this plays out. They (the feds) may be opening a can of worms that is bigger than they imagine, as this may have other potentially complex legal ramifications that folks just didn't really think through.
I once had this idea that all these revelations done with the documents given by Snowden could be done on purpose by the government itself in order to make what was previously secretly done common knowledge and thus easier to use later on. There would be a period of time of outrage and maybe some regulation that wasn't there before, but in the end they could do more or less the same thing publicly and everybody would be like "yeah sure, that is what it is like". Not that i believe this is really what happened but it certainly feels like this is where it is going to.
It does look like that because the result seems to end up being the same.
But the theory does not make enough sense in that such a government would want to disclose their mass surveillance program only when absolutely no resistance is possible anymore, which is currently not the case yet.
like i have said i do not believe this is what happened. But like you said it is noteworthy that the result appears to be similar. However, i also think it can be beneficial to disclose such programs in order to make use of the results of such programs in courts easier for example. It might also be easier to finance such programs when they are publicly known.
My doubt is how do they hack the computers and how do they know the ip of the target? Maybe they have a secret list of vulnerabilities of linux and windows?
Almost everyone who analyzes the change to rule 41 just looks at the change to Rule 41(b). There is also a change to Rule 41(f)(1)(C), which concerns serving a warrant. The pre-change version is:
> The officer executing the warrant must give a copy of the warrant and a receipt for the property taken to the person from whom, or from whose premises, the property was taken or leave a copy of the warrant and receipt at the place where the officer took the property.
The post-change version appends another sentence to that:
> For a warrant to use remote access to search electronic storage media and seize or copy electronically stored information, the officer must make reasonable efforts to serve a copy of the warrant on the person whose property was searched or whose information was seized or copied. Service may be accomplished by any means, including electronic means, reasonably calculated to reach that person.
Will let's ignore this definition of "legal" this rule only pertains if the location of the server has been deliverability hidden, or if computers in more than five districts have been affected.
This is not a blanket "hack anyone, anywhere"
Growing up under an authoritian government I learned the subtle difference between rule of law, where everyone has to obey the laws we enact in our society, and rule by law, whereby the powers that be enact laws that allow them to do whatever they want. It seems that in the US the distinction is quickly eroding, if it ever existed in the first place. And of course the establishment will call it rule of law. The law is convenient in this case. If it were not they'd just ignore it. The numerous leaks that came out within the past decade demonstrate this.
101 comments
[ 3.1 ms ] story [ 197 ms ] threadThe thing is, technology alone will not be enough as a protection. We need a sane legal framework. They have a virtually unlimited budget (our taxes) that they can use against us and they will always find new ways to carry out their mass surveillance.
If we allow our governments to take our money to make us puppets, then we're pretty much f#cked until the next big revolution (in whatever form that will have to be).
Instead of having to deal with it we have to face it an confront, fight and destroy authoritarian laws as much as we can.
It seems rather nefarious, but there is Judicial oversight, meaning they need permission in each instance, which is at least one good thing.
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 :).
I'm not saying it's impossible, it would just be the first I'm hearing of it.
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
Just any international bank just about anywhere in the world with any US citizens as customers can tell you all about it.
Judicial review is likely now or soon to be a button in their hacking tools.
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".
Where is this requirement located?
(B) the premises—no matter who owns them—of a United States diplomatic or consular mission in a foreign state, including any appurtenant building, part of a building, or land used for the mission's purposes; or
(C) a residence and any appurtenant land owned or leased by the United States and used by United States personnel assigned to a United States diplomatic or consular mission in a foreign state.
So it says clearly "owned, leased, used by... US diplomatic or consular mission in a foreign state". Not that any laws have prevented the FBI/NSA from doing any of this already.
Apparently, citizens of other countries should not be worried (with this particular law). Could anyone with more knowledge in this area double check this?
EDIT: For the downvoters, its like trusting peta for a neutral stance on animal welfare on a farm.
Nor is the EFF's position reasonable - suppose you want to search a computer in an unknown jurisdiction, where the location of the computer has been obscured by Tor. What's the alternative to allowing magistrate judges to issue warrants outside of their jurisdictions? Requiring warrants for every jurisdiction that the target computer might be within?
From: https://motherboard.vice.com/read/us-judges-can-now-sign-glo...
Astroturf much?
Maybe I'm just finally fed up with all this garbage extremist crap being posted and upvoted everywhere. It's getting really really really old.
The Fourth Amendment of the US Constitution:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
I would argue that the ability of the US government to have unfettered access to all of your electronic devices - even in cases where there is no indication that you have perpetrated any crime - would constitute an "unreasonable search".
To you that may be an extremist view.
