Federal Agents Seek to Loosen Rules on Hacking Computers

[Jesus Malverde]

Source: Bloomberg

A U.S. proposal to expand the U.S. Justice Department’s ability to hack into computers during criminal investigations is furthering tension in the debate over how to balance privacy rights with the need to keep the country safe.

A committee of judges that sets national policy governing criminal investigations will try to sort through it all. It’s weighing a proposal made public yesterday that would give federal agents greater leeway to secretly access suspected criminals’ computers in bunches, not simply one at a time.

The underlying goal is to take rules written for searching property and modernize them for the Internet age. The proposal arrives at a precipitous time for a government still managing backlash to electronic spying by the National Security Agency that was exposed last year by contractor Edward Snowden.

“What I think we’re looking for as a society is a way to investigate crime while limiting the exposure of information that should be kept private,” said Stephen Saltzburg, a law professor at George Washington University.

Read more: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-05-09/federal-agents-seek-to-loosen-rules-on-hacking-computers.html

[hobbit709]

1. Why should the government be allowed to do that which is illegal for a citizen to do?

[Demeter]

2. It shouldn't IMO

If they need a computer, get a warrant.

[reACTIONary]

16. Basic law enforcement...

... generally requires doing things that are illegal for a citizen to do. The police drive raster than the speed limit in order to pull speeders over.

I'm not saying it is warranted in this case, but as a general principle law enforcement requires being able to exceed the limits that are being enforced.

[hobbit709]

17. Sorry, that doesn't wash

Spying and getting access to your computer without probable cause and a warrant is out in my book.

Chasing a speeder is completely different.

[reACTIONary]

20. You are correct, chassing a speeder...

...is completely different from spying. But the question that was asked, "Why should the government be allowed to do that which is illegal for a citizen to do?" is implying a principle that would limit the government to an extent that is unreasonable and impractical for law enforcement.

It also happens to be a principle that vulgar libertarians and anarchists use to justify a wide range of harmful ideological positions and policies - as such I feel it should be corrected as soon as it is brought up. It just isn't a legitimate principle and it should not be given currency.

In the case of spying, spying is spying whether it is done with or without a warrant. The warrant is a reasonable, even necessary, protection against misuse of power, but the fact remains that the investigator, armed with a warrant, is still engaged in an activity that is illegal for a citizen to conduct.

[JDPriestly]

3. If the information on the computer were located in a file cabinet in a locked building, would

the government have the ability to "hack" or sneak into the building and review the files in secret?

No way. Remember Watergate.

Get a warrant. That's what the Constitution requires. The computer is in a building, a locked building. That indicates that the party owning the computer has an expectation of privacy as to what is in the computer.

Might as well argue that since the paper on which business records used to be written and the file cabinet in which the papers are located are made by companies and purchased by the person whose records are to be surreptitiously reviewed -- oh, and since the company hires a company to clean the building including the file rooms -- the files are fair game. They are not.

What is with the Obama administration that it can't read the Constitution. This is outrageous. They can get warrants so easily. What an absurdity.

[gvstn]

5. It started with the Sneak and Peek warrants

Allowing cops to break in to a place, build their case and then go back with a real warrant. Slippery slope indeed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sneak_and_peek_warrant

[okaawhatever]

9. This is about warranted searches. Why do people spend so much time replying to an article they

haven't read?
It's about geographical boundries with computer warrants.

Child pornographers and other criminals are increasingly using technology to shield their identities, according to the department. Such technology includes proxy servers that mask the true Internet addresses of a criminal’s computer, or the use of hundreds or thousands of compromised computers known as a botnet.

“This proposal ensures that courts can be asked to review warrant applications in situations where it is currently unclear what judge has that authority,” a Justice Department spokesman, Peter Carr, said in an e-mailed statement. “The proposal makes explicit that it does not change the traditional rules governing probable cause and notice.”

“The proposed amendment would enable investigators to conduct a search and seize electronically stored information by remotely installing software on a large number of affected victim computers pursuant to one warrant issued by a single judge,” according to an analysis by the committee. “The current rule, in contrast, requires obtaining multiple warrants to do so, in each of the many districts in which an affected computer may be located.”

Federal agents now can obtain warrants allowing them to send malicious software over the Internet to computers suspected of being used in crimes. However, the law limits those remote searches to the district where the judge who issued the warrant is located, when the actual locations of computers used in crimes may not be known.

