Gun homicides are down dramatically[0], yet we hear a constant drum beat from the media about terrorists and mass shooters. Guns absolutely threaten the power structure they will be coming for them soon enough.
No they don't, at least not in the hands of white people and rightwing fringe groups. We can see this by contrasting the treatment of the Malheur occupiers versus the non-armed Standing Rock occupiers.
The Malheur occupiers carried out an armed takeover of a Federal building in the middle of nowhere. No economic threat, no political threat, so they were basically surrounded and left alone. The Standing Rock occupiers are not armed and are standing in the way of money, so they get the water cannon and worse treatment.
If there was a time for terrorism to be used as a pretext, it was much closer to 9/11. Similarly for mass shootings. Most of the public accept them as routine and children are drilled about the possibility at school. That isn't enough to make even minor gun restrictions happen. Obviously nothing is going to happen under a Republican government, especially a Trump presidency. "Soon enough" isn't this decade.
(The only thing which could provoke serious disarmament efforts would be an armed Black Lives Matter movement..)
As you mention though, Malheur vs Standing Rock is an apples to oranges comparison. The Bundy's took over a very remote ranger station that no one honestly cared about. The Standing Rock occupiers were actually in the way of something.
Other way round: guns are the distraction. You can't use them in any kind of regular politics. None of America's great moments of protest or social progress have been enabled by protestors with guns. Even mortally important ones like the civil rights movement. For obvious reasons: once you start shooting there's no easy way to stop until one side is dead.
You'll be allowed to keep them and feel good about it as a consolation prize. But when you're unemployed and lack health insurance, what good will that do you? Republicans will use gun ownership as the wedge issue while they loot the government.
Not only that, but the state has exclusive access to heavy weaponry. While some firearms are legal, many are not because they're considered too powerful — unless you happen to be the military, of course. Or the police...
Guns aren't quite as effective as they were in the times of the founding fathers, now that the government has RPGs and tanks and fighter jets, etc.
Given the US used to classify encryption export as a munition (and books where how stuff actually got out see the PGP hoops) that's not as unlikely as it sounds sadly.
By that do you mean that a bunch of idiots on the coasts will think it's a big issue and and a bunch of people who grew up with them will think they're crazy for caring?
It's too bad. I was thinking about a website that would just identify cams. The website would just map out cams/cameras. I don't think I would have a problem getting info on cameras. The average American worker has been treated like dirt for too long.
My only problem is thiefs might take a liking to the site, and I can't stop that.
Anyways, I don't like being photographed for buying a bolt at Home Depot. I don't see it stoping until people say--no, but it seems like people don't care, or feel helpless?
Personally, I have never liked being photographed, or tracked. I don't think it's o.k. for anyone to bring out the video camera out after a few beers anymore. In my world, those innocent days are gone. I automatically think, "where will those pictures end up?"
There's an app called Wherearetheeyes that lets users report camera locations. I don't think it's going to do much good except maybe raising awareness.
To help people avoid surveillance, you'd need a map of cameras including field of view and expected effective recognition distance. Even then, I'm guessing most public spaces would simply turn out to be no-go zones for anyone not wishing to have their picture taken.
If you are curious why people are saying this and would like some background information, here is the ACLU's report on the growing and unaccountable powers of the FBI: https://www.aclu.org/feature/unleashed-and-unaccountable
Instead of arbritary abuse of power by a despot we are doing the same only with processes and the law but the effect is the same.
Surveillance, secret courts, gag orders, harassment of activists and whisteblowers, no fly lists, militarization of the police, infiltration of dissenters and protest, and dubious relationships with terrorist sponsoring states show things are in a sinister and precarious state.
Our media and human right orgs so quick to turn the spotlight on others remain strangely reticent when it comes to self reflection. There is no frenzy and hysteria and no one is raising the bogey of totalitarianism and campaigning for sanctions.
Our media won't do its job and our instinctive rush to the moral high ground has lulled us in a sense of complacency.
But our moral highground and soft power built over generations is now toast. Every single bit of posturing about human rights by western media, NGOs and government will be met with derision and mockery. It is propaganda.
