Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Dutch Ministry Proposes Powers For Police To Hack Computers, Install Spyware

Soulskill posted about 2 years ago | from the you-can-trust-us dept.

Government 130

hypnosec writes "The Dutch Ministry of Justice and Security has proposed some rather over the line measures and wants to extend such powers to the police that would allow them to break into computers and mobile phones in any part of the world. According to the proposal (PDF in Dutch), dated October 15, the ministry has asked for powers that would allow police to not only break into computers, but also allow them to install spyware, search for data in those computers, and destroy data. As explained by digital rights group 'Bits of Freedom,' which obtained the copy of the proposal, if the Dutch police get such powers, the security of computer users would be lessened and there will be a 'perverse incentive to keep information security weak.'"

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

CleanIT part 2? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41709639)

This sounds a lot like the idiotic stuff formulated in the preliminary list of internet security legislation [boingboing.net] that was posted two months ago.

Re:CleanIT part 2? (2, Interesting)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | about 2 years ago | (#41709919)

My Independent Government in Exile from Mars has just been granted authority by the nDimensional judiciary to ignore national sovereignty and any simple definition of sanity - to damage or destroy Dutch Police information assets, where ever they may exist in the outer 3rd of the galactic rim.

The Quantum Pope already authorized my deputization of the WHOLE INTARWEBZ! So, your are all welcome to hop to it!

p.s.: I've watched some of those Dutch police beat the crap out of unmanageable, drunken British tourists near Dam Square. My advice? Avoid the REALLY tall ones.

Re:CleanIT part 2? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41710299)

Most of the really tall British tourists I've run into are just slightly grumpy, not particularly dangerous...

Re:CleanIT part 2? (1)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | about 2 years ago | (#41710481)

Exploiting ambiguity, TWICE in two days!

Re:CleanIT part 2? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41711235)

I've lived in Netherlands for couple of years and mostly I've been _amazed_ at how patient and rational their cops are. They do what cops should be doing, solving problems with minimum fuss and effort.

Oh well, seems like _nobody_ can stand a drunken British lout..

Re:CleanIT part 2? (2)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | about 2 years ago | (#41711671)

Actually, you're dead right. The cops were mostly after no one getting hurt.

And even customs security agents have been good folks - not robots or "roles".

How about (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41709653)

Fuck you.

Can't they already? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41709661)

I'm American and ignorant of the Dutch system, but isn't this the kind of thing a court would grant permission for on a case-by-base basis?

Re:Can't they already? (1)

TheGavster (774657) | about 2 years ago | (#41710045)

The modern trend in legislation is to grant police the power to bypass oversight, usually with the excuse that the courts "take too long".

Re:Can't they already? (1)

Razgorov Prikazka (1699498) | about 2 years ago | (#41710257)

<quote><p>The modern trend in legislation is to grant police the power to bypass oversight, usually with the excuse that the courts "take too long".</p></quote>

Usually the excuse is child pr0n ;-)
And this is granting the police to hack whenever they seem fit. Every time the citizens have to give up (internet)freedom it is about childpr0n. And do I have news for them. Those sicko&#347; who are into that usually have everything locked up, off-line and encrypted... (Can you hear the gasps of the politicians reading this? Probably they think that &#180; Dirty Hank' is using an un-patched windows 98 and uses his full name on all the fora )
I have enough confidence in the police to hack a standard install of windows, I dont think they will be able to get in a openBSD standard install with the usual honey-pots, intrusion detection, firewall&#347; and multiple levels of encryption. So basically it is the he average user who is bothered, not the real baddies

Oh, and for another fun thing out of the slease-sleeve of Dutch minister of Justice... He wants the police to be able to gather DNA collected by hospitals who withdrew that for testing purposes in an other proposed law. FU volunteer, nice of you to help the medical sciences, but you are now also in the cops database, whether you like it (let alone approve it ) or not. That will make it even more easy for scientists to get volunteers huh? Medical ethics? Meh...blablabla..childpr0n blablablabla murder mumble... if you got nothing to hide bla bla... same old, same old.

