Supreme Court grants FBI decentralized warrants.

[Plague421]

Well the gov. just keeps stripping away every shred of privacy we have involving our digital devices...

---

Supreme Court approves legal authority to hack anonymous computers | The Verge

The US Supreme Court Just Gave FBI The Power To Hack Innocent People | Gizmodo Australia

Supreme Court grants FBI decentralized warrants, power to hack suspects anywhere | ExtremeTech



Apparently with these upcoming changes, the FBI would be able to obtain a search warrant to literally hack into and search your PC without knowing it's your computer, who you are, or where you are.
These changes would allow the FBI to (lawfully) retrieve data from computers that they don't even know are actually located within the US borders, let alone whether or not they were intentionally used in a crime.
Based on these changes, they may be able to get a warrant to search your computer simply because you took measures to protect your data/privacy while browsing the internet.


This is the really scary part. You don't even have to be directly suspected of wrongdoing and the FBI would still be able to obtain a warrant to run their "network investigative technique" on your PC.

Let's say that you went to a website and clicked on a malicious advertisement that managed to infect your computer with some kind of adware/spyware/virus/rootkit/trojan or whatever.
Now your PC has been taken over by the "hackers" who created this virus, and you are now part of what is know as a "botnet." Unfortunately, 99% of the time, victims of a botnet have no idea that their computer is even
compromised. Meanwhile the victims PC's are sending out hundreds of spam emails, or participating in a "denial of service" attack against a corporate or government network. With these changes, the FBI could legally
force their way into your computer and download any anything from your PC they wanted, without even knowing how you were involved in this whole scenario. You were a victim, you had no control over what your PC was doing.
Well now the FBI is free to force their way into your computer and collect whatever data from it they see fit. I don't see how this would really help their investigation, rooting around in random and "unknown" person's computer.
Besides of course being able to skip the proper steps required in order to obtain a warrant under the correct legal guidelines.


I understand the need for the FBI to track down and locate "online criminals" but this is too much, this is too broad, this sounds to me like fishing. Who is going to be making sure this isn't being abused by the FBI?
Basically any judge, from anywhere in the country can give the FBI the the "go-ahead" to hack into your computer, using similar or even the same methods and exploits any "cyber criminal" might use.
You wouldn't even know they are doing it!
I'm not even convinced that these judges really know what they are authorizing the FBI to do when they approve these warrants. This is not someones car we're talking about, some people keep very private
pictures/videos/writings etc. on their computers, not to mention sensitive financial data.

Look, I am all for taking down the child pornography sites, if the FBI want's to infect those who visit known child-porn websites computers with tracking software, you won't hear any argument from me.
But I am not willing to just surrender my rights to privacy just to make FBI jobs easier. If the FBI wants in my computer, they should have to have probable cause, a warrant specifically for my computer, and it
should have been authorized by a judge residing within the proper jurisdiction.


I feel like this is far too much freedom given to the FBI, or any LE agency for that matter, and this has "abuse potential" written all over it.
I feel like is is clearly a digital form of unreasonable search and seizure.

Although IANAL so unless I am understanding/interpreting these articles and information incorrectly please feel free to correct me.

 

[BugI02]

"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."


This seems remarkably straight forward and easy to understand. Why do they keep having so much trouble with it.

This is the United States. The choice between respecting the Constitution and accomplishing some purpose of the moment should not even come up on the FBI's radar, nor that of the SCOTUS

 

[IndyDave1776]

"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."


This seems remarkably straight forward and easy to understand. Why do they keep having so much trouble with it.

This is the United States. The choice between respecting the Constitution and accomplishing some purpose of the moment should not even come up on the FBI's radar, nor that of the SCOTUS

 

[LPMan59]

Bush's fault

 

[TheDude]

No problem, Americans will put up with it. Keep that check coming Obama.

 

[2A_Tom]

The reason they seem to have so much trouble understanding it, is because they don't believe it applies to them. They disdain the thought of our rights. They believe they have rights.

 

[2ADMNLOVER]

I'll second that .

 

[KLB]

So, what are the odds that Congress does something to stop this in its tracks? I am not optimistic. There are a lot of statist congress critters that love them some spying on the citizens of this country. For our own safety of course.

