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 Bill Seeks To Give Law Enforcement Hacking Powers

samzenpus posted about a year ago | from the taking-a-look dept.

Privacy 114

An anonymous reader writes "The Dutch government today presented a draft bill that aims to give law enforcement the power to hack into computer systems — including those located in foreign countries — to do research, gather and copy evidence or block access to certain data. Law enforcement should be allowed to block access to child pornography, read emails that contain information exchanged between criminals and also be able to place taps on communication, according to a draft bill published Thursday and signed by Ivo Opstelten, the Minister of Security and Justice. Government agents should also be able to engage in activities such as turning on a suspect's phone GPS to track their location, the bill said. Opstelten announced last October he was planning to craft this bill."

cancel ×

114 comments

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

A Green Light to all Hackers (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43617841)

What is good for the goose must be good for the gander. This is a clear green light.

Re:A Green Light to all Hackers (4, Insightful)

jimshatt (1002452) | about a year ago | (#43618001)

Exactly. When governments give themselves freedoms while taking the same freedoms away from their citizens, something is wrong. Unfortunately this seems to be de rigueur, lately.

Re:A Green Light to all Hackers (1, Insightful)

agm (467017) | about a year ago | (#43618139)

Exactly. When governments give themselves freedoms while taking the same freedoms away from their citizens, something is wrong.

You mean like the ability to tax people?

Re:A Green Light to all Hackers (2, Informative)

Erik Hensema (12898) | about a year ago | (#43618289)

No, this is completely normal. For example, governments have a monopoly on violence (see wikipedia [wikipedia.org] ). Citizens don't have the freedom to shoot each other, for example. A police officer does have the right to shoot under certain circumstances.

This isn't something from the past few years. Governments have reserved certain rights to itself for many centuries, in order to maintain civil order and sovereignty.

So, it's also completely normal that the government reserves the right to hack into computers under certain circumstances. For example, permission from a judge is needed. You can compare this to a search warrent for a private home, also the exclusive right for the government.

Re:A Green Light to all Hackers (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43618613)

I disagree with your simile. It's more like the police getting powers to burgle (with a warrant) rather than knock on the door (and break it if nobody opens). You need an IDS to see what's going on, rather than being served with an order to hand over whatever data they think might suit them as evidence.

The same bill also adds powers to demand decryption. Make of that what you will.

Re:A Green Light to all Hackers (1)

Opportunist (166417) | about a year ago | (#43619083)

I disagree on them being comparable. The inhibition threshold is much lower, comparable with "non-lethal" weapons vs. handgun use by police force. A policeman is much more likely to use a taser on a suspect than shoot him.

Since the average judge would see such a "hack" as something much less invasive than a search warrant, he's also more likely to grant it on flimsy, if any, leads. I'd fear that in very short time such hack attempts would be routine when you have some kind of suspect, to break into his computer. Also because such "searches" are far less noticeable. If the police would be doing searches left and right, you'd soon have people complain. With these "hack" searches, I'd highly doubt that you hear about 99% of them (because they didn't turn up anything).

Re:A Green Light to all Hackers (2)

meta-monkey (321000) | about a year ago | (#43619867)

Since the average judge would see such a "hack" as something much less invasive than a search warrant, he's also more likely to grant it on flimsy, if any, leads.

That makes for an interesting double standard.

(Monday)
Cop: "Your honor, we'd like to hack into this guy's computer to see if he's a criminal."
Judge: "Meh, no biggie. Here's your warrant."

(Tuesday)
Cop: "We got him, Your Honor! Turns out he was hackin the webs and rippin the disks and things."
Judge: "Hax?!? On the computorz?! This for serious! 50 years in a federal 'pound me in the ass prison!' So let it be written. So let it be done. Also, bricks without straw because apparently for the purpose of this joke I'm also Pharaoh."

Re:A Green Light to all Hackers (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43619651)

How long are will permission be neeeded until an US Patriot Act like law is put in place to allow it warrantless? I know this is not for America, yet. How will abuses of the law be handled? Will there be NSL's to protect them from oversight?

Re:A Green Light to all Hackers (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43619975)

"Citizens don't have the freedom to shoot each other, for example. A police officer does have the right to shoot under certain circumstances."

No. Citizens have the same right to shoot others under certain circumstances as police do - when they're in fear for their life or in the clear defense of the lives of others.

Re:A Green Light to all Hackers (1)

kwbauer (1677400) | about a year ago | (#43622165)

Bad example in any legal jurisdiction in which I've lived with one possible exception which only lasted 22 months. Except for those months spent in Switzerland, I've never lived where the law didn't allow me to use a gun (or other lethal weapon) to defend myself and others if I or they were under imminent threat of death or great bodily harm.

Funny how you seem to take for granted (and seem to agree with) a situation that many other Slashdotters complain is NOT the norm in the US while clamoring loudly for it to become the norm.

Re:A Green Light to all Hackers (1)

Mister Liberty (769145) | about a year ago | (#43623335)

Explain to me then why this proposed law is needed. With a proper
warrant in hand, all they seek to do under the new bill is possible,
right now.

No Opstelten is a nitwit with a lot of time on his hands, and his
clueless mind wants to whistle even more to the tune of the United
Distaste of America.

Opstelten furthermore is a guy who without even being aware of
it (there's that dumbsullery again) operates on the principle of class
justice.