I do think that the baddies should be found and taken care of, but not at ALL costs... Treating EVERYONE as a potential criminal is a step to far IMHO.

Re:Can't they already? (5, Insightful)

skegg (666571) | about 2 years ago | (#41710657)

I do think that the baddies should be found and taken care of, but not at ALL costs

Note how the authorities never use the sledgehammer approach to stamping out crime (and potential crime) committed by politicians and police. It's only the citizenry that are subject to such heavy-handed approaches.

When it comes to politicians and police they tread softly, and with surgical precision. (If at all.)

Re:Can't they already? (1)

causality (777677) | about 2 years ago | (#41711565)

I do think that the baddies should be found and taken care of, but not at ALL costs

Note how the authorities never use the sledgehammer approach to stamping out crime (and potential crime) committed by politicians and police. It's only the citizenry that are subject to such heavy-handed approaches.

When it comes to politicians and police they tread softly, and with surgical precision. (If at all.)

And here I am all out of mod points.

If this doesn't get a +5 there is something wrong with the mods. It deserves it and you know it. He spoke the truth.

Re:Can't they already? (4, Informative)

dinfinity (2300094) | about 2 years ago | (#41710411)

Yes, and that has already happened. This is the push to avoid judges post hoc, but attain permission pre hoc.

The nuance: The proposal is to have law enforcement ask a certain type of judge to approve the hacking before it occurs, similar to the way phone taps are approved.
It would furthermore only be allowable when somebody is suspect of severe crimes, f.i. a crime for which the maximum sentence is at least 4 years of incarceration (note the wording here, one would assume 'suspected terrorist' is sufficient).
Realistically, though, the whole thing should be comparable to phone taps and one should either oppose both or deem both to be acceptable.

The majority of our (recently elected) parliament is supportive of the proposal (including the parties that are most probably going to form a coalition government), although many members of parliament note that when an actual law is proposed, the protection of privacy should be more strictly worded (in the sense that minor 'crimes' should not warrant government hacking).

Re:Can't they already? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41711493)

The big difference is that computer hacking has far more potential to go wrong than phone taps: not only are there problems with the chain of evidence if potentially corrupt cops are able to execute arbitrary code on your computer (what do you mean, you didn't know that CP was there? it's all through your browser files, and your computer shows that you did it), there's the general sloppiness with which all big powerful entities treat everyone else's personal data. If my phone is tapped, they might lose a few weeks worth of transcripts, most of which are pretty banal: if my computer is hacked, there is a good chance that others will be able to use their backdoor or that an unencrypted copy of my HDDs will be left on a train, with all my passwords (which they can get unencrypted because they've rooted my computer), my accounts and bank details, my porn, my private calendar listing assignations with the boss's wife, etc., etc..

Sounds backwards to me (1)

pem (1013437) | about 2 years ago | (#41709667)

Sounds like an incentive to make computer security stronger.

But what do I know?

Re:Sounds backwards to me (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41709775)

Sounds like an incentive to make computer security stronger.

But what do I know?

"the security of computer users would be lessened and there will be a perverse incentive to keep information security weak." isn't referring to the end users such as you and myself having an incentive to have weaker security. This implies that the government/police will dictate that software developers, ISP's, and possibly even hardware manufacturers be more lax with their security functions/features for the explicit purpose of the government/police hacking and or installing spyware in a citizens personal digital devices.

If this is allowed to pass it will set a terrifying precedent around the world giving governments everywhere "incentive" to follow suit. I mean, the other nations are doing it so why cant?

Just another big brother move to control those things that governments fear.... Something that gives their citizens power.

Re:Sounds backwards to me (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41710525)

See I interpreted this to mean, leave your computer as open as possible, maybe even put a keyboard and mouse outside of a window with the computer logged in so that anyone walking by could use it. Now try and tell me who used that computer.

P.S. Captcha: exploits

Re:Sounds backwards to me (1)

skegg (666571) | about 2 years ago | (#41710701)

I mean, the other nations are doing it so why cant?

A series of countries in the Middle East has recently changed their government, so why can't we? In our case it's even easier ... we have regular elections.

