An FBI warrant just allowed authorities to hack into 8,000 IP addresses

[Guest]

The Federal Bureau of Investigation is one of the most powerful agencies in the US with their history of success and failure littered with controversy 

The newest one seems to be caused by a single warrant that would basically encompass and insurmountable amount of "suspects"

 

Quote

In January, Motherboard reported on the FBI's “unprecedented” hacking operation, in which the agency, using a single warrant, deployed malware to over one thousand alleged visitors of a dark web child pornography site. Now, it has emerged that the campaign was actually several orders of magnitude larger.

 

In all, the FBI obtained over 8,000 IP addresses, and hacked computers in 120 different countries, according to a transcript from a recent evidentiary hearing in a related case.

The figures illustrate the largest ever known law enforcement hacking campaign to date, and starkly demonstrate what the future of policing crime on the dark web may look like.

This news comes as the US is preparing to usher in changes that would allow magistrate judges to authorize the mass hacking of computers, wherever in the world they may be located.

 

There have been previous news circulating about the FBI using child pornography websites as bait for criminals

 

Spoiler

 

I personally don't know how to react to this given that there has been so much unrest in the sphere of politics lately that this seems like a story I would expect to pop up

The interesting about the said case is how massive of an operation was partaken by the FBI with 120 countries involved 

There are of course some concerns in the future regarding something called Rule 41, it basically gives the judge power to issue warrants

The said Rule has been tweaked in order to give more power to the judges which brings in the question of how the power will be used 

 

Quote

With the changes, first proposed by the Department of Justice in 2014, judges could now approve hacking operations that go beyond their local jurisdiction if the target’s location is unknown or is part of a network of infected computers, or botnets, under the control of criminals.

 

This change would be “the broadest expansion of extraterritorial surveillance power since the FBI’s inception,” according to Ahmed Ghappour, an computer crime law expert and professor at UC Hastings.

 

Source: Motherboard, RT

[spamy666]

I'm okay with this

[SirRoderick]

I for one am not okay with the FBI being allowed to hack computers that aren't even in their country. You wanna monitor mine? You should have to go through my country's legal system, not just impose it.

[goodtofufriday]

Their plan got exposed so they rung in all the child porn viewers that got caught in their net. That net could have been larger if this wasnt exposed, and this we'd have more pedophiles being sent off.

 

This, IMO, is 100% within their authority. Your title makes it seem like they hacked the average joe to see what coffee brand he drinks in the morning.

[goodtofufriday]

3 minutes ago, SirRoderick said:

I for one am not okay with the FBI being allowed to hack computers that aren't even in their country. You wanna monitor mine? You should have to go through my country's legal system, not just impose it.

But why? Every 1st, and most 3rd world countries have the same basic set of laws. What does it matter what legal authority found out who broke said basic laws?

[flibberdipper]

I'd be fine with this if it was just limited to the US. I don't care if the criminal is in another country, the FBI should still get permissions to do this in said other countries.

[Wano97]

7 minutes ago, goodtofufriday said:

But why? Every 1st, and most 3rd world countries have the same basic set of laws. What does it matter what legal authority found out who broke said basic laws?

Well, cops from a different country can't arrest you either (if you are in a different country), so...

[SirRoderick]

9 minutes ago, goodtofufriday said:

But why? Every 1st, and most 3rd world countries have the same basic set of laws. What does it matter what legal authority found out who broke said basic laws?

Laws governing privacy, seizure of information and basically any act that may compromise the rights of an individual vary wildly between countries. I am not in the FBI's jurisdiction, the laws of the USA do NOT bind me. You would no sooner accept a Belgian magistrate's decision to compromise your computer than I would accept an American's ruling. These things need to go through the proper channels of each jurisdiction to ensure people's rights under their nation's law are not compromised.

[goodtofufriday]

1 minute ago, SirRoderick said:

Laws governing privacy, seizure of information and basically any act that may compromise the rights of an individual vary wildly between countries. I am not in the FBI's jurisdiction, the law of the USA does NOT bind me. You would no sooner accept a Belgian magistrate's decision to compromise your computer than I would accept an american's rule. These things need to go through the proper channels of each jurisdiction to ensure people's rights under their nation's law are not compromised.