The use of surveillance both in the private and public sector is a 'gift' from our 'freedom loving' technologists. Ignore these naysayers and colloboraters, often found here. They have posed about freedom and liberty for decades only to suck up to authoritarianism given the slightest opportunity. The only thing they can do now is deny it, diminish it or wave it away making HN the single worst place to have a discussion on privacy and surveillance.
There's nothing wrong with being against this, but this seems like a huge stretch of the words "new" and "hacking" to the point of absurdity.
They are already allowed to remotely access this information based on the case that fired this off - the issue wasn't with their methodology but who issued the warrant. The entirety of what this rule changes is it defines special circumstances where it is appropriate for the judges in a district of a victim instead of the perpetrator to issue a warrant to do things that are already allowed.
> Under the proposed amendment, however, investigators could not obtain a search warrant merely because a user's location is concealed through technological means.
> The proposed amendment does not alter that rule, but instead provides an alternative means of satisfying Rule 41's venue provisions.
The rule clearly does not change anything about what is required to get a warrant, and concealment does not lower the bar for getting a warrant. The only thing that changes under this rule is it lays out scenarios where you would not be able to suppress evidence due to improper venue just because the warrant wasn't issued in the district you performed the crime from but instead where the crime actually occurred.
I'm not dismissing the concerns of all of those writing about this - just based on the comments and scenarios being laid out in them I think technically knowledgeable people are assuming the words "new" and "hacking" are being used correctly here without even looking into what has actually changed.
This also means people are completely unaware of what the government is already allowed to do apparently.
If everyone here got their way and this was magically blocked right now, absolutely nothing would change about what the FBI is allowed to do - only what evidence could be challenged if they ask judge A when they should have asked judge B (and can show they couldn't figure out that they were supposed to ask judge B (that's where the technological concealment comes in)).
Snooper's Charter US version. I wonder if their new found hacking powers will survive a court challenge, or will it only be used in parallel prosecutions so no court ever sees it. Guessing the latter.
For those who only started following these issues recently, standing arguments have been used for years to dismiss lawsuits against warrantless domestic surveillance. Basically, the court says that you can't sue a government agency for illegally wiretapping you unless you had evidence that they were actually wiretapping you. Which you obviously didn't, because such programs are classified and the wiretapper isn't going to volunteer that information. But since you can't prove that your rights are being violated, you don't get to bring a lawsuit.
That's complete and utter nonsense. The Snooper's Charter grants the UK government many new powers, and places obligations and restrictions on ISPs. It makes substantial substantive changes to the requirements for law enforcement to justify snooping and spying in the UK.
The Rule 41 change only applies to warrants seeking to access electronic documents, and makes no changes to what evidence must be presented to justify a warrant. It just changes, in two specific situations, where that evidence can be presented.
These situations are:
1. If it cannot be determined where the computer containing the documents is located, and the location has been hidden by technological means, then the warrant can be issued by a judge in any district in which the crime being investigated may have taken place. Under the old rule, the warrant had to be issued by a judge in the district where the computer was located, and so if that location could not be determined then investigators were out of luck.
2. If the crime being investigated is a violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, and the damaged computer are in five or more districts, then the warrant can be issued in any district where the crime may have occurred. Under the old rule, it had to be issued in the district where the computer was located.
This is not even remotely like the Snooper's Charter.
Which means they can now shop around for judges until they get the answer they want. Right up there with the UK in terms of severity since this means they can keep up doing what they have been doing.
>The NSA is already allowed to collect all foreign and domestic encrypted traffic and store it forever
Nope.
"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."
Sure, I know the 4th Amendment, too. What's your point? Perhaps a better question: how do you establish standing to sue over the retention of your encrypted traffic? What constitutes evidence in that situation?
You'll have a long wait, since this change is completely orthogonal to that.
The key change is to Rule 41(b), "Authority to Issue a Warrant". It contained a list of 5 circumstances under which a magistrate just can issue a warrant. A 6th is being added:
===={ begin quote
(6)
a magistrate judge with authority in any district where activities related to a crime may have occurred has authority to issue a warrant to use remote access to search electronic storage media and to seize or copy electronically stored information located within or outside that district if:
(A) the district where the media or information is located has been concealed through technological means; or
(B) in an investigation of a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(5), the media are protected computers that have been damaged without authorization and are located in five or more districts.