Re:Sounds backwards to me (1)

camperdave (969942) | about 2 years ago | (#41710015)

It is an incentive to make computer security stronger. But if the police have the authority to install "copware" on your system, then your system will only be as secure as the "copware". Your systems will be less secure because there is an access channel that you did not put there, that you may not even be aware of, and that you have no control over.

Re:Sounds backwards to me (1)

whoever57 (658626) | about 2 years ago | (#41710317)

search for data in those computers, and destroy data.

Give the police the power to destroy evidence. Yeah! That will always end well. I am sure that the power to destroy possibly exonerating evidence will never be misused.

When will this end ? (5, Interesting)

sakari (194257) | about 2 years ago | (#41709673)

I'm sick and tired of seeing these new laws proposed almost weekly! What the heck is going and who is pushing towards all these new law propositions for allowing breaking into users computers, reading their email, tracking all activity and attempts at controlling the internet.

I wont allow these bastards who know nothing about how things even work to control this network of ours. They are trying take away our basic freedom all the time to communicate freely. They know that free speech is harmful for the powers that be. Enough already!

I call all sysadmins and network administrators to start opposing these law enforcers! We have the power to make the change. We are the ones who install these rules into production, and we are the ones who can stop this madness. And those who continue oppressing us, know this: f*ck you! You will not win. Give up already and let's try to work together instead of assuming everyone is a damn terrorist.

Re:When will this end ? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41709907)

It's not your network. Never has been, nerdlinger.

Re:When will this end ? (3, Insightful)

lightknight (213164) | about 2 years ago | (#41710755)

Actually, it is. Think of it as being like the captain of a ship -> it doesn't matter who owns the title / deed to the vessel, it's still "the captain's ship." Responsibility starts and ends with him.

But by all means, change that. See what happens.

Re:When will this end ? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41710383)

If you read the post-WWII Zionist writings carefully, you can see that it is all part of a Jewish plan to subjugate all the gentile nations so that they can never attack the Jewish people again. This all jives with the Talmudic instructions to enslave the goy nations.

Look at who is authoring these laws. Check the surnames and figure out if they're tribal. You will soon see that they are who I say they are.

Re:When will this end ? (1)

skegg (666571) | about 2 years ago | (#41710805)

The Jews have written the oppressive laws in China? Syria? Zimbabwe?

Oy vey! Those guys get around.

More likely what the oppressive people have in common is that they are (get ready) ... humans !

Re:When will this end ? (1)

Scarletdown (886459) | about 2 years ago | (#41710535)

Since these asshats are the enemy of the people, every time they propose one of these atrocities, those responsible need to be rounded up and sentenced to at a minimum, 1 year in a Dutch Oven. [wikipedia.org]

Re:When will this end ? (2)

skegg (666571) | about 2 years ago | (#41710781)

I'm sick and tired of seeing these new laws proposed almost weekly!

Are you politically active in your jurisdiction? Have you run for local elections?

Have you joined with like-minded neighbours and presented a united argument to your local representative, threatening to boot him out at the next election if he doesn't submit to the will of those he represents?

*You* have the power and right to influence politics around you. Exercise those rights.

What happens when they crash a nuclear plant? (3, Interesting)

RichMan (8097) | about 2 years ago | (#41709675)

What happens if the police do actual damage to important infrastructure. Either civic or private?
Or if police introduce a vulnerability that allows the above?

Don't mess with active systems.

Re:What happens when they crash a nuclear plant? (4, Insightful)

TheCarp (96830) | about 2 years ago | (#41709755)

well I don't know how it works for the Dutch, but I know we solved that problem YEARS ago here. Its quite simple, they will have some manner of immunity so that even if they had no concievable reason to think they were in the right, there will still be no consequences.

Oh...wait thats not true, they might get paid time off until the heat dies down.

Re:What happens when they crash a nuclear plant? (1)

camperdave (969942) | about 2 years ago | (#41710055)

Wouldn't this also mean that the RIAA/MPAA would have to prove that the dutch cops didn't install those songs and movies on my machine?