For those that don't know him: even the way he speaks is all upper
class pomp (and no content, as is usual for the phenomenon).

Re:A Green Light to all Hackers (2)

Grashnak (1003791) | about a year ago | (#43618369)

Lately? That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Every government in human history has enjoyed powers that were denied to individual citizens. That's pretty much the point of the institution we call a government. We don't want individuals making and enforcing their own laws or drafting people into private armies...

Re:A Green Light to all Hackers (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43618499)

That's all fine and dandy as long as they are doing it to Dutch citizens. It's the same as searching a suspect's house, warrant in hand. The problems I can imagine arising from this bill will come when they hack into some foreign entity's computers. Jurisdiction, anyone? "Look boss, our suspect works for the American Department of Defense. Let's go hack the Pentagon!" Next thing you know, Amsterdam is bombed back to the stone age.

Re: A Green Light to all Hackers (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43618693)

So, as a US citizen who is my representative in Dutch government? I would like to send them a letter.

Re: A Green Light to all Hackers (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43619369)

Obama is your representative.

Re:A Green Light to all Hackers (1)

1s44c (552956) | about a year ago | (#43618447)

What is good for the goose must be good for the gander. This is a clear green light.

The bad guys have always abused other people's systems to steal data. Anyone who sets up systems connected to the internet should expect sustained attacks from the bad guys.

The only thing that is happening here is that the Dutch government is stepping out of the shadows and going 'Look at me! I'm a bad guy! I'm going to h4x0r j00 with my l33t skillz!' Personally I'd null route the entire Dutch government for this, they admitted an intent to crack other people's systems and steal data.

Re:A Green Light to all Hackers (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43620677)

Not at all!

It is only the government that should be able to plant evidence ehrrr... sorry I mean "discover" horrible child porno on a computer owned by someone whom they want to be framed.

Child porn (5, Informative)

readingaccount (2909349) | about a year ago | (#43617845)

Ah good - they've been paying attention and made sure to include the good ol' "child pornography" bit in the list of reasons as justification for breaking into someone else's machine. No bill can be taken seriously without that think-of-the-children element added to it.

Re:Child porn (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43617929)

Opstelten has had some help of Robert Mickelson, a notorious child porn producer and child rapist, who used truecrypt. His crimes caused a lot of sheeple to switch sides.

Re:Child porn (3, Interesting)

rvw (755107) | about a year ago | (#43617951)

Opstelten has had some help of Robert Mickelson, a notorious child porn producer and child rapist, who used truecrypt. His crimes caused a lot of sheeple to switch sides.

It's not his case that caused them to switch sides. It's the way the prosecutor uses this to support his case, it's the way certain (typically conservative) media use it to feed the fear and confirmation that their customers want, and politicians go along with this trend to not loose the support of their voters.

For those of you not aware of dutch news (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43617971)

The Netherlands has seen some high profile DDOS attacks on both its banks and a government service that allows login to government sites (DigiID), The re emerging of this idea is therefor no surprise. It has not been successful so far.

The reason is simple, Americans might complain about the two-party system... well... we got about a dozen. And not all that different in size either. Our current government is "VVD" (Think business rules all democrats) and PvDA which used to be the labour party (socialist) but only if you think Blair was a socialist.

And that is just the politicians. VVD is often the socially acceptable extreme right wing party (same as Republican is the socially acceptable alternative to the KKK) and many a PvDA member is still red and jealous of the red of the SP (Socialist Party).

You can possibly imagine there is some strive, not between the politicians perse but in the fight for both parties to keep their members believing their party is still their party. An example is the current attempt to make being present in Holland illegaly, illegal... it is part of the agreement between the two ruling parties BUT the PvDA has a hard time selling it to some of its backers. (PvDA is really a mix between the Blair type, hard-core sociasts (who were against immigration to begin with) and bleeding hearts, constantly fighting over who is the REAL PvDA).

To understand Dutch politics you got to look at its drugs policy. Blowing, smoking pot, isn't actually legal, it is condoned. But mayors (responsible for the police in their city) want to combat excesses like drug dealers near schools. So they introduced local ordinances to ban selling in some areas.

HOWEVER, Dutch law prohibits the passing of local laws that make things illegal that are ALREADY illegal to begin with. Smoking pot is already illegal so you can't pass a local ordinance banning it near schools. BUT it is also condones, so you can't act against it either. Meaning drug sellers actually won a court case banning them from selling in some areas...

Remember Americans, you might not like your two party system but are you ready for a system in which EVERYONE must be kept happy/miserable?

This new law has little chance, it is just a way to get in the papers.

Re:For those of you not aware of dutch news (3, Interesting)

jimshatt (1002452) | about a year ago | (#43618015)

Remember Americans, you might not like your two party system but are you ready for a system in which EVERYONE must be kept happy/miserable?

Yes, I think EVERYONE slightly miserable is the better alternative, opposed to a few people happy and the rest utterly miserable. The poldermodel (sorry for teh dutch) has its merits.

Re:For those of you not aware of dutch news (2)

mcvos (645701) | about a year ago | (#43618549)

Absolutely. If we can't all be happy, at least spread the misery around a bit, so nobody has a strong interest in increasing the misery for others.

There's a lot wrong with Dutch politics, but it's still a thousand times better than the rampant insanity of US politics.

