×

Announcing: Slashdot Deals - Explore geek apps, games, gadgets and more. (what is this?)

Thank you!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!

DOJ Requests More Power To Hack Remote Computers

Soulskill posted about 7 months ago | from the you-can-trust-us dept.

Government 76

An anonymous reader writes "The U.S. Department of Justice says it needs greater authority to hack remote computers in the course of an investigation. The agency reasons that criminal operations involving computers are become more complicated, and argues that its own capabilities need to scale up to match them. An ACLU attorney said, 'By expanding federal law enforcement's power to secretly exploit "zero-day"' vulnerabilities in software and Internet platforms, the proposal threatens to weaken Internet security for all of us.' This is particularly relevant in the wake of Heartbleed — it's been unclear whether the U.S. government knew about it before everyone else did. This request suggests that the DOJ, at least, did not abuse it — but it sure looks like they would've wanted to. You can read their request starting on page 499 of this committee meeting schedule."

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

President McCain strikes again! (-1, Offtopic)

Kohath (38547) | about 7 months ago | (#46966885)

They told me this would happen if I voted for McCain. And they were right! [pjmedia.com]

Re:President McCain strikes again! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46966943)

I'm really sorry that McCain didn't win your presidential election in 2008. If there's a country that deserves Sarah Palin to be only one heartbeat away from the presidency, the US is it.

Re:President McCain strikes again! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46966979)

I tell you that if you post again on Slashdot this year, there will be a deadly hurricane. Please don't do it.

Re:President McCain strikes again! (2, Insightful)

Kohath (38547) | about 7 months ago | (#46966987)

Al Gore? Is that you?

Re:President McCain strikes again! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46967459)

Gore-gasm!

Re:President McCain strikes again! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46968503)

Gore-gasm!

ROFLMAO Sorry I simply couldn't contain myself. Ah, that didn't come out the way I expected it to sound. Damn why is explaining my reaction to your comment so hard? Egad! Cadbury!

Re: President McCain strikes again! (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46967021)

If more people voted McCain at least we wouldn't be turning into the United Socialist States of America. He was a bad candidate, but Mr. Hope and change is even worse

Re: President McCain strikes again! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46967081)

WTF are you talking about? They're ALL bad!

Re: President McCain strikes again! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46968519)

If more people voted McCain at least we wouldn't be turning into the United Socialist States of America. He was a bad candidate, but Mr. Hope and change is even worse

The John McCain of 2008 was still in control of his mental faculties. The John McCain of 2014 is a raving lunatic like most other geriatrics. And Mr. Hope and Change is a flat out liar and con-artist. To call him the anti-Christ would be too generous.

Re: President McCain strikes again! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46968903)

If more people voted McCain at least we wouldn't be turning into the United Socialist States of America. He was a bad candidate, but Mr. Hope and change is even worse

McCain would just continue to grow the welfare and socialism for corporations.

Re: President McCain strikes again! (1)

MaskedSlacker (911878) | about 7 months ago | (#46969083)

Oh good, so he'd have been the same as Obama.

Re: President McCain strikes again! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46968911)

I probably would have, but as soon as he picked the bimbo for his running mate that was out of the question for me.
Heck, I would've voted McCain/HitleryClinton over *any* ticket with Palin on it.

Re: President McCain strikes again! (1)

MaskedSlacker (911878) | about 7 months ago | (#46969091)

...and Godwinned. Thread over, time to go home.

Re: President McCain strikes again! (1)

bigfoottoo (2947459) | about 7 months ago | (#46969153)

"And now I'd like to entertain everybody with some fancy pageant walkin' "

Re:President McCain strikes again! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46967261)

They told me this would happen if I voted for McCain. And they were right! [pjmedia.com]

What they didn't tell you, and what you don't seem to understand,
is that which scumbag you vote for doesn't even matter.

The show is run from behind the curtain, and most of you ( myself included )
are powerless to effect change to any degree which could possibly matter.

Enjoy your lives ( you only get one ) and quit wasting energy worrying about stuff
which you cannot change.

Re:President McCain strikes again! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46967383)

It must be Biden (D)

Obama(D) wouldn't lie to us would he?