Re:What happens when they crash a nuclear plant? (1)

Synerg1y (2169962) | about 2 years ago | (#41710213)

Better yet... being as cops are just people with a typically over-heightened sense of self-importance and there are no personality tests or IQ requirements to get into the force, what if a cop comes across something they shouldn't that's many levels above them, sells it and compromises national security?

Re:What happens when they crash a nuclear plant? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41710305)

What happens if the police do actual damage to important infrastructure. Either civic or private?

Or Military, They would be hell if they mess with the military, the police may end up with an assault team from the military to hand them their asses, and no I'm being serious. The military are a law unto themselves.

Not sure if you are being "funny" but (1)

RobertLTux (260313) | about 2 years ago | (#41710399)

at least in the US that is actually very True.

While the Justice department shares legal code with the Department of Defense if you are in the military then you go before the Judge Advocate General and they use the Uniform Code Of Military Justice.

true fact a guy in the process of doing a crime could choose which court he wants by making sure he does/does not wait until he is separated from the military.

Re:What happens when they crash a nuclear plant? (1)

alexo (9335) | about 2 years ago | (#41711081)

What happens if the police do actual damage to important infrastructure. Either civic or private?
Or if police introduce a vulnerability that allows the above?

The same things that usually happens when the police fucks up.
They falsify a report, investigate themselves and continue as if nothing happened.

Did you expect otherwise?

If you give amouse a cookie... (4, Insightful)

wierd_w (1375923) | about 2 years ago | (#41709681)

This is what happens when 1) make mundane activities (like saying something cheeky online) illegal, and 2) insist that law enforcement do something about it.

Law enforcement says " I need to do X to accomplish Y." Government and public supporters say "ok, just crack down on Y for us, ok?"

Later, government says "cracking down on Y isn't enough! We have to make W P and Q illegal, and work to stop that too, to keep our citizens safe!" (Where "safe" is a ephemeral and impossible goal, like achieving lightspeed. Each increment toward the goal comes at exponentially higher costs, and you can never actually get there anyway.)

Law enforcement says "we need all kinds of expanded powers for that!"

Rinse, repeat, until people need licenses to speak, wear only government sanctioned clothing, are put on government regulated diets, and live with a swarm of automated security drones following them everywhere.

"To infinity and beyond!" Takes on a sharply malign connotation here.

The initial problems are less severe than the consequences of policing it. Rather than capitulate to further erosion of rights and libertis, we should just say no.

Spooky action at a distance (1)

trifish (826353) | about 2 years ago | (#41709687)

1984 Reloaded

And it they can't break into my computer... (2)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about 2 years ago | (#41709691)

What are they going to do? They'd be screwed, right? I've recently thought about building some kind of virtual honeypot fronting as my connection to the outside world, with nothing actually sensitive in it. If someone broke into it, it would be so much fun to play games with the attackers.

Re:And it they can't break into my computer... (3, Insightful)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | about 2 years ago | (#41709711)

wanna bet it will be called 'obstruction of justice'.

(wish I was kidding.)

Re:And it they can't break into my computer... (1)

Antipater (2053064) | about 2 years ago | (#41709805)

"Called" obstruction of justice? If the police get legalized powers to break into your system, doing that would be obstruction of justice. Like, a textbook case of it.

Re:And it they can't break into my computer... (1)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about 2 years ago | (#41709895)

First, I don't live in the US. Second, I believe I'm entitled to have complete fictional, made up, bogus documents stored in the privacy of my computer. People write fiction all the time, right? And if some idiot breaks into my machine and believes the shit, how's that my fault, exactly?

Re:And it they can't break into my computer... (1)

Dekker3D (989692) | about 2 years ago | (#41709995)

This isn't about the US... it's about the Netherlands, sadly. I didn't vote for the guy doing this or any of his cronies, I swear!

It's a good thing those things don't seem to pass as easily here as they do in the US, but still... I worry that it might happen one day.