=====} end quote
There is also a change to 41(f)(1)(C), which concerns serving a warrant. The prior version read:
===={ begin quote
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.
=====} end quote
The update adds another sentence to that:
===={ begin quote
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.
> issue a warrant to use remote access to search electronic storage media and to seize or copy electronically stored information located within or outside that district if ... the district where the media or information is located has been concealed through technological means
Remote access to a computer and they don't know where it is? This basically means a Tor hidden service or something like that?
In a perverse way, these kind of restrictive laws starting in the US are good for the rest of the world. Let me explain.
Without doubt the concentration of computer science brilliance and investment is centred in the US, specifically in Silicon Valley. These kinds of restrictions on privacy and freedom upon those individuals will drive a kick back, investment and research into secure messaging and communication systems.
The encryption horse has already bolted, the proverbial stable door is wide open, and this could trigger the enabled and invested to bridle that horse for the good of mankind.
>> especially troubling in the hands of an administration of President-elect Trump, a Republican who has "openly said he wants the power to hack his political opponents the same way Russia does."
Who exactly are they quoting here, and is there a source? This is damning to trump if it's true, and damning to the authenticity of reuters if it's not.
Why does it take legislation by the Senate to block or delay rule changes, giving the FBI authority to remotely access computers in any jurisdiction, seems it should have required legislation to enact the changes in the first place. Unfortunately this will go unnoticed by the public until it is too late
The legislative branch has delegated extensive 'policy' and 'rule-making' (arguable legislative) powers to the executive agencies, though vague statements in legislation, and broad interpretations by the courts. The same 'deference' which has allowed HHS to re-sculpt Obamacare on-the-fly is what gives the FBI, CIA, and NSA the authority to pursue these massive surveillance programs.
As a result of the tacit support the courts and legislature have given the executive agencies in the past, the legislature is now required to affirmatively act to stop most executive actions.
There have been some proposals to require legislation to enact any large change in executive branch rules/policy/interpretations, but there is little support for such measures, as most people do not want to rule back the administrative state, they just want the state to do different things.
"We totally weren't trying to hack that vote tallying machine... it used a VPN so we weren't sure of it's location and thought it might have been a foreign system."
This is the same rule change that says if you use a VPN or TOR you can legally be hacked by the FBI, yes? I wonder if people who use work VPNs will be exempted since afaik the wording is about services that obscure your location, and most business VPNs aren't concerned with that (especially if they have split routing configured properly).
To be honest the answer seems simple. Get _EVERYONE_ on VPNs, regardless. Even if you don't really use it for much, make it connect automatically via some browser plugin and send some trash random data.
As a "data scientist" the most painful thing I have to deal with is data cleaning and data quality. Add to that the difficulty of actually getting into a (hopefully broad) array of VPN providers and tracking every person yelling into the pipe will make their (FBI/NSA) lives very very difficult, and this makes me happy on a rather visceral level.
That's actually why my group of friends all tag each others faces on Facebook as the other. Rather than not posting our faces, Facebook auto tags me as random people now (most often my wife).
> This is the same rule change that says if you use a VPN or TOR you can legally be hacked by the FBI, yes?
Emphatically no.
This rule changes absolutely nothing about what is required to get a warrant, including the specificity of it (must identify a specific computer and/or person - that doesn't change at all, so how they identify TOR, VPN, etc users is already enough and has been challenged up through the supreme court). Simply using concealment does not lower the bar or change the requirements for getting the actual warrant.
The literal only thing that changes is if you are located in District 8 and commit a crime with a victim in district 4, if the FBI can show you are using technological means to hide your location - they may handle getting the exact same warrant they are already allowed to get with the same amount of evidence in the victims district instead of having to find yours.
In the past, if you were concealing your location in a way that they filed in District 5, that evidence would have been subject to challenge due to improper venue. They are now saying that where the crime actually occurred is a valid place to get a warrant if they can also show you are using technological means to hide your location. Concealing your location isn't a crime and doesn't demonstrate that a search of a computer would uncover evidence of a crime (it's actually right there in Rule 41 (c)).