Do you really want to do that? (5, Interesting)

Opportunist (166417) | about 7 months ago | (#46967003)

You might not want to use something like this, at least you do not want to use it against criminals who themselves have a background in IT and especially IT security. Else you might be in for a nasty surprise, namely that they're employing a tripwire system that waits for someone trying to hack them as an early warning system.

In other words, your attempt to hack the criminals doubles as a "the feds are coming" flare.

Re:Do you really want to do that? (1)

sFurbo (1361249) | about 7 months ago | (#46967523)

That depends very much on what level of crime we are talking about. I would imagine that most crime is at a level where the situation you suggested is not a problem.

Also, I would imagine that a sophicsticated crime syndicate is in at least as much risk of being hacked by rivals and vigilantes as by the government, so unless you are doing it in such a way that they can figure out who you are, such a tripwire might not help much. Of course, it is perfectly plausible that the feds would not employ much sophistication in their hacking, so that the syndicate will know.

Re:Do you really want to do that? (3, Interesting)

mlts (1038732) | about 7 months ago | (#46967697)

If a criminal runs their books offline with no net connection, using a USB flash drive for physical transportation or moving encrypted data to an online PC, tripwire may not be needed.

It wouldn't take much to scare criminals into moving their unencrypted stuff offline, then the DOJ has hosed themselves since all the juicy stuff they wanted easier access to is now inaccessible unless physical attacks are used.

Re:Do you really want to do that? (1)

nurb432 (527695) | about 7 months ago | (#46971871)

I would be willing to bet the high-end criminals are all ready doing this.

Re:Do you really want to do that? (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46967675)

Even the clueless criminals, once they see the Feds are wanting to hack into their systems will start getting their friends who know what they are doing and updating things.

It isn't hard to run the second set of books on an offline computer with a F/OSS operating system, an office suite that doesn't need activation, and USB flash drives for moving data. With a VM server like KVM, VirtualBox, or VMWare workstation, any programs that need Windows can run on a hacked copy.

Network-wise, there are plenty of VPN services in countries not friendly to the US, but will be happy to take money from people in the country.

So, long term, asking for hacking rights might be good for low hanging fruit (the guy in the parent's basement with the pot plant or two), but after a few seizures, the difficulty will increase since the bad guys will just use time tested methods of couriers and dead drops. A 128 GB MicroSD card can hold a lot of data. Using a diskless Linux distribution like Knoppix or Tails isn't that tough, so a computer used by a smart crook can have a Windows OS on there with a lot of decoy files... but the real stuff and the actual sets of books would be accessed via a bootable CD and a USB flash drive with a hidden, encrypted partition.

One can point to how people are dealing with the border laptop seizures. Even people who have no reason to worry are now concerned about that. If that same fear/worry gets to common criminals, the police work will have to be done endpoint to endpoint physically, and criminals have taken countermeasures for this for thousands of years.

Re:Do you really want to do that? (3, Informative)

sumdumass (711423) | about 7 months ago | (#46967909)

Even the clueless criminals, once they see the Feds are wanting to hack into their systems will start getting their friends who know what they are doing and updating things.

I don't necessarily disagree with what you are saying but you cannot really advertise a job to secure a criminal enterprise. What you are left with is either relying on only those you already know which might not be very cutting edge or seeking someone specific out and hoping they don't turn rat on you.

In the former, I will just say that I don't know how many screwed up systems and wide open home networks I have seen installed by someone's rocket scientist kid, nephew, neighbor, work IT, church buddy, or whatever that had more WTF things going on than anything correct. Even following people sporting walls full of certifications and bragging about how good they are because of them sometimes turn out to be almost worthless for even simple tasks when following them into a small business. Those are usually the most dangerous- screwed up too. I usually find them running unpatched windows 200x servers directly open to the internet and half the ports opened up because they wanted remote access or something in the network needed it. They are often sporting more infections and malware than a porn surfing teens computer- because no one ever logs onto them to see the 5 million IE pop ups and error messages until something goes horribly bad and they just reboot thinking "I fixed it again".

I'm thinking most criminals that aren't just doing it because of opportunity will already be into something like what you describe. A lot of people claim to know what they are doing but fail in spectacular ways.