Re:For those of you not aware of dutch news (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43618719)

Hello, dutchy here.

Wtf does the US have to do with anything? Let's focus on our own problems, of which we have plenty, and fix those. Pointing out completely unrelated problems of others does nothing to solve anything.

Re:For those of you not aware of dutch news (3, Interesting)

JaredOfEuropa (526365) | about a year ago | (#43618037)

The law might very well pass. In ordinary circumstances it would likely be shot down in the senate, who are supposed to be more or less apolitical, and normally only pass or strike proposed bills after checking if they are fair, just, in line with other laws and principles, and practical. At the moment however, the governing parties have no majority in the senate, which has opened up the floor for all sorts of political wheeling & dealing, precisely the sort of thing the senate is not supposed to do. The party leader for the Christian Democrats even said it out loud: Quid pro quo, if you want your laws passed. A statement which I think ought to get him ejected from the senate.

So we have a law on the table. A law which goes against our civil liberties, something that many a party in the opposition is not going to like. However the issue of civil liberties, especially "digital" ones, has always been a political bargaining chip that is easily given up if it can be exchanged for something better. When this law lands in the senate, you can be sure that many parties will be interested in supporting it in exchange for something else.

Re:For those of you not aware of dutch news (2)

operagost (62405) | about a year ago | (#43619305)

same as Republican is the socially acceptable alternative to the KKK

It disgusts me when cretins like your trivialize the horrible struggle for civil rights in the USA in this manner. Lincoln was a Republican, the Civil Right Act was sponsored and voted for by Republicans, and Jim Crow was a creation of the Democrats. You would know this if you weren't a vainglorious European who has no idea what the KKK even was, or is. Having lived under the thumb of Hitler for a time, you think you'd know better than to trivialize human suffering.

Re:For those of you not aware of dutch news (2)

Alsee (515537) | about a year ago | (#43624299)

It disgusts me when cretins like your trivialize the horrible struggle for civil rights in the USA in this manner. Lincoln was a Republican, the Civil Right Act was sponsored and voted for by Republicans, and Jim Crow was a creation of the Democrats. You would know this if you weren't a vainglorious European who has no idea what the KKK even was, or is.

It's hysterical how vainglorious Republicans trivialize the horrible struggle for civil rights in the USA, and how they have no idea (or are in UTTER DENIAL) of the history and modern reality of their own party.

In 1970 Nixon's political strategist stated the following in a New York Times interview:

From now on, the Republicans are never going to get more than 10 to 20 percent of the Negro vote and they don't need any more than that...but Republicans would be shortsighted if they weakened enforcement of the Voting Rights Act. The more Negroes who register as Democrats in the South, the sooner the Negrophobe whites will quit the Democrats and become Republicans. That's where the votes are. Without that prodding from the blacks, the whites will backslide into their old comfortable arrangement with the local Democrats.

Actually the "Southern Strategy" started with Republican Herbert Hoover was running against a Catholic Democratic candidate 1928. In 1928 the KKK, and the majority of Southerners, hated and feared Catholics nearly as much blacks. Hoover deliberately courted the KKK vote, and deliberately stirred up Southern religious bigotry fears of a potential Catholic president. Not only did the strategy work, Hoover became the first Republican to win Texas and picked up several other (at the time) solidly Democratic ex-confederate states. THIS was the original point where civil rights leaders started fleeing the Republican party and joining the Democratic party. Over the next several years there were several Democratic presidents who strongly supported civil rights, FDR Kennedy and Johnson, and in each case African Americans increasingly saw the Democratic party as a viable choice, and southern racist white Democrats became increasingly outraged and alienated. At the time the Democratic party was indeed infested with racist, but Democratic presidents and most of the Democratic political leadership refused to pander to the racist element of their base.

During this period almost all civil rights leaders were re-aligning with the Democrats.

And then along came GOLDWATER rejecting the Civil Rights Act. BAM! African Americans fled the Republican party in droves. And then the Honorable Richard M. Nixon came along running for president, and he took Hoover's pro-KKK "Southern Strategy" and cranked it up to eleven. As quoted above, Nixon and the Republican party as a whole adopted a strategy of deliberately driving out blacks, and deliberately using blacks to "prod" racist Democrats into re-aligning with the Republicans.

Over the course of a few decades there was a 100% reversal. Republicans took on a deliberate strategy of making a welcoming home for racists, and pandering to them. And it worked. The Republicans drove off essentially 100% of blacks, drove off all of the civil rights leaders, and succeeded in drawing racists into the party. And it worked. The Republicans drew in a huge body of racist voters, enough that they didn't care about running off minority voters, pandered to the the racists, and won elections specifically on the back of racist votes.

Calling out to Lincoln as a Republican is like calling out to George Washington as British subject. Things change. Sometimes people switch sides. Sometimes associations undergo a 100% reversal. Calling out to an association which has ceased to exist is completely hollow, if not deliberately disingenuous.

And now the chickens have come home to roost. Now that minorities are (collectively) starting to become the majority of voters, Republicans are suddenly waking up to the fact that they are currently losing more votes than they are getting. They are realizing that, as minority percentages increase over the next few years, Republican Party is rapidly losing any chance of reaching 50% in elections over the next few years.

It's quite funny how Republicans are suddenly trying to rebrand themselves "as the party of Lincoln". It's funny how many times I've watched Republican Talking Heads on TV saying in one breath how they now want to "reach out" to minority voters, and in the very next breath adamantly declare that they are unwilling to change any policy positions in the process.