If i broke a law and the Belgian authorities find out, but the FBI didnt, then I think it is perfectly acceptable to still be subject to the law.

 

This is again under the idea that most countries have the same basic set of laws. Like dont murder, dont steal, dont be a pedophile, etc. If two countries share a common law then it shouldnt matter who finds you out. At the end of the day just be tried in court in your own country ofc.

[SSL]

20 minutes ago, spamy666 said:

I'm okay with this

 

Ok, why?

[SirRoderick]

15 minutes ago, goodtofufriday said:

If i broke a law and the Belgian authorities find out, but the FBI didnt, then I think it is perfectly acceptable to still be subject to the law.

 

This is again under the idea that most countries have the same basic set of laws. Like dont murder, dont steal, dont be a pedophile, etc. If two countries share a common law then it shouldnt matter who finds you out. At the end of the day just be tried in court in your own country ofc.

We don't share common laws. we share common ideals. It's not nearly as simple as you make it out to be (and I think you know that).

 

US law may allow the FBI to seize any and all information on a certain individual's computer, because his/her IP address was logged in an investigation. They get a court order and are legally allowed to do what they want. If that IP address is in the US I have no problem with that, that is US law and the subject is in the US, clear cut. If, however, this IP address belongs to a Belgian citizen, I do not believe the US court system should have any power over that decision, because they do NOT have power over a foreign citizen in his own country. In that case, the FBI would have to appeal to the Belgian court system for a similar court order.

 

Now here's the crucial part.

 

The Belgian court system may very well refuse that same court order, because Belgian law is markedly different from US law. They may need more evidence that this IP address is linked to criminal activity in order to grant permission to the investigators to do this. This is an extremely important point to make, as it means that the US (or any other nation, for that matter) cannot simply dictate all others to follow THEIR law.

 

Imagine as an alternate example that an agency was looking into YOUR computer activity and files in relation to a criminal investigation. Except it's not the FBI, it's the KGB or the Chinese ministry of State Security. Should they have access to your files because THEIR standard of evidence was met? Or would you feel violated and demand that they adhere to US standards of law?

 

I hope this makes my standpoint a bit more clear.

[whiskey0]

21 minutes ago, SirRoderick said:

Laws governing privacy, seizure of information and basically any act that may compromise the rights of an individual vary wildly between countries. I am not in the FBI's jurisdiction, the laws of the USA do NOT bind me. You would no sooner accept a Belgian magistrate's decision to compromise your computer than I would accept an American's ruling. These things need to go through the proper channels of each jurisdiction to ensure people's rights under their nation's law are not compromised.

 

As much as I'd like to agree with you, @goodtofufriday is right. The Alien Tort Statute is a statute under American legislation that provides America and any other country operating under the 'law of nations' with the legal authority to prosecute a foreign sovereign citizen, when it breach of this 'law of nations'. 

 

America do have the legal authority to hear the original jurisdiction of cases involving foreign citizens, especially when the laws that have been broken are internationally recognized. 

 

As much as I am pro-privacy, legal bodies such as the FBI are doing a good thing when it comes to presenting, foreign citizens in breach of international legislation to national district courts. 

[SirRoderick]

9 minutes ago, whiskey0 said:

 

As much as I'd like to agree with you, @goodtofufriday is right. The Alien Tort Statute is a statute under American legislation that provides America and any other country operating under the 'law of nations' with the legal authority to prosecute a foreign sovereign citizen, when it breach of this 'law of nations'. 

 

America do have the legal authority to hear the original jurisdiction of cases involving foreign citizens, especially when the laws that have been broken are internationally recognized. 

 

As much as I am pro-privacy, legal bodies such as the FBI are doing a good thing when it comes to presenting, foreign citizens in breach of international legislation to national district courts. 