 

[Plague421]

At this point what the gov. has been doing to US citizens in terms of spying and electronic monitoring of our internet, phones, computers and tablets is beginning to look a lot like flat out disrespect.
Almost in a "what are you gonna do about it" kind of attitude.


Hell when Obama officially allowed the NSA to openly read citizens e-mails, they basically responded with "well uh, thanks Obama but we've pretty much been doing that anyway..."


Speaking of that, how many terrorists has the NSA caught after they started "openly" spying on American citizens? We know they dropped the ball more than once at preventing the recent big attacks from happening.
Why didn't they see the Paris bombings or San Bernardino attacks coming? There wasn't even so much as a "red flag" from these devices? Makes me wonder what their super computers are ACTUALLY watching and spying on.
OH! That's right! The terrorists used "encryption." What's really funny is that "encryption" has pretty much become the "evil black rifles" of the internet.


Why are you encrypting your data if you have nothing to hide?
BECAUSE YOU'RE SPYING ON US LIKE WE ARE CRIMINALS! WE DON'T DESERVE THIS!
I have to do SOMETHING to retain my right to privacy!


I heard a news anchor telling a story about how the terrorist have been using encryption to thwart monitoring tactics by the NSA.
At the end of his little segment he closed with the question "Should these encryption apps be so easy to use and readily available to the public?" Yes! Yes they should!
They should probably be even easier to use so that EVERYONE can use them, this spying has gotten out of hand and it's BS.

 

[Woobie]

Heard Jack Spirko suggest encrypting your computer and setting up a bot to browse pictures of kittens 24/7. If 100,000 people did that, it might melt the NSA servers. Frankly I like the idea of a digital middle finger saluting .gov.

I now have one more reason to encrypt. Sad thing is I have nothing to hide. I'm not encrypting as I really don't have a need, but things like this really make we want to start. It's just none of their dang business.

 

[Woobie]

Bush's fault

John Roberts has been a disaster.

 

[BogWalker]

There are over 300 million Americans, and according to this study 90% of households have more than three devices connected to the internet More Than 90 Percent of U.S. Households Have Three or More Devices Pinging the Internet | Re/code

Do we really think a few hundred, maybe thousand, goons that the NSA hires are going to be able to sift through all of that data? I know they use services that bring up certain "keywords", I've seen video of it in operation on the news once, but that's still a massive amount of data that has to be looked over individually to see what is and what isn't a threat. Watch this: blow up the White House. Look, I just wasted some NSA lackey's time reading this post.

That is why they aren't actually catching any terrorists. The net they cast is too large to be effective. This is just a way to exercise as much control over the population as they can. It's government gone mad with power.

 

[Libertarian01]

I have mixed feeling here. However, it does say the FBI is required to get a warrant.

Say someone is trying to hack into your bank and steal your banking information. The bank detects it and calls the FBI for cyber crime. The FBI comes in and gets a warrant to track the hack attack back to its source. The warrant is based upon probable cause for the detected attack.

Now the FBI hacks into the hackers and wants to not only stop them but ALSO catch the turds buying the information that will ruin thousands of lives. Now the FBI gets a warrant to hack the hackers customers.

Is this a real problem? In the cyberworld this could lead LE all over the world, from gangs in Russia to some gals in Australia getting a few credit cards in your name to go shopping. The FBI may not know where the warrants will lead until they get there. That is the point I would want them contacting local authorities but this is like digging up a an olde buried cable. You don't know where it will lead.

Perhaps their authority needs to be better defined but I cannot help but think it isn't their fault that criminals use the internet from all over the world to harm Americans in America. They must have some tool to track cybercriminals backwards to their point of origin.

For those techies more knowledgeable than I, "IF this is bad what would be better?"

Regards,

Doug

 

[2A_Tom]

John Roberts has been a disaster.

John Roberts is a good man, with something in his past that Obama or his handlers are using against him.

 

[2A_Tom]

Do we really think a few hundred, maybe thousand, goons that the NSA hires are going to be able to sift through all of that data? I know they use services that bring up certain "keywords", I've seen video of it in operation on the news once, but that's still a massive amount of data that has to be looked over individually to see what is and what isn't a threat. Watch this: blow up the White House. Look, I just wasted some NSA lackey's time reading this post.