Re:And it they can't break into my computer... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41710011)

Isn't this article about the filthy Dutch? Unless "obstruction of justice" is a purely US legal system idea and that was implied by the thread parent and I missed it.

Re:And it they can't break into my computer... (1)

Antipater (2053064) | about 2 years ago | (#41710039)

Well, I don't know how Dutch (or wherever else you might live, but this is the Dutch police) handle OoJ, but the content of your files is not the point. It's the fact that you'd be willfully preventing the police from having information that they are legally allowed to have. It's the equivalent of refusing to open a safe which they've obtained a warrant to search.

Re:And it they can't break into my computer... (1)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about 2 years ago | (#41710059)

It's the fact that you'd be willfully preventing the police from having information that they are legally allowed to have.

So if this law comes into power, any Dutch citizen having his or her personal files on a computer not connected to the Internet will be violating the law, because the police won't be able to hack it?

Re:And it they can't break into my computer... (1)

Antipater (2053064) | about 2 years ago | (#41710169)

Not exactly. It'd be more like a ToS for the internet - "by being online you consent to law enforcement hacking your computer anytime they choose." It's like your car - police can't search the trunk without a warrant if you keep it closed, but if you're pulling out your groceries and an officer just "happens" to see the five kilos of coke in the open trunk, he doesn't need a warrant to seize them and arrest you.

That's my interpretation, anyway. It'd probably take a court case to clarify in the end.

Re:And it they can't break into my computer... (1)

ubrgeek (679399) | about 2 years ago | (#41710715)

> if you're pulling out your groceries and an officer just "happens" to see the five kilos of coke in the open trunk

And that, my friends, is why I only buy Dr. Pepper.

Re:And it they can't break into my computer... (1)

BitterOak (537666) | about 2 years ago | (#41710571)

First, I don't live in the US. Second, I believe I'm entitled to have complete fictional, made up, bogus documents stored in the privacy of my computer. People write fiction all the time, right? And if some idiot breaks into my machine and believes the shit, how's that my fault, exactly?

Intent is a large component of US Law. Not sure about Dutch. If you have a fictional document on your computer which is part of a novel you've been writing, you would not be guilty of obstruction of justice because there is no intent. If you have a honeypot on your computer or fake data which is there primarily for the purpose of thwarting police investigations, then you would almost certainly be guilty of obstruction of justice.

Re:And it they can't break into my computer... (1)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about 2 years ago | (#41710739)

The intent would be in this case to slow down any entity attacking my systems for a sufficient time to gather information (behavior, possible origin) about them and to pass the information to the police in order for them to investigate it as a possible case of computer abuse. I don't think that I would have the resources to actually identify the attacker. Anyway, if you notice someone breaking into your house at night, you'll call 911, won't you?

Re:And it they can't break into my computer... (1)

JonySuede (1908576) | about 2 years ago | (#41710895)

My wife takes her ninja star and I take my longsword, then we call 911. :P

Re:And it they can't break into my computer... (1)

wierd_w (1375923) | about 2 years ago | (#41710913)

Law of unintended consequences:

How do you differentiate a honey pot from a virtual machine for a thin client? Technologically, they are exactly the same thing.

Re:And it they can't break into my computer... (1)

gstoddart (321705) | about 2 years ago | (#41711689)

If the day comes that I can be guilty of obstruction of justice by preventing Dutch police from breaking into my computer ... Then we have truly lost our freedoms and it is time to start using the proverbial fourth box quite liberally.

And, really, if the police in my own jurisdiction would find my unwillingness to let them break into my computer, the same would be true.

When the Dutch figure their cops should be able to break into, and tamper with, computers anywhere in the world, then the Dutch might discover the rest of the world figures they are fair game.

This is bordering on either scary or ridiculous, I can't decide which.

What's good for the goose... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41709695)

Solution: Anonymous? Please (pretty please, with a cherry on top) post a few pictures of The Prophet Mohammed on this guy's Facebook and other personal web pages, maybe on the Dutch Ministry of Justice and Security site too. Thanks.

Why Not (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41709701)

Why not just sit a policeman near every computer in Holland?