The modern Republican party is not the party of Lincoln. The modern Republican Party is the bastard child of religious bigotry and racist bigotry. It's the legacy of a deliberate political strategy of stealing religious fundies and racist bigots out of the Democratic party. In the modern Republican Party you merely add in homophobia to the strategy. The weird part is how Republicans somehow manage to lump in women as yet another "minority" to oppose.

P.S.
I realize this is all quite off-topic from the original article. The parent poster was just the lucky "winner" of my increasing annoyance at constantly hearing Republicans desperately attempting to re-brand themselves as "the party of Lincoln". Chuckle.

-

Re:For those of you not aware of dutch news (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43624405)

Blowing, smoking pot, isn't actually legal, it is condoned.

Small correction (though it does not change your argument in any way): smoking pot is not illegal. It's selling pot that is illegal but condoned.

Re:Child porn (4, Informative)

JaredOfEuropa (526365) | about a year ago | (#43617975)

I think child porn ought to be the legislator's Godwin: mention it, and your bill gets shit-canned automatically.

Incidentally, the bill goes beyond hacking into suspects' computers. It also states that suspects (not convicted criminals) can be forced to hand over encryption keys, if they are suspected of serious crimes. So in the interest of making things easier for investigators, we've done away with an important legal principle ("nemo tenetur") which states that suspects cannot be forced to aid their own prosecution. The minister thinks that this principle should be set aside for, you guessed it, suspects of terrorism or kiddie porn.

Re:Child porn (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43618029)

nemo tenetur doesn't allow you to hide evidence or refuse to hand over evidence if law enforcement knows it exists. For instance you can't refuse to hand over a stolen car you have hidden simply because it will incriminate you further providing hard evidence to something they already know you did.

Re:Child porn (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43618113)

Yes, but there is a huge difference between suspects and convicted criminals. They must first prove they know you stole the car before really being able to demand it back. Either we need to move trowards encryption as truecrypt has the ability and ensure you can have a second or multiple hidden partitions. But sooner or later that may end on them being allowed to force you to give the key to the hidden partition, even if there isn't one, making you guilty of at least one crime whenever they investigate.

Re:Child porn (1)

Opportunist (166417) | about a year ago | (#43619131)

You know it exists? But I didn't use a pass phrase. I used a pass key, stored on a USB stick. Sadly I lost it a while ago or I could show you that it's just some harmless files.

Prove I'm lying.

Re:Child porn (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43620129)

I believe SMART data could show how much that drive has been used. That might make saying you haven't mounted those encrypted partitions in a while difficult. Opinions?

Re:Child porn (1)

melikamp (631205) | about a year ago | (#43620501)

This. I think there is a fundamental limitation on passwords: human brains suck at remembering good ones. This excuse will make a ton of sense in the future world, where digital security is taken seriously. At least as seriously as locking doors today.

Re:Child porn (4, Informative)

JaredOfEuropa (526365) | about a year ago | (#43618117)

Actually, it does. As a suspect, you are not obliged to hand over evidence or tell the police where to find it if they ask for it, and you can not be punished for withholding this information. However, the police are authorized to obtain this evidence by other means, i.e. busting down your door and looking for it, or asking someone else who is not a suspect and thus not protected by nemo tenetur.

There are several EU countries where this principle is interpreted narrowly (certainly the Netherlands), and the law in some cases does compel suspects to hand over documents and keys while retaining only the right to literally remain silent, but the European Human Rights Court has overturned many convictions obtained thus on appeal. Even in cases where suspects of tax evasion got fined for not handing over incriminating records (and the tax agencies over here are notorious for being allowed to do whatever the hell they please in order to get at your cash).

Re:Child porn (1)

AmiMoJo (196126) | about a year ago | (#43618585)

In the UK you can go to jail for refusing to hand over your encryption keys, and people have. The maximum sentence is two years, so clearly anyone who has done anything really bad is going to take that option.

I believe there was a ECHR challenge but it failed.

Re:Child porn (1)

JaredOfEuropa (526365) | about a year ago | (#43618935)

Same in France I believe, and this is what they want to implement in the Netherlands as well. The ECHR is wary of this issue but it certainly isn't completely clear-cut. Some info on exceptions in this paper. [www.wodc.nl] (PDF alert).

Re:Child porn (1)

fearofcarpet (654438) | about a year ago | (#43618817)

How does nemo tenetur interact with obstruction of justice? e.g., If they ask someone who isn't a suspect and they are subsequently charged with obstruction, can they then invoke their right to remain silent even if the information isn't self-incriminating? Or can my own silence bring obstruction charges?

And does the narrowest interpretation include non-verbal communication? e.g., if the law compels me to supply a decryption key and I literally remain silent, can they compel me to write it down? And what if I just "can't recall the password" or claim to have destroyed the key prior to being arrested?

I always thought that the right to silence/against self-incrimination literally grants you the right to sit there silently, no matter what questions are asked or demands are made, but it seems more nuanced than that.

Re:Child porn (1)

JaredOfEuropa (526365) | about a year ago | (#43618887)

How does nemo tenetur interact with obstruction of justice? e.g., If they ask someone who isn't a suspect and they are subsequently charged with obstruction, can they then invoke their right to remain silent even if the information isn't self-incriminating? Or can my own silence bring obstruction charges?