Re:Do you really want to do that? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46969817)

"... says some dumb ass"

(lol - sorry, had to do it: It was there, & nothing personal... but, that nickname/handle/registered "lusername"'s gonna 'get ya' time & again man...)

APK

Re:Do you really want to do that? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46968355)

You might not want to use something like this, at least you do not want to use it against criminals who themselves have a background in IT and especially IT security. Else you might be in for a nasty surprise, namely that they're employing a tripwire system that waits for someone trying to hack them as an early warning system.

In other words, your attempt to hack the criminals doubles as a "the feds are coming" flare.

Also, you would be giving 0days for free!

Re:Do you really want to do that? (1)

rtb61 (674572) | about 7 months ago | (#46971839)

The tripwire in this, is the use of it itself. "Reasonable Doubt" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R... [wikipedia.org] being the legal tripwire. The DOJ hacks a computer with a zero day exploit proving beyond reasonable doubt that the computer in question could be hacked and substantiating reasonable doubt about the users guilt as another criminal organisation could have been secretly using the computer to commit crimes via that same zero day exploit. Now this doesn't even touch the idea that the very first and foremost activity of any policing organisation should be to warn and protect the public about dangerous computer exploits. Of course for profit 'LAW ENFORCEMENT" only cares about PR, conviction statistics and confiscating citizens stuff. Stupid is as stupid does and the DOJ under Obama is right up there, 'DOH'.

Illegal (5, Insightful)

casca69 (795069) | about 7 months ago | (#46967029)

Bluntly, if they would prosecute me for doing it, then they better damn well have a warrant and judicial oversight.
Otherwise, it's breaking the law, and prosecution ensues.

Re:Illegal (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46967105)

You are aware that the DoJ is a branch of government, right?
When was the last time any branch was tried for doing something illegal?

Re:Illegal (3, Informative)

sumdumass (711423) | about 7 months ago | (#46967927)

What happens and should happen are separate things.

The concept of the king can do no wrong died a long time ago, got reborn and needs to be killed once again.

Re:Illegal (1)

sethradio (2603921) | about 7 months ago | (#46968205)

What happens and should happen are separate things.

The concept of the king can do no wrong died a long time ago, got reborn and needs to be killed once again.

You just put yourself on the drone list, buddy.

Re:Illegal (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46968705)

This happens over and over again. Wasn't it Nixon who said "it's not wrong [some illegal activity he ordered] because I'm President"?

Let them have it (5, Insightful)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 7 months ago | (#46967047)

Since they're doing it anyway (surely you're not going to believe their denials still, are you?), let it be public and provide incentive to build more resistant electronics.

Re:Let them have it = Holder has it! (5, Insightful)

BoRegardless (721219) | about 7 months ago | (#46967079)

Since our Atty General Mr. Holder, says he can choose which laws to obey, then there are no laws, no rules, except what he chooses to do.

Re:Let them have it = Holder has it! (2)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | about 7 months ago | (#46967493)

Since our Atty General Mr. Holder, says he can choose which laws to obey, then there are no laws, no rules, except what he chooses to do.

Not to mention: if we had a totally secure, encrypted, spook-proof communications network (barring wiretapping warrants, of course), where would that put us as far as "national security" goes?

Oh, yeah. Back in the 1990s. Seems to me, things were actually better then, in this respect.

Re:Let them have it = Holder has it! (2)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 7 months ago | (#46967671)

...spook-proof communications network (barring wiretapping warrants, of course)...

Wait a minute. Are you saying there should be built in backdoors to accommodate them?

And the 90s? What leads you to believe it was better then, when the democrats were pushing for clipper chips, V-chips, and other restrictions on encryption? I say we have it much better now, now that we have confirmed the government is running outlaw spy agencies, and that might provide the above mentioned incentives to actually do something about it. However, trust has now gone out the window. Everybody is suspect, pretty much the way the authorities want it. And republicans and democrats will continue to dominate the narrative.

Re:Let them have it = Holder has it! (2)

mlts (1038732) | about 7 months ago | (#46967771)

I'd say we have it better now, because crypto isn't "illegal" like it was when ITAR was the law of the land. However, because online connections are required, coupled with layers of complexity added to even the humble desktop, the crypto may be good, but the key is still stored under the doormat for anyone to fetch.