OH THAT WOULD BE RIDICULOUS

Re:Why Not (2)

camperdave (969942) | about 2 years ago | (#41709829)

Read it again, Sam! They're going for powers to do that to ANY COMPUTER ON THE PLANET!

Re:Why Not (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41709965)

Sounds like a formal declaration of war on every other state's sovereignty to me.

They might want to pull back now before they become a smoking crater with a faint hint of weed.

Bring it on... (1)

Krojack (575051) | about 2 years ago | (#41709719)

They would have to somehow get me to run the program on my computer first. Good luck with that.

Re:Bring it on... (2)

wierd_w (1375923) | about 2 years ago | (#41709767)

While getting backdoors into linux would be considerably difficult, it wouldn't be impossible.

Say for instance, government agencies tell nVidia to include an exploit in their binary blob kernel space driver.

How will you spot it, without the source?

Re:Bring it on... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41709873)

I won't because I use nouveau. The blob sucks.

Re:Bring it on... (1)

wierd_w (1375923) | about 2 years ago | (#41710789)

There's all sorts of blobs being used routinely in linux deployments.

Things like the broadcom firmware blob that lives in the network card itself, for instance.

Unless you can vet 100% of the software in your system, there is a clear vector to compromise.

Even then, very clever use of comitts to the linux source itself could open vulnerabilities up.

Its easier to fix once known about, but linux isn't a magic bullet. then again, if world govts started ding this en masse, I would expect crazy-secure desktop linux distros to sprout up like weeds.

Re:Bring it on... (2)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | about 2 years ago | (#41709981)

Binary code analysis. The same way most exploits are found.

Re:Bring it on... (1)

nurb432 (527695) | about 2 years ago | (#41711871)

They can come in the night and install it for you.

Good idea (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41709723)

Privacy is over rated unless you have something to hide.

How? (2)

TheDarkener (198348) | about 2 years ago | (#41709735)

How is this any different than allowing police to break into homes and install covert cameras? Do they already allow this?

Re:How? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41709845)

Yes, in many places, they do.

Whether the Dutch police have such authority, I don't know, but if you've never heard of police surveillance...

Re:How? (2)

DM9290 (797337) | about 2 years ago | (#41709849)

How is this any different than allowing police to break into homes and install covert cameras? Do they already allow this?

It's different because you can't install a million covert cameras without breaking into a million homes, and owning a million cameras. and then having enough personal to actually look at all the footage.
installing spyware on a million computers/phones on the other hand is ACTUALLY DOABLE.

What Happened? (2)

folderol (1965326) | about 2 years ago | (#41709743)

I can remember a time when the Netherlands was certainly the most laid-back, uncritical country in Europe - possible the world.

Re:What Happened? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41709839)

So you're getting old. That's okay, I remember that too. Welcome on board.

Re:What Happened? (2)

Dekker3D (989692) | about 2 years ago | (#41710009)

Slippery slope after 9/11, I think. That's when we got RFID'd mandatory ID cards.

With big power... (1)

gmuslera (3436) | about 2 years ago | (#41709811)

comes bigger corruption. Who watches the watchers?

Will be illegal to use safe, hack proofer operating systems? Will need to have commercial operating systems some kind of mandated government backdoor to have a chance to be used in Germany?

And there is the problem that if you leave a door for government, even if you trust blindly on them (and in the next government and all the people involved in this), others could eventually use it

Re:With big power... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41709937)

Will be illegal to use safe, hack proofer [sic] operating systems?

No, because they don't exist.

I may have this wrong but... (4, Interesting)

Tei (520358) | about 2 years ago | (#41709893)

We have police to stop crimes, not to commit them. What this dude just did, was proposing the commit of a crime at big scale.

Re:I may have this wrong but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41710107)

Psst, its called a search warrant.

Re:I may have this wrong but... (3, Insightful)

skegg (666571) | about 2 years ago | (#41710925)

Psst, its called a search warrant.

What are you .. 10 years old?

It starts-off requiring a search warrant. Soon after, the laws are relaxed to grant police the power to perform these actions without a warrant. Of course a transparent, independent party will be tasked with reviewing these actions every year and presenting a report.