If you refuse to surrender information that doesn't incriminate you, then there's no conflict between obstruction of justice and the right to remain silent.

Re:Child porn (1)

ultranova (717540) | about a year ago | (#43622281)

If you refuse to surrender information that doesn't incriminate you, then there's no conflict between obstruction of justice and the right to remain silent.

Of course there is: if you can only refuse to surrender information that incriminates you, then silence is as good as admitting guilt - and besides, how do you prove information would incriminate you without surrendering it?

Re:Child porn (1)

david_thornley (598059) | about a year ago | (#43623345)

How does that work? Let me set up a hypothetical example.

Jim is suspected of robbing a bank. The police have noticed a man of Joe's description in a certain area, and ask him if he saw something like the getaway car on some property of Jim's that generally nobody goes to. (The police are not at all sure it was Joe, and ask several people of that description.) Apparently, Joe must tell the police that he did see the car there, and that does confirm his presence at that place at that time. I see two possible problems.

First, the case against Jim falls apart for some reason, and the police are looking around for another suspect. Good ol' Joe is known to have been around the getaway car for no obvious reason now, maybe he had something to do with it.

Second, the bank robbery is resolved. Some months later, they interrogate a drug dealer called Ed, and find out that Ed used to conduct transactions out that way because nobody (except the bank robber that one time) went there. Who else do the police know who went by there? Joe.

Re:Child porn (1)

Opportunist (166417) | about a year ago | (#43619107)

I said it before, I say it again, before I side with politicians that try to reach into my privacy, I'd rather side with pedos. Simple self interest. I'm an old guy, no pedo would be interested in dealing with me in any way. Politicians, otoh...

Re:Child porn (1)

melikamp (631205) | about a year ago | (#43620657)

Hehehe. I, for one, don't understand for the life of me why it is OK to share videos of soldiers shooting at children with automatic weapons, for real. Or what Lucas did with kids in the prequels. How is that OK, and a depiction of a fictional sex abuse act is not OK? I think children involved in actual acts would strongly agree with me, too.

Or what about any movie where a super-villain is trying to destroy the world? Why are we OK with looking at that imagery? Isn't that the worst fucking thing that one can try to do? Why do people get gold prizes for depicting this, and prison time for monkeys with no clothes on?

Re:Child porn (1)

rtb61 (674572) | about a year ago | (#43621943)

The easy answer for this is capitalistic greed currently defines this world. Why did a billionaire get home arrest for sexually abusing under age girls in the mansion where the abuse occurred? Why is it OK for a President to blow children to bits with drone fired missiles, why did a gunship crew get away with shooting up children and why do Israeli snipers get away with targeting children. Now that's just for a start. No fiction actual brutal reality.

Back to that law, governments can bullshit legislate computers in other countries all they want that does not make it legal and it will still cause enormous strife when it comes to extradition treaties.

sure, if dutch officers never plan to travel. (5, Interesting)

gl4ss (559668) | about a year ago | (#43617851)

they would still be criminals in the other countries. might be troublesome if they plan to travel, while having wire fraud and computer crime charges on their heads...

and well, they're part of the eu so that too, might be unavoidable to remain and not extradite to other eu countries.

Re:sure, if dutch officers never plan to travel. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43617933)

There were minor that they are pleasantly surprised with regards to whenever Jack Haig crossed that complete collection within very first spot atop that raw run the to Build Notice from Fight to the National boundaries before quite a few which were being likely to state with regard to triumph within Step Cycle Jerseys [procyclejerseys.com] one particular. To be a 19-year-old within 2012, this individual rode to triumph atop Build Hotham in the Vacation regarding Shiny which, in addition to going to any pre-season training camp appeared to be plenty of to propose Haig appeared to be wanting to stage directly into Australia's number-one family squad, Huon Salmon-Genesys Success Advisers by using only not one but two earlier gets going in the Subaru Country's Route Collection. This individual wasted short amount of time within confirming that decision Cycle Jersey [procyclejerseys.com] regarding Andrew-Christie Johnston to create bedroom with regard to your ex within 2013.

Glisson Lawn & Snow (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43618009)

Glisson Lawn & Snow Provides Land scaping Installation , Maintenance and Snow Removal Services.Landscaper Syracuse NY, Lawn Care Syracuse NY, Residential Landscaper Syracuse NY, Commercial Landscaping Syracuse NY .

Re:sure, if dutch officers never plan to travel. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43618255)

... they would still be criminals in the other countries ...

You mean like Dick Cheney? He's easily avoided the international chat circuit. Of course, no-one's demanding his head which is perplexing. But this is easily explained by A) He's an American, so obeying laws of other countries is optional; B) He was at the time, a bureaucrat, so obeying the laws of his own country was optional.

Supposedly, the Chinese have penetrated every government network in the USA. How many Chinese have been extradited and imprisoned in Git-Mo? This may be because Chinese politicians don't behave like those politicians who grab their ankles every time the USA comes a-visiting.

Re:sure, if dutch officers never plan to travel. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43618267)

Don't worry. The dutch law enforcement couldn't hack it's way out of a wet paper bag.

Re:sure, if dutch officers never plan to travel. (2)

mcvos (645701) | about a year ago | (#43618553)

That's why they're hiring Fox IT to do it. (Also top-level sponsors of OHM2013, by the way.)