To me that's a reasonable interpretation of the English language.
https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&prefix&page=0&dateRange=...
The result is that we create a picture of a monster (e.g. in this case, a dishonest person fucking up the country) that has an uncanny ability to push our buttons and drive us crazy. I puzzled over my own version of this for a long time before realizing that the only being with such perfect knowledge of how to push my buttons was me.
So we're fighting demons of our own creation. That explains why we can never get away from them or ever win: they're internal creatures who have access to all our secret codes—probably better access than we do.
Knowing about this dynamic is key to not being driven crazy by it. In my case it was an occupational health hazard. I had to figure it out because the alternative was literally to have my buttons pushed and be driven crazy all day, every day. There's more than enough material on HN to fuel that, and it isn't a good way to live.
Once you realize that this process is going on inside your system and isn't a snapshot of reality, you can be more open to information that doesn't fit the picture. For example, that the person you're talking to admires your desire for honesty and has as little power to fuck up the country (or unfuck it up) as you do.
Your last sentence is a contribution of its own, and I agree with you—it's primal threat circuitry that's being activated. That's why arguments on the internet are so tiring!
I don't have much incentive to group my comments together, but I do use HN as a place to post mini-essays from time to time—to get stuff that's been on my mind off my chest. The problem is that you'd have to wade through reams of "personal attacks are are not allowed on Hacker News" and "we've detached this subthread and marked it off topic" to find them.
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."
Therefor, being that such a warrant system is in violation of the fourth amendment (they key here, for those naively claiming this isn't such a big deal, is the interpretation by the executive that such warrants give them the power to hack thousands of computers without description of their location, their probable cause, and the person that owns them):
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,[a] against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
The FBI and every congress-scumbag who passed this, or blocked the delays, is very close to being in violation of their oath, technically and in spirit. Now, for congress they must sign an affidavit that (5 U.S.C. 3333) will not violate their oath while in office, the punishment of which (18 U.S.C. 1918) is removal from office and confinement or a fine, but the criteria is hard to pin down legally.
(5 U.S. Code § 7311) "An individual may not accept or hold a position in the Government of the United States or the government of the District of Columbia if he— (1) advocates the overthrow of our constitutional form of government; (2) is a member of an organization that he knows advocates the overthrow of our constitutional form of government; (3) participates in a strike, or asserts the right to strike, against the Government of the United States"
My question is, are the executive officers also supposed to sign that affadavit? If so, that's a starting point, but if not, what punishment is there, what legal recourse, to get rid of people in the executive or judicial who are pushing or acquiescing to blatantly unconstitutional expansions of power?
Bonus question: does the third amendment apply here as well, since they are putting their own malware in our houses?
"No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law."
-> https://motherboard.vice.com/read/us-judges-can-now-sign-glo...
I don't think that's really true. If for instance a FBI agent hacks into a computer located in Brazil and owned by a Brazilian citizen, he is still breaking Brazilian law, no matter what a USA judge says.
The FBI now even hacks thousands of computers in hundreds of other countries. Still make sense?
EDIT - Here you go:
"The FBI ended up hacking some 8,700 computers in 120 countries."
From: https://motherboard.vice.com/read/us-judges-can-now-sign-glo...
The huge difference is that when FBI breaks into your house you always know it.
As I see it, the illegal and immoral activities of individiuals within acronym agencies comes down to group think, tribalism, and a removal of separation of powers which this country was founded on. If a DEA agent does it, I think that increases the odds the FBI will do it.
So, yes, the distinction is substantive.
If one out of 5 acronym agencies is corrupt, that's a 20% corruption rate.
Now of course one incident doesn't prove a whole organization is bad. But it does show the processes used by that organization have insufficient oversight to prevent it.
Moreover, it's not simply one case. Yes, the comment brought up an isolated case, but there are many more known cases, and I'm curious how many unknown cases there are....
I feel like your arguments have been willfully oversimplifying and I question what your dog in this fight is.
[1] https://www.wired.com/2016/11/ross-ulbrichts-lawyers-point-a...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Connolly_(FBI)
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Hanssen
[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H._Paul_Rico
There is also more to the problem than corrupt individuals. Sometimes incorrect attitudes (racism, mistrust of whistleblowers, unjust patriotism) can result in organizations doing awful and immoral things even if single members are not publicly charged with a crime.
Or when an organization believes it knows better than the constitution (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_R._Clapper#False_testimo...)
It seems even the president isn't fully aware of whats going on.
I asked this question in a thread here when the rules were proposed earlier this year, but received no replies because the topic was deleted as a duplicate. In the months since then, I've seen plenty of speculation in reporting on the issue, but nothing close to an answer to the question—so let me repeat it:
Do these new rules expand the claimed foreign jurisdiction of US federal courts, or not?