It explicitly doesn't change what methods they are allowed to use - so everything they can do after this change, they were already allowed to do.
In the Goldman Sachs case I do recall charges being brought in certain states where CFAA laws were more favorable for the prosecution, and those charges being thrown out on appeal because they were brought in the wrong jurisdiction. I don't see how this changes that.
This is a procedural change the Surpeme Court already voted in favor of. The title is clickbait from what I can tell. I'm much more concerned with recent erosion of the right to remain silent.
Hacking powers are not being expanded. A loophole that has stymied investigations had been closed.
Now what we do need is reasonable limits on the scope of allowable warrants to prevent dragnets. The more interesting question is whether the FBI should be allowed to use drive-by malware to infect all visitors of a site, and if so under which very well defined circumstances?
What TFA missed is the reason we are worried about this rule change is that it could make dragnets easier to get seemingly valid warrants for. E.g. Even if Hidden Services are not being used, investigator claims it's not 'reasonable' to get warrants for each IP accessing a site and so just infects all visitors with malware to scan the hard drive and local network for some evidence.
But that needs to be illegal for more than just the reason of not knowing what jurisdiction to get the warrant in.
One of the most important stories of the year, on HN for 6 hours, with 11 comments and 105 points. Is everyone already afraid? I always said "I told you so" would ring hollow and have no satisfaction in it, but this is what happens when everyone forgets about our foundational principles and waves injustice away with arguments such as 234dd57d2c8db's.
The constitution is the supreme law of the land, created to protect, not establish, natural rights. As such, such general warrants do not properly satisfy the constitutional requirements our country established.
Actions like this, are the result of the allowed slippage, from both sides of the isle, as prescribed to them by the shadow masters.
We have allowed our true foreign enemies to infiltrate and subvert our system, falsely focus our efforts on foreign boogeymen, all the while our domestic enemies run rampant (often backed, or blackmailed, by foreign ones).
The true, the capable, the already somewhat successful enemies of the constitution don't wear hijabs, they wear business suits and ties.
This is a turning point for America, where we either cower in fear of the coming totalitarian surveillance dystopia, or we speak up and push back. Silence now will be nothing less than acquiescence.
As Hitchens said, the American revolution is the only revolution that still stands a chance.
"I will to my dying day oppose, with all the powers and faculties God has given me, all such instruments of slavery on the one hand and villainy on the other as this Writ of Assistance is."
Well, this combined with the snoopers charter just motivated me to sign up for an EFF membership. It's not much, but it's something.
It really feels like we're marching towards a brave new world. They can pry my copy of Applied Cryptography from my cold dead hands.
That book might one day be considered as dangerous as an unregistered firearm... Sadly.
I accidentally downvoted on mobile. I'll fix later.
I own many unregistered firearms. Fortunately, that is likely to remain legal for some time.
FYI: you can click the "undown" link on the right after accidentally downvoting.
Not on the android mobile app I have, unfortunately.
I think it's quite likely that the US will end up with total surveillance of everything except guns. Guns don't threaten the power structure.
Gun homicides are down dramatically[0], yet we hear a constant drum beat from the media about terrorists and mass shooters. Guns absolutely threaten the power structure they will be coming for them soon enough.
[0]https://static.ijr.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/guns4.jpg
No they don't, at least not in the hands of white people and rightwing fringe groups. We can see this by contrasting the treatment of the Malheur occupiers versus the non-armed Standing Rock occupiers.
The Malheur occupiers carried out an armed takeover of a Federal building in the middle of nowhere. No economic threat, no political threat, so they were basically surrounded and left alone. The Standing Rock occupiers are not armed and are standing in the way of money, so they get the water cannon and worse treatment.
If there was a time for terrorism to be used as a pretext, it was much closer to 9/11. Similarly for mass shootings. Most of the public accept them as routine and children are drilled about the possibility at school. That isn't enough to make even minor gun restrictions happen. Obviously nothing is going to happen under a Republican government, especially a Trump presidency. "Soon enough" isn't this decade.