Re:sure, if dutch officers never plan to travel. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43619761)

Don't worry. The dutch law enforcement couldn't hack it's way out of a wet paper bag.

Shouldn't that be into?

They'll turn a blind eye (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43618361)

Nah,
All that will happen is a nice cosy cooperation between police forces, they'll even hack on behalf of each other to get around little local laws.

You won't see any dutch police prosecuted the way you would see a dutch citizen prosecuted if they did the same thing, and broke the same laws.

Re:sure, if dutch officers never plan to travel. (1)

Grashnak (1003791) | about a year ago | (#43618383)

Right, because no other country in the world has it's security forces hacking computers, and if they do, they're immediately arrested and extradited under international law...

Oh wait... no.

Congrats on being outstandingly naive.

Run-of-the-mill state-sponsored criminal hackers (4, Insightful)

gweihir (88907) | about a year ago | (#43617863)

Really no difference to Chinese state-sponsored hackers. For anybody else, these people are just an (advanced) persistent threat, as they will not go to jail if identified, at least not in their own country. Treat them no different than any other criminal hackers from a different country.

Re:Run-of-the-mill state-sponsored criminal hacker (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43617995)

I'm interested in hearing your views on US based government sponsored hackers. Should they expect to be arrested and jailed when travelling to the EU as well?

If not, why not?

Re:Run-of-the-mill state-sponsored criminal hacker (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43618043)

Good point. And please consider that like the Chinese (but unlike European surveillance), they have a history of forwarding commercially sensitive information to their home companies.

Surveillance can be justified by safety concerns, but using the results for other purposes cannot.

Re:Run-of-the-mill state-sponsored criminal hacker (1)

cheekyjohnson (1873388) | about a year ago | (#43620675)

Surveillance can be justified by safety concerns

What? What sort of surveillance? Warrantless?

Re:Run-of-the-mill state-sponsored criminal hacker (2)

Opportunist (166417) | about a year ago | (#43619157)

Yes.

Next question?

Re:Run-of-the-mill state-sponsored criminal hacker (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43620017)

Oddly, there aren't any US Government sponsored hackers or they are so good as to not be detected at all.

There is one more option of course, which is likely to be the correct one: There is no need for any, as corporations give information away freely.

Re:Run-of-the-mill state-sponsored criminal hacker (1)

gweihir (88907) | about a year ago | (#43624855)

They should definitely be arrested and punished. Same the other way round. Allowing "hacking" by states is the road to hell for IT security, no matter whether domestically or abroad.

One problem is that government agents are almost never trustworthy or honorable. The other is that they are universally incompetent. For example, one incarnation of the German "Bundestrojaner" left those spied upon wide open to other attacks. Faked and manipulated digital evidence provided by the authorities is also already a widespread problem.

Re:Run-of-the-mill state-sponsored criminal hacker (1)

fearofcarpet (654438) | about a year ago | (#43618909)

Really no difference to Chinese state-sponsored hackers. For anybody else, these people are just an (advanced) persistent threat, as they will not go to jail if identified, at least not in their own country. Treat them no different than any other criminal hackers from a different country.

I think that issue here is that law enforcement can use evidence obtained by hacking to prosecute someone. State-sponsored hacking, be it Chinese or American, is used to gather intelligence, but is clandestine by nature and cannot be used as evidence... well, at least in the criminal justice system. Who knows what "secret evidence" is introduced in the kangaroo courts used to try suspected terrorists... As someone else pointed out, the reason behind this bill is probably that it is cheaper to obtain evidence by hacking, but since it's currently inadmissible--because it's illegal--they have to use more expensive, conventional routes to obtain digital evidence.

Guilty til proven innocent (1)

ron-l-j (1725874) | about a year ago | (#43617887)

The key word is suspect here. Not a convicted or tried person that has been found guilty.

Re:Guilty til proven innocent (1)

Hentes (2461350) | about a year ago | (#43618239)

It would be pointless to collect evidence after conviction. This is really no different from phone tapping, it requires a warranty that's only issued when there's reasonable suspicion.

Hacking Powers (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43617903)

Cool, so now they can program flashy new code and release it under a free software license. Perhaps even do some hardware hacks, like make your cell phone a bat detector!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hacker_(programmer_subculture) [wikipedia.org]

Re:Hacking Powers (1)

Spottywot (1910658) | about a year ago | (#43617959)

Yep, mod parent up please. Not that it'll do any good, I think it's probably too late to take back the definition of 'hacker' in the public mind. I think the only thing to do is use it in the original sense as much as possible to at least give it a dual meaning.

I get funny looks when I bemoan the lack of a hackerspace in my local area, but it does give me an opportunity to educate.

Re:Hacking Powers (1)

mematron (1611693) | about a year ago | (#43618147)

Yep, mod parent up please. Not that it'll do any good, I think it's probably too late to take back the definition of 'hacker' in the public mind. I think the only thing to do is use it in the original sense as much as possible to at least give it a dual meaning.

I get funny looks when I bemoan the lack of a hackerspace in my local area, but it does give me an opportunity to educate.

You'll pay for your treachery! 1337 HAXOR spaces will be the fall of civilization.