Re:Let them have it = Holder has it! (1)

sillybilly (668960) | about 7 months ago | (#46969021)

I try not to use crypto, but I can see a future, such as an invasion of this land, or total banning of knowledge from the hands of anyone and full intellectual property dictatorship, where you have to pay 2 cents for every word uttered etc, where it would be necessary to use encryption, together with burying your computer/disks in the backyard, and only digging it out once in a while for updates, or to get some really important knowledge off of them that you forgot, and even then encryption may not be such a great idea. There are some files on this very computer that I didn't put there nor do I want there, and there is something keeps churning my harddrive, but because it came with an official brand name recovery CD, I assume it's not hackers but the powers that be doing it, and every time I erase it from the disk, I have to reinstall the computer system, as in, they really hate it when they can't monitor me. So one attitude against this is to let the fed monitor you, at least a little bit. I hate being monitored, I hate traffic cameras, I hate warrantless entries, as a default stance, who doesn't. But we live in the real world. Ultimately, I think newer chips themselves have monitoring built into them, and there is nothing you can do in software, that won't let them remotely log on to your computer, and download files to you and change settings, or even simply erase everything, or worse, just modify everything to your disadvantage, sometimes in subtle ways, sometimes obvious. If you want secure computing where the hardware does not monitor you, I suggest an authentic 386sx running DOS, and make sure it's not a fake chip pretending to be a 386sx. Or even a 486. My guess is near Pentium 2 to Pentium 3 transition is when the hardware snooping was fully implemented, as in the P2 days they were still struggling with performance, like slot1 off-chip caches, and competition, and only lately do they have performance to burn, and they can focus on other ways of power grubbing. So a P2 may be safe but not a P3. I have no clue. Even a 386sx that you found in an ancient abandoned factory with proven cobwebs and dust on it free from tampering, could be snooping on you, and remotely logonable. Is that a word, logonable?

Re:Let them have it = Holder has it! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46969381)

I think older computers may end up having a value, because a machine can be decently usable for most tasks and be 10+ years old. Take a Mac Plus with Word 3.x. No DRM stack. No activation. No real IP activity, even if one bothers to put the MacTCP CDEV in the system folder, etc.

Yes, the battle has been lost on the console front, it is an uphill battle on smartphones/tablets, but if one does bite the bullet and change to an OS that doesn't need to keep activated.

There might be sacrifices for security. Having a computer that is online, a computer that never touches any network, and some piece of media to swap data between the two. However, we are one hacking incident away from mandatory hardware DRM stacks, automatic scanners for copyrighted material (think WoW's Warden/VAC Ban hammer except blocking your machines from the ISP), mandatory user IDs, etc. It would be wise to always consider some other means of communication other than the Net.

Re:Let them have it = Holder has it! (0)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | about 7 months ago | (#46968551)

And the 90s? What leads you to believe it was better then, when the democrats were pushing for clipper chips, V-chips, and other restrictions on encryption?

Here's what was better: people were smart enough in the 90s to not let them do it.

Also, even the government had to get a warrant to tap a phone and call it anything remotely like "legal".

Yeah, they did pass ITAR regulation, which was really dumb, and very bad, but that only applied to exports. It didn't have anything at all to do with our internal communications. With FISA, in effect they're doing something kind of resembling ITAR on crypto but far worse, turning it on their own people.

Re:Let them have it = Holder has it! (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 7 months ago | (#46968881)

...people were smart enough in the 90s to not let them do it.

They weren't smart enough to vote the bums out, and now we have what we have because of it. And just because they "didn't let them do it", it doesn't mean they didn't do it anyway. The spy agencies were just as corrupt then as they are now. The only difference between then and now is that it can be done in broad daylight because... terrorism. The submissive population has been fairly constant.

Re:Let them have it = Holder has it! (1)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | about 7 months ago | (#46973773)

They weren't smart enough to vote the bums out, and now we have what we have because of it. And just because they "didn't let them do it", it doesn't mean they didn't do it anyway.

No, they didn't do it anyway. This discussion was about V-chips and Clipper Chips. The Clipper Chip, for example, was a chip that was supposed to be put in every phone in America -- by law -- supposedly to "encrypt" your conversation and make it "more secure".

Nobody who knew anything about it in those days thought it was a good idea. And they said so.