(The only thing which could provoke serious disarmament efforts would be an armed Black Lives Matter movement..)
As you mention though, Malheur vs Standing Rock is an apples to oranges comparison. The Bundy's took over a very remote ranger station that no one honestly cared about. The Standing Rock occupiers were actually in the way of something.
Yep, I agree with that. The 2nd is the fallback for if/when the 1st and 4th (and the rest of the Bill of Rights) fail.
I hope more Republicans will appreciate that as the younger generation comes to power.
Other way round: guns are the distraction. You can't use them in any kind of regular politics. None of America's great moments of protest or social progress have been enabled by protestors with guns. Even mortally important ones like the civil rights movement. For obvious reasons: once you start shooting there's no easy way to stop until one side is dead.
You'll be allowed to keep them and feel good about it as a consolation prize. But when you're unemployed and lack health insurance, what good will that do you? Republicans will use gun ownership as the wedge issue while they loot the government.
Not only that, but the state has exclusive access to heavy weaponry. While some firearms are legal, many are not because they're considered too powerful — unless you happen to be the military, of course. Or the police...
Guns aren't quite as effective as they were in the times of the founding fathers, now that the government has RPGs and tanks and fighter jets, etc.
Given the US used to classify encryption export as a munition (and books where how stuff actually got out see the PGP hoops) that's not as unlikely as it sounds sadly.
By that do you mean that a bunch of idiots on the coasts will think it's a big issue and and a bunch of people who grew up with them will think they're crazy for caring?
> It really feels like we're marching towards a brave new world.
It's not a feeling, it's a cold fact.
It's too bad. I was thinking about a website that would just identify cams. The website would just map out cams/cameras. I don't think I would have a problem getting info on cameras. The average American worker has been treated like dirt for too long.
My only problem is thiefs might take a liking to the site, and I can't stop that.
Anyways, I don't like being photographed for buying a bolt at Home Depot. I don't see it stoping until people say--no, but it seems like people don't care, or feel helpless?
Personally, I have never liked being photographed, or tracked. I don't think it's o.k. for anyone to bring out the video camera out after a few beers anymore. In my world, those innocent days are gone. I automatically think, "where will those pictures end up?"
I have given up being tracked online.
There's an app called Wherearetheeyes that lets users report camera locations. I don't think it's going to do much good except maybe raising awareness.
To help people avoid surveillance, you'd need a map of cameras including field of view and expected effective recognition distance. Even then, I'm guessing most public spaces would simply turn out to be no-go zones for anyone not wishing to have their picture taken.
If you are curious why people are saying this and would like some background information, here is the ACLU's report on the growing and unaccountable powers of the FBI: https://www.aclu.org/feature/unleashed-and-unaccountable
I'm glad I read this, I just signed up for an EFF membership.
$25 (or $5/month) gets you a sticker pack with "FAIR USE HAS A POSSE" and "COME BACK WITH A WARRANT"... worth it.
Oh, plus the warm fuzzies you get.
"It really feels like we're marching towards a brave new world."
To nitpick, it rather feels like we are being marched.
we have surpassed 1984; you are too late to act.
we tried to warn you
Instead of arbritary abuse of power by a despot we are doing the same only with processes and the law but the effect is the same.
Surveillance, secret courts, gag orders, harassment of activists and whisteblowers, no fly lists, militarization of the police, infiltration of dissenters and protest, and dubious relationships with terrorist sponsoring states show things are in a sinister and precarious state.
Our media and human right orgs so quick to turn the spotlight on others remain strangely reticent when it comes to self reflection. There is no frenzy and hysteria and no one is raising the bogey of totalitarianism and campaigning for sanctions.
Our media won't do its job and our instinctive rush to the moral high ground has lulled us in a sense of complacency.
But our moral highground and soft power built over generations is now toast. Every single bit of posturing about human rights by western media, NGOs and government will be met with derision and mockery. It is propaganda.
The use of surveillance both in the private and public sector is a 'gift' from our 'freedom loving' technologists. Ignore these naysayers and colloboraters, often found here. They have posed about freedom and liberty for decades only to suck up to authoritarianism given the slightest opportunity. The only thing they can do now is deny it, diminish it or wave it away making HN the single worst place to have a discussion on privacy and surveillance.