That is why they aren't actually catching any terrorists. The net they cast is too large to be effective. This is just a way to exercise as much control over the population as they can. It's government gone mad with power.

The point is that this regime doesn't target everyone, look no furthur than the IRS targeting conservative 501c3 applications.

 

[Woobie]

John Roberts is a good man, with something in his past that Obama or his handlers are using against him.

I get that same impression.

 

[IndyDave1776]

John Roberts is a good man, with something in his past that Obama or his handlers are using against him.

I get that same impression.

A good man would have come clean or better yet, not accepted the appointment knowing that he could be manipulated in such a way. It would be different if he woke up with a dead horse' head in bed with him or something, and even then I would expect him to have done better than simply caving in.

 

[2A_Tom]

It would be different if he woke up with a dead horse' head in bed with him.

And you know he didn't, how?

Ob's handlers can find something on anyone.

 

[IndyDave1776]

And you know he didn't, how?

Ob's handlers can find something on anyone.

What I do know with certainty is that there were men who were willing to give their lives for this country even before it became an accomplished reality when they very easily could have capitulated, yet they didn't. Does someone who would capitulate deserve to have a place within our government?

 

[Plague421]

Say someone is trying to hack into your bank and steal your banking information. The bank detects it and calls the FBI for cyber crime. The FBI comes in and gets a warrant to track the hack attack back to its source. The warrant is based upon probable cause for the detected attack.

Now the FBI hacks into the hackers and wants to not only stop them but ALSO catch the turds buying the information that will ruin thousands of lives. Now the FBI gets a warrant to hack the hackers customers.

Is this a real problem?

I think you may be misunderstanding what is actually being done by the FBI with the warrants. What you have described here is, and should be legal. It's how the FBI are currently operating. In your proposed situation the FBI has actually followed the rules by first locating the offending computer. Which to the best of my knowledge doesn't require a warrant to do. Unfortunately sometimes they are unable to find the computers location because it has been deliberately concealed. When this happens they are unable to obtain a warrant because they have no idea which jurisdiction to get the warrant from. Which I assume puts them at a standstill until they are able to locate the offending computer by gathering further information.

With these changes, they will be able to obtain a warrant from any judge regardless of the computers location/jurisdiction.
It also sounds like they may be able to obtain a warrant to attack your computer simply because you are concealing your location/identity using "technological means."

Basically it would be the same thing as you walking down a specific street with a hood on, a street the FBI claims is where criminals hang out all the time. It would give the FBI a warrant allowing them to tackle you, search you and depending on how the search goes, press charges on you. This all happened simply because you decided to put your hood on and they were unable to identify you.

Unfortunately this ability to conceal your identity has been taken advantage of and abused by criminals, not unlike our guns. The FBI is being given the legal means to take away our ability to remain anonymous should we choose to do so. I don't feel that the criminal abuse of this anonymity gives the FBI a right to violate MY privacy because I, or anyone else wishes to remain anonymous on the internet.

In the cyberworld this could lead LE all over the world, from gangs in Russia to some gals in Australia getting a few credit cards in your name to go shopping. The FBI may not know where the warrants will lead until they get there. That is the point I would want them contacting local authorities but this is like digging up a an olde buried cable. You don't know where it will lead.

Perhaps their authority needs to be better defined but I cannot help but think it isn't their fault that criminals use the internet from all over the world to harm Americans in America. They must have some tool to track cybercriminals backwards to their point of origin.

You are absolutely correct, it very well could and often does end up the hacker is outside of the US. The problem is that the FBI is able to obtain a warrant to use their "NIT" against these computers BEFORE they even know exactly where they are. Meaning they have done so without the permission or cooperation of the respective government. By the time they use their NIT to gain access to the computer and determine it's location/information the damage is already done.

So let's say they obtain a warrant for an anonymous computer and deploy their NIT against it. The NIT breaks the computer's security protocols to gain access and sends back the computer's information. As it turns out the offending computer was located in Russia. What just happened is the FBI launched and completed a cyber attack on a computer that was outside of the US and outside of the FBI's jurisdiction; Without first obtaining the permission or cooperation of the Russian government/authorities.

One could even go so far as to argue that the US government launched a cyber attack against Russia itself by attacking one of it's citizens.
It wouldn't be unreasonable for any country to infer these as attacks and become hostile or angry about them.