But people post 9-11 got all scared and let the government pass all kinds of shitty laws, in spite of warnings from the people who knew better. And we are just starting to see the effects of that now.

So, yeah. Plain old history says folks in the 90s WERE smarter, in that respect. At least they listened to warnings, back then, and were LESS likely to trust government.

Given our recent experience with people trusting government, I sincerely hope they learned something.

Re:Let them have it = Holder has it! (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 7 months ago | (#46974039)

No, they didn't do it anyway.

Yes, they did. They just gave it a different name, and didn't discuss it publicly. The unwritten "agreement" is that strong encryption will not be available to the public. And people were no smarter then either. They still overwhelmingly voted for republicans and democrats, who were just as crooked then as now. So the trust issue is moot. The only difference is that they had to act more covertly until they got their "Pearl Harbor". I can assure you nothing has changed aside from the subtle change in submissiveness and the rate of decline.

I sincerely hope they learned something.

We won't know until November, but all indications are it will be business as usual. I see the propaganda the Americans call "news", and with 90% reelection rates I can only expect the worst.

Re:Let them have it = Holder has it! (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 7 months ago | (#46967587)

We've been living with that since John Mitchell was AG, and most likely long before that even. SNAFU

Re:Let them have it = Holder has it! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46968133)

That's so literally illegal here, in the Eurofantacylandia. All government actions bound by the letter and the scope of the law is the fundamental basis for, well, rule of law in a society. The idea that this is not the case in the largest democracies in this world is staggering. Just think of the waste and potential for corruption!

Re:Let them have it (1)

ArcadeMan (2766669) | about 7 months ago | (#46967531)

You're absolutely right.

I'm going to replace all my 1/4 watt resistors with 1/2 watt resistors.

Re:Let them have it (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46967641)

Bah, I wired mine up to a potentiometer so I can decide how "resistant" my electronics will be on any given day....

On really retentive days I have to have active cooling for all the heat generated from all the resistance.

Re:Let them have it (1)

ArcadeMan (2766669) | about 7 months ago | (#46967819)

Since they're doing it anyway (surely you're not going to believe their denials still, are you?), let it be public and provide incentive to build more resistant electronics.

Resistance is futile.

Argh! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46967049)

I'm so tired of this BULLSHIT. We have such a corrupt, sleazy, crappy government. Department of "Justice". What a fucking joke.

Re:Argh! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46967125)

No, the problem is that the Patriot Act (a limited state of emergency) is still in effect. You just have to get that repealed and then lots of the overreach will stop.

Re:Argh! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46967231)

and executive order 12333

Re:Argh! (1)

sumdumass (711423) | about 7 months ago | (#46967945)

You spelled that wrong. It is not "Justice", it is "Just Us". I know it is pronounced like Justice but if you look at it, it really is the "Just Us" system.

What does it mean? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46967099)

By now "hacking" means "any vaguely possibly bad thing with a computer in the vicinity".

So "law enforcement" wants "more power" to do ill-defined vaguely bad things. They already do that aplenty, I say.

DOJ "hack-back" capability? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46967199)

No.
Absolutely not.
No fucking way, for any reason.

Remove computers can be anywhere ... (5, Insightful)

Alain Williams (2972) | about 7 months ago | (#46967207)

including other countries; I did not notice anything in the article restricting this to computers in the USA. Other countries might not agree with the USA DOJ allowing computers in their countries to be cracked -- thus the USA cops/investigators will be conducting criminal acts in other countries -- how does that make them different from what the USA wanted to grab Gary McKinnon [wikipedia.org] for ?

Re:Remove computers can be anywhere ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46969163)

... how does that make them different ...

Because the USA DOJ aren't criminals: Just ask them.

Self-righteous servants move from the "You're the problem" to "I am not a crook", then "The king can do no wrong" or "It's legal when the president does it". Lastly it diversifies into "Think of the children", "The bible says so", 'War on drugs', or terrorist/communist traitors.

Re:Remove computers can be anywhere ... (1)

AmiMoJo (196126) | about 7 months ago | (#46971417)

If the US DOJ attacked my computers I would absolutely retaliate. Hack then back, delete everything, take the whole network down and cripple them as badly as possible to neutralize that threat. Then report the incident to the police and file a civil suite for damages. Try to get them extradited to the UK to stand trial.