Here is the actual text: https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/rule_41
There's nothing wrong with being against this, but this seems like a huge stretch of the words "new" and "hacking" to the point of absurdity.
They are already allowed to remotely access this information based on the case that fired this off - the issue wasn't with their methodology but who issued the warrant. The entirety of what this rule changes is it defines special circumstances where it is appropriate for the judges in a district of a victim instead of the perpetrator to issue a warrant to do things that are already allowed.
> Under the proposed amendment, however, investigators could not obtain a search warrant merely because a user's location is concealed through technological means.
> The proposed amendment does not alter that rule, but instead provides an alternative means of satisfying Rule 41's venue provisions.
The rule clearly does not change anything about what is required to get a warrant, and concealment does not lower the bar for getting a warrant. The only thing that changes under this rule is it lays out scenarios where you would not be able to suppress evidence due to improper venue just because the warrant wasn't issued in the district you performed the crime from but instead where the crime actually occurred.
I'm not dismissing the concerns of all of those writing about this - just based on the comments and scenarios being laid out in them I think technically knowledgeable people are assuming the words "new" and "hacking" are being used correctly here without even looking into what has actually changed.
This also means people are completely unaware of what the government is already allowed to do apparently.
If everyone here got their way and this was magically blocked right now, absolutely nothing would change about what the FBI is allowed to do - only what evidence could be challenged if they ask judge A when they should have asked judge B (and can show they couldn't figure out that they were supposed to ask judge B (that's where the technological concealment comes in)).
Snooper's Charter US version. I wonder if their new found hacking powers will survive a court challenge, or will it only be used in parallel prosecutions so no court ever sees it. Guessing the latter.
Making it difficult to prove standing is a brilliant workaround to unconstitutionality.
For those who only started following these issues recently, standing arguments have been used for years to dismiss lawsuits against warrantless domestic surveillance. Basically, the court says that you can't sue a government agency for illegally wiretapping you unless you had evidence that they were actually wiretapping you. Which you obviously didn't, because such programs are classified and the wiretapper isn't going to volunteer that information. But since you can't prove that your rights are being violated, you don't get to bring a lawsuit.
And even if you do know they were wiretapping you:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Haramain_Foundation#Al-Hara...
> Snooper's Charter US version.
That's complete and utter nonsense. The Snooper's Charter grants the UK government many new powers, and places obligations and restrictions on ISPs. It makes substantial substantive changes to the requirements for law enforcement to justify snooping and spying in the UK.
The Rule 41 change only applies to warrants seeking to access electronic documents, and makes no changes to what evidence must be presented to justify a warrant. It just changes, in two specific situations, where that evidence can be presented.
These situations are:
1. If it cannot be determined where the computer containing the documents is located, and the location has been hidden by technological means, then the warrant can be issued by a judge in any district in which the crime being investigated may have taken place. Under the old rule, the warrant had to be issued by a judge in the district where the computer was located, and so if that location could not be determined then investigators were out of luck.
2. If the crime being investigated is a violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, and the damaged computer are in five or more districts, then the warrant can be issued in any district where the crime may have occurred. Under the old rule, it had to be issued in the district where the computer was located.
This is not even remotely like the Snooper's Charter.
Which means they can now shop around for judges until they get the answer they want. Right up there with the UK in terms of severity since this means they can keep up doing what they have been doing.
Countdown to an FBI case where someone in their target list using HTTPS justifies wiretapping thousands...
Right. This is where this sort of vague/overly broad rule gets us.
The NSA is already allowed to collect all foreign and domestic encrypted traffic and store it forever:
https://freedom-to-tinker.com/2013/09/13/is-the-nsa-keeping-...
>The NSA is already allowed to collect all foreign and domestic encrypted traffic and store it forever
Nope.
"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."
try to enforce the passage you quoted onto them
here is a tip: you will need men with guns to get anywhere
Sure, I know the 4th Amendment, too. What's your point? Perhaps a better question: how do you establish standing to sue over the retention of your encrypted traffic? What constitutes evidence in that situation?