A couple of years later, that "transparent", "independent" party will find police used those powers excessively. This party will be ignored.

Eventually, police having access to these powers will be viewed as routine and instrumental to them performing their duties.

Now they ask for more powers. Wash. Rinse. Repeat.

Re:I may have this wrong but... (1)

RocketRabbit (830691) | about 2 years ago | (#41710397)

That's incredibly naive. Police do not stop crimes, they are there to fill out the paperwork after they are committed, and to collect revenue for the state.

I'm OK with it (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41709903)

Provided that no data found on any computer can ever be used as evidence in court. Cause nobody knows who actually put it there...

Why? (1)

Teun (17872) | about 2 years ago | (#41709909)

A question heard is why?
Because Dutch law already allows most of the proposed access under present regulations.
Contrary to often referenced US law Dutch law is written in general terms, we regulate official/police access to 'the home' and that includes things like telephone or internet and a judge can allow such access right now.

Thanks to the People's Party for Freedom and Democ (2)

kwark (512736) | about 2 years ago | (#41709929)

This message was brought to you by People's Party for Freedom and Democracy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People's_Party_for_Freedom_and_Democracy [wikipedia.org]

Main force behind these kind of laws/proposals are always the parties that have Freedom (to limit others) in their name (we have a couple of them) or from a Christian background (we know that is good for you plebs).

Re:Thanks to the People's Party for Freedom and De (1)

Dekker3D (989692) | about 2 years ago | (#41710057)

Oh gods yes... VVD is the worst of it all because they have power. VVD = People's Party for Freedom and Democracy. But the PVV (Party for Freedom) are the ones that Wilders is using to spew his nonsense. Actually.. they split off from the VVD, so it's all the same anyway. I'm just glad Wilders didn't get to be the prime minister through the VVD somehow, I guess..

We've also got the CDA (Christian-Democratic Appeal, I guess?) that was in charge at the time the RFID-enabled mandatory ID cards were introduced... Well, I guess that's about it for Christian or Freedom. But there's been a few more, just as evil.

Lucky it's only the Dutch (1)

cvtan (752695) | about 2 years ago | (#41709957)

Good thing a country like Iran doesn't want to do this!

I'm from Holland... (1)

Mister Liberty (769145) | about 2 years ago | (#41709987)

...and the guy that proposed this is a total nitwit (1).

Nothing to be excited over, this is all grandstanding
to mask (1).

Time to go all FreedomBox on them there dudes (1)

daboochmeister (914039) | about 2 years ago | (#41710037)

FreedomBox [freedomboxfoundation.org] is the answer!

And for a thought-provoking treatment of the issues, for sci-fi fans (or freedom fans, really), consider reading Cory Doctorow's "Little Brother" [craphound.com] , downloadable for free.

Down with the government (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41710063)

"search for data in those computers, and destroy data"

So they're giving the police the power to destroy evidence? Sounds more like the ministry wants to use these powers to hide their own crimes.

Obligitory hackers reference (1)

allaunjsilverfox2 (882195) | about 2 years ago | (#41710113)

HACK THE PLANET!

Re:Obligitory hackers reference (1)

Eightbitgnosis (1571875) | about 2 years ago | (#41710841)

They're TRASHING our rights, man! They're TRASHING the flow of data! They're TRASHING! TRASHING!

I guess we're lucky after all (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41710145)

I don't think this foolish proposal by somehow elected clown Opstelten will ever pass in the next dacade. However, if it does happen after all, we (and the rest of the world) should count ourselves lucky that the Dutch police are on average equally competent in ICT as they are in rocket science.

massive violation of different countries laws?? (1)

RobertLTux (260313) | about 2 years ago | (#41710153)

and how exactly is this not effectively an ACT OF WAR??

I would think that if they are not very very careful %other_nation% might object very forcefully.

Also if they are mucking around with the files on a computer what is to say that they are not going to PLANT evidence??