Fun if huge cpu and databases used... (1)

AHuxley (892839) | about a year ago | (#43617913)

The white hat, grey hat and black hat experts will be all over this.
Identify the product sold to the police, how its injected into a users OS.
How to protect, what it phone homes too....
This was tried in Australia in the past:
http://www.smh.com.au/technology/security/hackers-break-into-police-computer-as-sting-backfires-20090818-eohc.html [smh.com.au]
i.e. just a "phone home" computer in suburbia.
But will some consumer OS be enough the Dutch? Or will they need to link to Big Iron?
or 100's of empty rented homes with a few desktops running day and night?

Classic Hair Braiding Services (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43617993)

Des :Classic Hair Braiding Services provides Hair Styles Cornrows,Freestyle,Micro braids, Senegalese twist, Kinky twist, interlocking, hair fusion, weaves, full head waves, wave tracks, Extensions, touch up service, Braid Removal.Hair Braids Houston TX, Micro Braids Houston TX, Hair Extensions Houston TX, Hair Weaves Houston TX.

extremely touchy and controversial (1)

StephanieK (2908295) | about a year ago | (#43617999)

Such plans are always extremely controversial and there is so much to consider, seeing as how a)hacking is hacking, i.e., illegal; b) there is an ever finer growing line between that and the methods law enforcement, at least in this case, aims to use to prevent crime or gather evidence; c) on the other hand, criminals are going to keep using the web and new technology just like everyone else... so the question mark is of course hanging between protecting citizens' privacy and identifying those online accounts, communications etc. that really do need to be examined? There's also the point of hacking in to accounts located in foreign countries - doesn't that involve some interaction with laws of said countries, not just basing actions on the Dutch bill alone?

Re:extremely touchy and controversial (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43622039)

Remains the next question: If a computer is hacked, how can found evidence be used in a trial?

You see - the moment you hack a computer the whole content is "contaminated". In other words - nobody can tell what was originally present on the computer, and what was "added" while hacking. It would be very difficult to say, because when you have total access to all files, it is child's play to add a file and change the file date and attributes etc.

So - If the police has a tunnel-vision sight on a suspect and really want him/her to be guilty, a little hack could do wonders. And hey! presto! they found the "evidence". It should not happen, but in practice... really?

The defence rests its case... (5, Interesting)

Squeak (10756) | about a year ago | (#43618003)

If the hack is at such a level that they have system write access (e.g.. to place taps on communications) then the defence case has a much stronger case just by asking whether the the same channel could be use to plant evidence, whether by the law enforcement agency or by a third party.

Damn him (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43618021)

I've never trusted Dutch Bill.

GREAT timing (1)

Errol backfiring (1280012) | about a year ago | (#43618027)

And the same politicians will wine "that never again" on liberation day (May 5th).

From a Dutch news source: (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43618061)

- The proposed bill gives police the right to hack -- in collaboration with local authorities if the location of the server is known.
    Basically: only unknown server location might involve hacking not allowed by local jurisdiction.
- The proposed bill allows the police to place spyware on suspect's PCs to eavesdrop on e.g. Skype.
- There is apparently a clause to require decryption for child terrorists / porn suspects. Punishable by up to 3 years jailtime.

The second one is bad enough, but the last one ticks me off. They just claim you're a terrorist suspect (and, frankly, the way governments have been treating their populations: who isn't?), and then either you decrypt or you end up in jail.

And I really doubt anyone will say "oh, you were a child terrorist suspect, never convicted." I think they will say "you served 3 years in prison for pornography."

So much for prophecy... (2)

Angeret (1134311) | about a year ago | (#43618125)

I thought WW3 was supposed to be starting somewhere in the Middle East? If Dutch cops think they can hack around the globe - and announce they'll be doing so whenever the mood takes them - won't that upset any country who has already stated that incoming hacks will be treated as an act of war?

They must be smoking some good shit there these days!

Re:So much for prophecy... (1)

that this is not und (1026860) | about a year ago | (#43618523)

The Middle East is increasingly irrelevant in the international scene.

Many places are finding their energy needs elsewhere. Soon, hopefully, the demands of autocrats and dictators in M.E. countries will be mostly irrelevant.

This fact, of course, has the usual suspects sputtering and furious. 'Fracking,' pipelines from western Canada, and all that.

Re:So much for prophecy... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43619051)

The US government calls everything an act of war, it likes to pretend the rest of the world is picking on it to justify it's own imbalanced reaction.

Real reason: not enough resources (3, Insightful)

Frans Faase (648933) | about a year ago | (#43618165)

It has been argued that one of the real reasons behind this bill is the lack of resources with the police to follow-up all the now already available means of tracking down offenders. Appearantly, it is much cheaper to use hacking tools than to do some old style research and detective work. Or at least that is the impression given by those marketing these hacking tools.

Wonder if the foreign countries will love it? (1)

yacc143 (975862) | about a year ago | (#43618169)

I mean, sorry, yeah, it's a felony, but we've authorized our people to do this. No we won't extradite our police officers to you, ...

What makes me really wonder about this in the context of the EU warrant, I mean, compromising computer security is a felony everywhere, so by the rules of the EU warrant the NL would be required to extradite their own police officers?

Re: Wonder if the foreign countries will love it? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43618745)

So, as a US citizen who is my representative in Dutch government? I would like to send them a letter.

Many agencies here also pose as 12 year old girls on the Web to try and find suspects. How many law enforcement agencies will be comprimised by this?