You'll have a long wait, since this change is completely orthogonal to that.
The key change is to Rule 41(b), "Authority to Issue a Warrant". It contained a list of 5 circumstances under which a magistrate just can issue a warrant. A 6th is being added:
===={ begin quote
(6)
a magistrate judge with authority in any district where activities related to a crime may have occurred has authority to issue a warrant to use remote access to search electronic storage media and to seize or copy electronically stored information located within or outside that district if:
(A) the district where the media or information is located has been concealed through technological means; or
(B) in an investigation of a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(5), the media are protected computers that have been damaged without authorization and are located in five or more districts.
=====} end quote
There is also a change to 41(f)(1)(C), which concerns serving a warrant. The prior version read:
===={ begin quote
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.
=====} end quote
The update adds another sentence to that:
===={ begin quote
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.
=====} end quote
> issue a warrant to use remote access to search electronic storage media and to seize or copy electronically stored information located within or outside that district if ... the district where the media or information is located has been concealed through technological means
Remote access to a computer and they don't know where it is? This basically means a Tor hidden service or something like that?
In a perverse way, these kind of restrictive laws starting in the US are good for the rest of the world. Let me explain.
Without doubt the concentration of computer science brilliance and investment is centred in the US, specifically in Silicon Valley. These kinds of restrictions on privacy and freedom upon those individuals will drive a kick back, investment and research into secure messaging and communication systems.
The encryption horse has already bolted, the proverbial stable door is wide open, and this could trigger the enabled and invested to bridle that horse for the good of mankind.
That's my hope anyway.
Even end-to-end encryption is of no use as soon as one has a single backdoor into your system.
Again, technology alone is never the whole answer. The legal framework must be sane as well.
>> especially troubling in the hands of an administration of President-elect Trump, a Republican who has "openly said he wants the power to hack his political opponents the same way Russia does."
Who exactly are they quoting here, and is there a source? This is damning to trump if it's true, and damning to the authenticity of reuters if it's not.
possibly this[1]? Trump encourages Russia to "find the 30,000 emails that are missing."
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gNa2B5zHfbQ
It wasn't a Senate effort to block, it was a Democratic effort in the Senate.
Otherwise the headline nonsensical - hey the whole Senate tried to block but it didn't work?
Why does it take legislation by the Senate to block or delay rule changes, giving the FBI authority to remotely access computers in any jurisdiction, seems it should have required legislation to enact the changes in the first place. Unfortunately this will go unnoticed by the public until it is too late
The legislative branch has delegated extensive 'policy' and 'rule-making' (arguable legislative) powers to the executive agencies, though vague statements in legislation, and broad interpretations by the courts. The same 'deference' which has allowed HHS to re-sculpt Obamacare on-the-fly is what gives the FBI, CIA, and NSA the authority to pursue these massive surveillance programs.
As a result of the tacit support the courts and legislature have given the executive agencies in the past, the legislature is now required to affirmatively act to stop most executive actions.
There have been some proposals to require legislation to enact any large change in executive branch rules/policy/interpretations, but there is little support for such measures, as most people do not want to rule back the administrative state, they just want the state to do different things.
"We totally weren't trying to hack that vote tallying machine... it used a VPN so we weren't sure of it's location and thought it might have been a foreign system."
This is the same rule change that says if you use a VPN or TOR you can legally be hacked by the FBI, yes? I wonder if people who use work VPNs will be exempted since afaik the wording is about services that obscure your location, and most business VPNs aren't concerned with that (especially if they have split routing configured properly).
To be honest the answer seems simple. Get _EVERYONE_ on VPNs, regardless. Even if you don't really use it for much, make it connect automatically via some browser plugin and send some trash random data.
As a "data scientist" the most painful thing I have to deal with is data cleaning and data quality. Add to that the difficulty of actually getting into a (hopefully broad) array of VPN providers and tracking every person yelling into the pipe will make their (FBI/NSA) lives very very difficult, and this makes me happy on a rather visceral level.