The US has said hacking is an act of war. A few cruise missiles aimed at DOJ headquarters seems like a reasonable, proportionate response. Maybe some drone strikes against high ranking DOJ staff. They probably put details of public events they attend on Facebook, right? Weddings make easy targets.

Clear as day (4, Insightful)

Charliemopps (1157495) | about 7 months ago | (#46967239)

So let me get this strait. The DOJ's argument is: "If we leave the door locked, how are we supposed to catch burglars?"

No! (5, Insightful)

Hamsterdan (815291) | about 7 months ago | (#46967341)

If you (or myself) do the same thing, it's illegal, and we're gonna be prosecuted. The law is the same for everyone (at least it should be). I'm sick & tired of that shit. Police installing cameras (without warrant) to spy on people, inside their homes, warrantless wiretapping and every other thing that is *ILLEGAL* for the common people.

If it's illegal for me to do it, it's illegal for them to do it. And yes, I hope it blows up in their faces.

Re:No! (1)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about 7 months ago | (#46967715)

If it's illegal for me to do it, it's illegal for them to do it.

Yeah... no. When has it ever worked like that?

Re:No! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46969197)

... I hope it blows up in their faces ...

Ummm, that requires the press, the rest of the judicial branch and the overworked voters to give a damn. The government and corporations can employ someone to protect their interests which the average voter can't do. It's far easier to vote for the politician promising bread and circuses and improving our lives by banning abortion.

As long as we can sue them too... (1)

Hamsterdan (815291) | about 7 months ago | (#46967365)

So whenever I see government IPs in my router logs, I can sue, right? I mean, If they see my IP in theirs I'm breaking the law, right?

Re:As long as we can sue them too... (1)

king neckbeard (1801738) | about 7 months ago | (#46967821)

Sue them? Of course not. We should be able to bring severe criminal charges against them. Twenty year minimum for anyone complicit in such activities. The watchers have to be kept on a very tight leash.

No prior knowledge needed (1)

MtHuurne (602934) | about 7 months ago | (#46967441)

Yesterday there was a headline saying 300,000 servers remain vulnerable to Heartbleed. So the bug is still (ab)usable even after it has been published.

Put Evidence In (1)

BrendaEM (871664) | about 7 months ago | (#46967691)

Anyone will be found guilty whenever we see fit.

Turnabout (1)

Geek Hillbilly (2975053) | about 7 months ago | (#46967695)

Well,I can always set up a very nasty supervirus surprise if my machines are touched.Try to access my machines like that,I reserve the right to respond in kind.

Re:Turnabout (1)

sumdumass (711423) | about 7 months ago | (#46968033)

The funny part is that they will claim you created and released the virus in order to justify their shenanigans in the first place. It's like being arrested for resisting arrest before you were ever under arrest. And yes, that has happened where people get busted for resisting arrest and there was never any underlying reason for the arrest before being arrested for resisting arrest.

Re:Turnabout (1)

sillybilly (668960) | about 7 months ago | (#46969119)

That's why you never resist an arrest. Cops will often go on fishing expeditions, to see if you have anything to hide, or a reason to run and evade them. Just routine type checks. Such as going through a yellow light, that's turning red too soon. It's not really a big deal, but it's enough for the cop to stop you, and if you attempt to flee, then he will chase you down for not stopping, but if you stop, he'll let you go, over something that even he thinks is minor. Then when he chases you down and you resist arrest, you keep escalating the severity of the crimes, from running a yellow to not stopping (where you could say your radio was loud and you couldn't see/hear) to resisting arrest. So a lot of these resisting arrest cases have probably a pretty weak and insignificant probing issue to begin with, just to test reactions. In the game of go the strategy is called yosu-miru, a probe, usually an insignificant and sacrifice stone, but one that has to be answered, an answer which delivers sophisticated information about either intentions, or if there are no intentions, it forces picking an intention and settling unknowns. Maintaining open options in go is paramount, as they allow you to use sente, initiative in moves, more efficiently somewhere else, where it's more urgent, and being forced to settle open options is a loss. The officials need very small excuses to begin with, and there is probably a roster of standard excuses of why a probe is made, and then an overreaction of those probed can ultimately land them in jail, while proper reaction to the probe would have left them alone. In the future there might be some specific law about not abusing such probes, as in freedom of the public from constantly being probed by the government over minor excuses to see if anyone would overreact and then need arrest, and then resist arrest. I think the 4th amendment already covers such topics, or it's in the spirit of the 4th amendment, and the government needs self restraint in how paranoid it gets in harassing its own subjects.