Re:massive violation of different countries laws?? (1)

SecurityGuy (217807) | about 2 years ago | (#41711903)

It's not an act of war. It's almost certainly a crime, though. Nation A doesn't get to write laws that say they can do whatever they want within Nation B's borders. They can certainly declare that THEY aren't going to prosecute their own employees for hacking Nation B's computers, but any of those employees setting foot within Nation B's jurisdiction shouldn't be surprised when they're prosecuted.

Also if they are mucking around with the files on a computer what is to say that they are not going to PLANT evidence??

Not really any different from any current searches.

Don't They Already? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41710199)

Here in the US, that's already happening. Everybody I know just assumes that malware could be installed by spammers, police, or anyone else, and runs client-side firewalls to detect any unauthorized outbound connections or other funniness. In terms of security, it doesn't matter who the spyware is being installed by - you take steps to repel it should it ever happen.

Government hacking (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41710285)

I don't understand how the ire of government sponsored hacking makes information security less secure? If anything it would seem to me to improve it.

If a government is actually willing to burn an unknown capability under a "think of the children" banner the outcomes I see:

1. Vulnerability will become known and patched by vendors making all systems more resilient to attack.

This means the vulnerability may no longer be useful should it really be needed such as the need to take covert action against unfriendly nations.

2. Intrusion may be detected by the accused tipping them off to government investigation.

Obviously the above does not prevent governments from encouraging inherently insecure systems from being deployed yet at the same time the cybersecurity war drum is beating and industry is under incresing pressure to improve security.

From the google translation of the proposal nothing is said about key escro or otherwise demanding systems be inherently insecure.

Who do they think they are? (2)

jcr (53032) | about 2 years ago | (#41710503)

So, some Dutch bureaucrats want to give their cops the authority to commit acts of war? Who do they think they are, the USA?

-jcr

Re:Who do they think they are? (1)

mrbester (200927) | about 2 years ago | (#41711417)

I think everyone is missing the point. This is the old "demand something unspeakable in order to 'back down' to what you really want" trick. The Snoopers Charter isn't doing too well in UK (a short hop away from the Netherlands) but it is being seen as a good idea so declare war on the world's computers and the true intent will be passed after an "embarrassing" u-turn / deprecatory climb down lets the protesters think they've won a small victory for liberty.

...and taint evidence (1)

phorm (591458) | about 2 years ago | (#41710697)

Serious, if a computer is
a) So easily broken into
b) Now infected with spyware

How could evidence from it not be considered tainted?

Re:...and taint evidence (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41711979)

Serious, if a computer is
a) So easily broken into
b) Now infected with spyware

How could evidence from it not be considered tainted?

Easy, happens in the US all the time. Evidence is automagically not tainted because the judge says so. That simple.

Blacklists for everyone!!! (1)

NinjaTekNeeks (817385) | about 2 years ago | (#41710843)

So far on the list...
Most of China
Most of Eastern Europe
Africa

Soon... the Netherlands....

here goes (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41711245)

Guess I'll add a whole new set of ip ranges to be banned. China and Latvia are already blocked, dutchland will now too.

No, i'm not aware of proxy. Pretty soon, i'll allow no other country but mine to talk to my home router. Fuck all y'all

This puts security of computers at physical risk (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41712083)

For the Police to be able to successfully install spyware and hack into computers, the security software providers must include some back door entry into the system, for the Police to use. Otherwise their software will block their attempts, just as it would with any other hacking attempt. Now, knowing that there is a back door entry for Police use embedded into user systems, any sane hacker will set out to attempt to somehow use these back doors in their exploits. And no matter how secure this entry would be, some will succeed and the whole idea of making life in the Internet safer, will backfire badly.

A clear taste of political hypocrisy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41712137)

When they want to make IPs and patents profitable, they make the borders between countries sacred, and any attempt at crossing those is "counterfeiting" or IP theft or unlicensed use.

But when it comes to spying on the citizens, suddenly we are a global village, where a Police force of one country can freely penetrate a computer of a citizen of another country, and snoop on them, or even erase their holiday photos if they feel like it. So which one is it? Are we a global village, or a group of separate countries?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?