Re: Wonder if the foreign countries will love it? (1)

Opportunist (166417) | about a year ago | (#43619193)

Well, hopefully the various governments around the globe will be kept busy entrapping each other, maybe then some freedom can still exist...

Re:Wonder if the foreign countries will love it? (1)

1s44c (552956) | about a year ago | (#43619069)

Newsflash - Police are above the law.

Living in the Netherlands... (3, Interesting)

theM_xl (760570) | about a year ago | (#43618213)

Sadly, I have to admit he IS just that stupid.

He's been busy trying to kill privacy while turning a dozen bureaucratic police corpses into a single grand paper mill with vast investigative powers and near-zero investigative ability. Percentage of crimes solved is historically low. Priority appears to be crimes that aren't (example: 440 man DAYS burned on a single 4Chan message of a schoolkid threatening to set his school on fire), as well as traffic violations (effectively turning the police into an extended tax collection agency).

Sadly, he's not going anywhere until the next elections.

Re:Living in the Netherlands... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43618285)

"police corpses"
Haha

"a schoolkid threatening to set his school on fire"
No. The threat was to kill his teacher and as many students as he could.

Why stop there? (1)

tlambert (566799) | about a year ago | (#43618247)

"... give the the power to hack into computer systems ..."

Why stop there?

They should also give them the power to leap tall buildings, x-ray vision, run faster than a speeding bullet. I mean if we are talking about legislating that they be able to do things they are innately incapable of doing, why just stop at the ability to hack?

Re:Why stop there? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43618457)

Because when the law is here, they will create a new law for a backdoor in every system because the first law allows for something like that.

Re:Why stop there? (1)

VortexCortex (1117377) | about a year ago | (#43621237)

"... give the the power to hack into computer systems ..."

Why stop there?

They should also give them the power to leap tall buildings, x-ray vision, run faster than a speeding bullet. I mean if we are talking about legislating that they be able to do things they are innately incapable of doing, why just stop at the ability to hack?

Because when the law is here, they will create a new law for a backdoor in every system because the first law allows for something like that.

Aaaand? You Don't want Bullet Trains, Trampolines outside of every building, and X-Ray cameras at airports?

I mean, yeah, it's a grab bag, but it's not any worse than them just keeping on doing it. Just that now they can't go to jail for it.

I, for one, welcome our Mega-Gymnastic Super-Conductor Uber-Hacker Overloards.

Decryption order is far more dangerous (2)

johanw (1001493) | about a year ago | (#43618473)

What is missing in the article is that the same hardline minister also put in that law the option for the prosecutor (not even a judge, just a prosecutor with a vested interest in a case) to order a suspect to decrypt encrypted files, punishable by max. 3 years in prison if he does not comply. It remains to be seem what the judges will do with "I forgot", or "I destroyed the keyfile" or "there is no hidden volume". So he leaves the inconvenient "not guilty until proven guilty" and "you have the right to remain silent". This could be overruled by the European court for the human rights but that takes a lot of time.

Re:Decryption order is far more dangerous (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43619339)

http://hcm73.seomaster.vn/

Re:Decryption order is far more dangerous (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43620171)

I believe "I forgot the password" will get you thrown in prison for 2 years in the UK under the RIP Act.

Allow me (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43618921)

Allow me the honours: "How could this ever possibly backfire?"

There, it has been said.

This is Great News (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43619205)

If you are a convicted ~hacker fresh out of prison looking for work..

Sanctions (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43619281)

This would be no different than any other state sponsored criminal activity like Chinese hackers, only the Dutch do not have the military might of China to make it "legal". Many nations might consider this an act of war. If this passes the Dutch government needs to be declared a rogue nation and have heavy UN economic sanctions levied against it.

Thanks (1)

Sloppy (14984) | about a year ago | (#43619407)

Think of it as a public service announcement. This is a government's way of reminding everyone that their computer systems are broken, broken to the point of shocking negligence. When their left hand (law enforcement) does this, it just means you need to ask their right hand (regulators) what they're doing about the known serious problem.

If the government can successfully ask your phone to power up and query GPS and tell them where you are, anyone can ask your phone to tell them where you are. That means your phone has defective security.

Time to ask: who knew what, and when?

Whether the government abuses this flaw or not, you had the problem anyway. The government abuse makes it explicit that the problem exists, in a way that's understandable by laymen rather than just specialists.

This business will get out of control. (1)

Wormsign (1498995) | about a year ago | (#43619441)

It will get out of control and we'll be lucky to live through it!

Escaped Gestapos (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43619513)

Honestly, it's as if a bunch of Gestapos have bred and then wandered across the borders. WTF?

Will firewalls/anti-virus become illegal? (1)

knorthern knight (513660) | about a year ago | (#43620071)

If police need to break into computers as part of their job, will computer security (firewalls/anti-virus/etc) be considered "obstructing a police officer"?

Not the only thing for 1st time snce 1800s, is it? (1)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | about a year ago | (#43620979)

I freakin' knew Beatrix shouldn't have resigned!

Honey Pot anyone? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43621701)

What's to stop someone from creating honey pot systems, with lots of phony emails, files, encrypted drives with incriminating fake evidence against politicians, etc.
Prosecutor - decrypt that drive Mr Prime Minister or else.
Prime Minister - what drive?
Think of the possibilities.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>