Re:Turnabout (2)

sumdumass (711423) | about 7 months ago | (#46969341)

There are a few instances I know of where someone was arrested for resisting arrest before an arrest ever happened.

The one that is the most egregious is where a guy started videoing a cop who stopped someone near him. He pulled out a camera and started taking video of the entire thing. The cop let the other person go after a few minutes then came over and ordered him to give his camera to him. He replied with "why" and the cop tackled him, handcuffed him and arrested him for resisting arrest. I'm not sure if I'm conflating a different scenario but I'm pretty sure he ended up getting tazzered for asking what the hell he did wrong.

Another situation I know of, some guy came from behind and pushed another to the ground. The other guy started fighting him and was arrested for resisting arrest. Except there was tons of people around and not one of them heard the first guy announce he was a cop or the other guy was under arrest. I heard through a friend of a friend that it was because the arrested guy was rude to the cop's wife earlier that day. No reason for the initial arrest was ever given just charges for resisting arrest which he ended up beating after spending thousands on legal expenses and almost losing his job.

There are all sorts of stories about being arrested for resisting arrest before any arrest was ever done. Its ridiculous to say the least.

Secure computing is still legal? (1)

flyingfsck (986395) | about 7 months ago | (#46967989)

Pretty soon, it will be illegal to run a secure operating system such as OpenBSD.

Re:Secure computing is still legal? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46968391)

No, the government will just employ developers to code subtle vulnerabilities into the system so they can be exploited later.

Banksters (1)

inode_buddha (576844) | about 7 months ago | (#46968431)

Maybe they should request the power to put a few bankers in jail, like they did in Enron. You know, and actually *do their job*

eric holder is a treasonous scum (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46968601)

eric holder is a treasonous scum

Follow the money .. (1)

lippydude (3635849) | about 7 months ago | (#46969335)

"The U.S. Department of Justice says it needs greater authority to hack remote computers in the course of an investigation"

I would have thought it would be easier to follow the money trail ..

If we didnt know about heartbleed (1)

nurb432 (527695) | about 7 months ago | (#46971855)

Then the NSA was sleeping at the wheel.

DOJ wants the right to falsify and taint evidence? (1)

Kirth (183) | about 7 months ago | (#46977599)

"hacking computers", or "placing trojans" and other such things primarily do one thing: They make evidence useless. Because you can't prove anymore that you did not plant it, that you didn't change anything and that you did not open a backdoor for a third party.

How stupid can you get? And why haven't the forensic specialists of the DOJ told them what their request really would mean?

I've got some other great ideas in the same vein:
- Drop cleanliness regulations for DNA testing labs
- Don't require physical evidence be sealed. And leave doors to it unlocked, so everyone can go and tamper some.

I can understand a secret service that wants to do these things, but a law enforcement agency really, really can't allow it. Much less propose it.

NSA vs DOJ (1)

WindBourne (631190) | about 6 months ago | (#46979695)

I have indirectly worked on the US PAT act (back in mid-2000), and supported the work that we did. However, while I had issues (it was the neo-cons that psuhed for NSA to go un-monitored, so that they would not have to take responsibilities; spineless trash), I had no issue with it being the NSA. They have NO ENFORCEMENT capabilities. They had no branch that allowed them to enforce any laws. I am sorry, but as such, the NSA was NOT breaking the constitution since they could only pass on the information.

NOW, along comes the DOJ and THEY want some of those capabilities. Not only say no, but SAY FUCKING NO!!!!!.
THIS is where the constitution will be breached. Frankly, I am nothing less than shocked that dems would even come up with such insanity. I know that the neo-cons wanted this for the DOJ back then, but were afraid of the dems finding out. BUT, it will not matter WHOM is in office. This will be abused. Most likely not by O, BUT, by the first president in which we ignore this
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?