See if I trusted the US agencies to limit their searches and such to legitimate targets I would not be so against this manner of working. But they don't, they routinely gather data with no justification other than "we feel it's needed"

[whiskey0]

That statute provides them with the authority to prosecute violations of the 'law of nations', for a tort only. 

 

The biggest issue is yes, the FBI exploit this to conduct surveillance on other countries. The problem is, who is going to take the 'FBI' to court? Who is legally (and economically) stronger than the United States of America, and have the balls to actually do anything about it? People throw their hands up in the air saying what the FBI is doing is immoral, and then it's all brushed under the rug. 

 

Wot do?

[Misanthrope]

Warrant? I'm sure Trump will follow the Brit's example and get rid of that silly 4th amendment shit.

[dalekphalm]

Every non-American should be very concerned by this. Even if you are a law abiding citizen, this to me, is a vast over-reach of power and jurisdiction. As @SirRoderick mentions, other nations have differences in the law, and different burdens of proof that need to be established.

[0ld_Chicken]

No one should be worried.  The FBI has never abused their power or targeted non-criminals in the name of justice.  They're known for being reasonable and have never done wrong.

 

/S

So much /S

[SpaceGhostC2C]

2 hours ago, goodtofufriday said:

But why? Every 1st, and most 3rd world countries have the same basic set of laws. What does it matter what legal authority found out who broke said basic laws?

Because this thing called "rule of law", which essentially says that everything a government does must be within the legal framework, regardless of outcomes and motivations, in order to protect individuals from abuse and guarantee their rights to defend themselves. In other words, "but I got all the bad guys!" it's not an acceptable excuse to go all Dirty Harry as Hollywood would have us believe. Legal procedures must be followed, and if we don't like those, we need to pass different laws (or even different constitutions).

2 hours ago, goodtofufriday said:

If i broke a law and the Belgian authorities find out, but the FBI didnt, then I think it is perfectly acceptable to still be subject to the law.

 

This is again under the idea that most countries have the same basic set of laws. Like dont murder, dont steal, dont be a pedophile, etc. If two countries share a common law then it shouldnt matter who finds you out. At the end of the day just be tried in court in your own country ofc.

Actually, if you murder, steal, or whatever, they do have to go through your local authorities to arrest you, and ask for your extradition if they intend to judge you. Every country has a very restricted number of people allowed to act on others for law enforcement purposes (i.e., local law enforcement agencies), in most cases only after another local entity (a judge) issues an order, and this monopoly of law enforcement is part of every legal system. Being a foreign police officer or a national random guy is all the same: you are not a Belgian cop. The country can issue an authorization for you, though, but that's up to them and in compliance with their laws.

I know we are getting used to the US going Rambo, assassinating people in Pakistan, and what not, but that's not without breaking any law, and only justified through a "ends justify means" mentality.

[Scruffy90]

[dalekphalm]

6 minutes ago, Scruffy90 said:

Damn, I was super loud last time...

[SirRoderick]

Feels like a good time to mention protonmail.com

 

E2E encrypted email service, legitimately as easy to use as Gmail. Servers based in Switzerland, so robust protection from the law.. You know, in case you like privacy.

 

Disclaimer:

Not affiliated in any way, no benefit to me

[Scruffy90]

4 minutes ago, SirRoderick said:

Feels like a good time to mention protonmail.com

 

E2E encrypted email service, legitimately as easy to use as Gmail. Servers based in Switzerland, so robust protection from the law.. You know, in case you like privacy.

 

Disclaimer:

Not affiliated in any way, no benefit to me

wasnt the FBI putting people on terrorist watch list for trying to become super secure, like using linux tails and the likes?

[SirRoderick]

4 minutes ago, Scruffy90 said:

wasnt the FBI putting people on terrorist watch list for trying to become super secure, like using linux tails and the likes?

At this point they have watchlists for watchlists. I don't really care, there is nothing illegal or, frankly, suspicious about wanting some privacy in your life. 

[ThinkWithPortals]

You know what, you FBI dickheads? If you want to monitor IP addresses, how about you do it in your own damn country and not impose it on people in others?

[BiscuitMassacre]

*unplugs modem*