That's actually why my group of friends all tag each others faces on Facebook as the other. Rather than not posting our faces, Facebook auto tags me as random people now (most often my wife).
Why not completely abandon FB? Build your own personal free network.
The network would have one person, challenging the definition of network.
That's silly. If they have your wife, your kids, your friends, your sister's cousin's aunt, they have you.
> This is the same rule change that says if you use a VPN or TOR you can legally be hacked by the FBI, yes?
Emphatically no.
This rule changes absolutely nothing about what is required to get a warrant, including the specificity of it (must identify a specific computer and/or person - that doesn't change at all, so how they identify TOR, VPN, etc users is already enough and has been challenged up through the supreme court). Simply using concealment does not lower the bar or change the requirements for getting the actual warrant.
The literal only thing that changes is if you are located in District 8 and commit a crime with a victim in district 4, if the FBI can show you are using technological means to hide your location - they may handle getting the exact same warrant they are already allowed to get with the same amount of evidence in the victims district instead of having to find yours.
In the past, if you were concealing your location in a way that they filed in District 5, that evidence would have been subject to challenge due to improper venue. They are now saying that where the crime actually occurred is a valid place to get a warrant if they can also show you are using technological means to hide your location. Concealing your location isn't a crime and doesn't demonstrate that a search of a computer would uncover evidence of a crime (it's actually right there in Rule 41 (c)).
It explicitly doesn't change what methods they are allowed to use - so everything they can do after this change, they were already allowed to do.
In the Goldman Sachs case I do recall charges being brought in certain states where CFAA laws were more favorable for the prosecution, and those charges being thrown out on appeal because they were brought in the wrong jurisdiction. I don't see how this changes that.
This is a procedural change the Surpeme Court already voted in favor of. The title is clickbait from what I can tell. I'm much more concerned with recent erosion of the right to remain silent.
Hacking powers are not being expanded. A loophole that has stymied investigations had been closed.
Now what we do need is reasonable limits on the scope of allowable warrants to prevent dragnets. The more interesting question is whether the FBI should be allowed to use drive-by malware to infect all visitors of a site, and if so under which very well defined circumstances?
What TFA missed is the reason we are worried about this rule change is that it could make dragnets easier to get seemingly valid warrants for. E.g. Even if Hidden Services are not being used, investigator claims it's not 'reasonable' to get warrants for each IP accessing a site and so just infects all visitors with malware to scan the hard drive and local network for some evidence.
But that needs to be illegal for more than just the reason of not knowing what jurisdiction to get the warrant in.
One of the most important stories of the year, on HN for 6 hours, with 11 comments and 105 points. Is everyone already afraid? I always said "I told you so" would ring hollow and have no satisfaction in it, but this is what happens when everyone forgets about our foundational principles and waves injustice away with arguments such as 234dd57d2c8db's.
The constitution is the supreme law of the land, created to protect, not establish, natural rights. As such, such general warrants do not properly satisfy the constitutional requirements our country established.
Actions like this, are the result of the allowed slippage, from both sides of the isle, as prescribed to them by the shadow masters.
We have allowed our true foreign enemies to infiltrate and subvert our system, falsely focus our efforts on foreign boogeymen, all the while our domestic enemies run rampant (often backed, or blackmailed, by foreign ones).
The true, the capable, the already somewhat successful enemies of the constitution don't wear hijabs, they wear business suits and ties.
This is a turning point for America, where we either cower in fear of the coming totalitarian surveillance dystopia, or we speak up and push back. Silence now will be nothing less than acquiescence.
As Hitchens said, the American revolution is the only revolution that still stands a chance.
Queue John Quincy Adams: https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/jqadams.htm
I'd like to summon James Otis, Jr:
"I will to my dying day oppose, with all the powers and faculties God has given me, all such instruments of slavery on the one hand and villainy on the other as this Writ of Assistance is."
http://www.constitution.org/bor/otis_against_writs.htm
> One of the most important stories of the year, on HN for 6 hours, with 11 comments and 105 points. Is everyone already afraid?
Or maybe they don't share your opinion about how important or meaningful it is.
Time to disband the FBI. And the ATF. Whatever good they do isn't justified by the threat they represent.