The amended rules provide new authorities for issuing warrants when "the district where the media or information is located has been concealed through technological means". In other words, the new rules seem to expand the authority of federal courts when there is a question of which district court has jurisdiction. But what do these new rules mean for cases in which the location of the information is clearly outside of the jurisdiction of any US federal district court, or when there is a question of whether it might be?
Apparently the rules were previously amended to remove the definition of "district court" [0], making this question still more subtle. Note also that the rules explicitly expand the jurisdiction of US federal courts to issue warrants "inside or outside" the geography of their districts in cases of terrorism, but not explicitly otherwise. I believe that rule has been interpreted to mean that federal courts may issue warrants worldwide, without regard to sovereign geography, in terrorist cases.
0. See the note pertaining to Rule 1(b) of the 2002 amendment, at https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/rule_1
Microsoft's attempt to quash a warrant forcing it to turn over emails stored in Ireland seems relevant. The last I can find the Second Circuit ruled in Microsoft's favor.
This[0] article talks about the case it's effect on Rule 41.
[0]http://www.forbes.com/sites/insider/2016/08/02/the-microsoft...
How relevant is this question really, if we now know that they've been doing all this already for quite some time? What does it say about their need for legal rules?
Information distribution on the web is broken. Where's the startup to fix that?
Right, because companies whose founders' sole goal is to get a big payout and move on is going to fix journalism/news/information distribution.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine
Well, the answer is research and discussion.
Why do people here seem so worried that the government is lying to them about their powers and can't be trusted?
because: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_R._Clapper#False_testimo...
because: Edward Snowden, who revealed illegal government activity. The government reacted by instead of admitting it was wrong, turning him into a criminal. Worse, all kinds of pseudo-news (TV, radio, internet, even NPR!) bought into this dialog that he's "Helping Russia." The fact is that he's in Russia because the US canceled his passport when he was on his way to South America.
Just because people are scared and emotional doesn't mean they're wrong (e.g. Germany in the 1930s). If you think the conclusions people are coming to are invalid, try to question in a respectful way instead of labeling.
Even if we don't all end up in dystopian bubbles that have some legal tie back to the U.S., the focus should be around proper architecture, defense in depth, plausible deniability by design, etc. If you are not required to keep logs, then don't. If you are, encrypt them with half of a key. You get half of the key and your customers get half of the key. Yes, logs per tenant. This is getting _somewhat_ easier to do these days. Design decentralized or partially centralized systems that permit delegation of control over encryption of data so that lawful intercept is less useful and so that hacking a thing is less effective both technically and legally. I.e. encrypted data-stores that you and your customers can partake in the legal custody of the data. Once you receive the NSL, you won't be able to talk about it and warrant canaries may not always be feasible either, so design your systems with that in mind.
If you code products that folks will use to protect their families freedom and/or way of life, then please consider the attack vectors and generalize your way out of them and/or create really easy to read docs that people can take away action items from and implement.
I only mention this because HN is full of intelligent creative thinkers, engineers, architects and highly experienced attorneys. Hopefully a few doc/tech writers too!
...now back to my really bad coffee.
Also, though I agree adding technical security is a MUST, what happens when the FBI hacks your computer directly to record the logs itself? Or backdoors your OS? Or even makes a law making TOR or the fundamental technologies of self protection into "hacker tools that subvert government's rightful knowledge?"
In my experience there just aren't enough people that care to actually do anything more than debate issues. Debate is a great way to think through problems and try to get the facts. Until these facts cost businesses a lot of money or put excessive burden on the courts, I just don't see this changing is all I am saying. If anything, this helps feed the self feeding system, so there just isn't any incentive for those in power to change deviate from business as usual.
In a morbid sense, I am actually curious to see how this plays out. They (the feds) may be opening a can of worms that is bigger than they imagine, as this may have other potentially complex legal ramifications that folks just didn't really think through.
But the theory does not make enough sense in that such a government would want to disclose their mass surveillance program only when absolutely no resistance is possible anymore, which is currently not the case yet.
> The officer executing the warrant must give a copy of the warrant and a receipt for the property taken to the person from whom, or from whose premises, the property was taken or leave a copy of the warrant and receipt at the place where the officer took the property.
The post-change version appends another sentence to that:
> For a warrant to use remote access to search electronic storage media and seize or copy electronically stored information, the officer must make reasonable efforts to serve a copy of the warrant on the person whose property was searched or whose information was seized or copied. Service may be accomplished by any means, including electronic means, reasonably calculated to reach that person.