Botnet computers could be spread across many or all of the nation’s 94 judicial districts. Going after them requires judges in each different district to issue warrants, a time consuming process that creates delays and wastes investigative resources, according to the Justice Department.

[TriplD]

13. Creating a warrant for a group of people that wont be based on probable casue

...is creating another unconstitutional law for the Roberts court to certify. Probable cause is determined based off of the evidence against individuals. Thus individual warrants. Issuing a warrant for an entire group of people won't be based off of probable cause. If they are to evaluate each individual in the group for probable cause then there's no reason they can't get individual warrants.

These aren't even criminals, but "victims" computers. Shouldn't we be concerned about the government further victimizing them because they don't have probable cause to violate their personal space?

[okaawhatever]

14. I don't think you understood the article at all. The warrants aren't for the victims computers and

with cybercrime you don't know the identity of the individual doing it. If you waited for that we'd never catch anyone. That doesn't mean a crime hasn't been committed.

[reACTIONary]

21. Not "victim's computers"...

The article does not say "victim's computers", it says "affected victim computers". It is referring to a large number of computers that have been compromised and turned into a "botnet", which is then used for illegal purposes, such as a massive distributed denial of service attack. A botnet based DDoS attack is often used for purposes of extortion. It can also be used as storage for a peer-to-peer network distributing child pornography. And it can be used as a platform for other illegal activities.

The "victim computers" are often poorly maintained computers that are not being monitored by their owners and have been compromised and partially taken over by a criminal organization or a state-sponsored national security threat. These compromised computers constitute a public health and safety threat, something like abandoned buildings or open construction sites. Taking some sort of remediative legal action to render them harmless seems reasonable to me.

[JDPriestly]

15. Sorry.

[ballyhoo]

4. It don't take a mental giant to

know where all this is going. On its current path can you image what the US will look like in a matter of just ten years?

[firesalesman]

6. "...in bunches, not simply one at a time."

Batch collection. The purpose of the 4th Amendment provisions on illegal search and seizure was to prevent just this. The British used to issue what they called a "General Warrant" that allowed them to search, e.g., for guns, anywhere, without individual probable cause. Now the US is bringing this b.s. back, not just for the NSA, but also for the FBI.

[okaawhatever]

10. Not the same thing at all. It is basically a way to allow the feds to get fewer warrants when the

location of a criminal's computer is unknown. Due to identity masking programs, the feds may not know where the physical computer is. There are 94 judicial districts so if the feds don't know where a computer is but it's a serious case they have to get 94 warrants. It doesn't entitle them to any more information.

[firesalesman]

18. From the article:

The rule would lift the geographical restriction on warrants for computer investigations, permit agents to remotely access computers when locations have been “concealed through technological means,” and allow a single warrant for searches of certain computers located in five or more judicial districts.

“The proposed amendment would enable investigators to conduct a search and seize electronically stored information by remotely installing software on a large number of affected victim computers pursuant to one warrant issued by a single judge,” according to an analysis by the committee. “The current rule, in contrast, requires obtaining multiple warrants to do so, in each of the many districts in which an affected computer may be located.”

[okaawhatever]

19. Yes, that is what i said. The first paragraph says "allow a single warrant for searches" and the

second paragraph says "The current rule, in contrast, requires obtaining multiple warrants to do so, in each of the many districts in which an affected computer may be located."

[hughee99]

7. It would make things so much easier if the various law enforcement agencies didn't

have all that bill of rights horseshit to deal with.

[okaawhatever]

11. The law has zero to do with the bill of rights and everything to do with jurisdiction. You didn't

bother to read the article, but if you had you'd realize that when the feds are trying to stop cyber crime and they don't know where the criminal's computer is physically located (due to computer masking) they have to get 94 warrants if it's anywhere in the US. The new rules wouldn't allow them to use one warrant for all 94 jurisdictions, but one warrant for five jurisdictions. It doesn't change the ability to get the info or the person's rights, only the paperwork necessary to get it.

[hughee99]

22. It sounds to me like they just made it considerably easier to find a sympathetic judge

in one district that will give you a warrant good for a few other districts where you couldn't find one.

Yeah, I read the article.

[Ash_F]

8. By Federal agents, or for everyone?

[jtuck004]

12. Team Stasi...n/t

[OnyxCollie]

23. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!