Forum Settings
       
« Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Reply To Thread

Expectation of privacy was nice while it lastedFollow

#1 Jul 06 2016 at 8:43 AM Rating: Good
Citizen's Arrest!
******
29,527 posts
Any computer connected to the internet can be hacked by the US Government without a warrant, court rules
Quote:
If a computer has a connection to the internet means no warrant is required for the US government to hack it, a Virginia court has ruled.

The judge angered privacy campaigners by reasoning that since no connected computer "is immune from invasion”, no user should ever expect their their activity to remain secret.

The decision was part of a case brought after an investigation into “Playpen”, a child **** website on the dark web, which the FBI hacked to find offenders.

Following the investigation, hundreds were prosecuted for offences relating to indecent imagery.

But despite the unsympathetic defendants in these cases, privacy campaigners warned the ruling had wider implications.

Scarlet Kim, legal officer at Privacy International, told The Independent the verdict would have "astounding implications for the privacy and security of anyone who owns an electronic device".

"The district court’s dangerous evisceration of a core constitutional protection would render all our personal digital devices susceptible to warrantless search or seizure by the government," she said.

"The justification that the rise in hacking destroys a reasonable expectation of privacy in these devices is illogical and absurd.

"Just because lock-picking is a well-known technique for breaking into homes hardly eliminates our expectation of privacy in that sphere."

According to court documents, Playpen had over 150,000 members. Over two weeks, the FBI hacked into over 1,000 computers using a single warrant.

Senior District Judge Henry Coke Morgan Jr upheld the use of the warrant.

“Here, the court finds that defendant possessed no reasonable expectation of privacy in his computer's IP address, so the Government's acquisition of the IP address did not represent a prohibited Fourth Amendment search," the judge wrote in his ruling.

“Generally, one has no reasonable expectation of privacy in an IP address when using the Internet."
It's not quite as bad as the beginning makes it sound, if you read all the way to the end. But I'm not a fan overall.
#2 Jul 06 2016 at 8:54 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
On one hand it's pretty dumb to say that just because criminals do it it should be okay for everyone to do it, but on the other hand it's just as dumb to say it was warrantless and the constitution doesn't actually give protection of privacy.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#3 Jul 06 2016 at 5:23 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
4,593 posts
Can we cut off our internet connection to the US?
#4 Jul 06 2016 at 5:41 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
6,543 posts
Hello, we need to come in and dig through all your things. Why? There might be cpwitchcraft in there somewhere. No, there isn't? Well, we don't believe you and if you try to stop us you're obviously a pedowitch.

Edited, Jul 6th 2016 11:42pm by Kuwoobie
____________________________
Galkaman wrote:
Kuwoobie will die crushed under the burden of his mediocrity.

#5 Jul 06 2016 at 6:27 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
1,323 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
On one hand it's pretty dumb to say that just because criminals do it it should be okay for everyone to do it, but on the other hand it's just as dumb to say it was warrantless and the constitution doesn't actually give protection of privacy.


It does, however, protect one from unreasonable searches. Or it would had the constitution been actually followed.
____________________________
Your soul was made of fists.

Jar the Sam
#6 Jul 06 2016 at 6:34 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Yodabunny wrote:
Can we cut off our internet connection to the US?

You're welcome to. But you know that USA internet best internet. You want to be stuck with whatever Google knockoff they use in Russia?
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#7 Jul 06 2016 at 6:51 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Having read the decision itself (well, skimmed over sections, but got most of the relevant points), the core question from a broad "can the government hack my computer" question is the potential broadness of the warrant. In this case, the warrant allowed for a back hack to any computer which accessed the site, logged in as a registered user, and accessed/downloaded data from the site. That's well within the standards allowed for a warrant, given the specific nature of the target location (a computer, which is accessed by other computers over a tor network).

Somewhere in the decision is a quote from a precedent case on what does and doesn't constitute an overly broad warrant, which says something like "a warrant that allowed search of all cars in a given location would be unconstitutional unless there was reasonable cause to assume that all cars in that location contained contraband". In this case, it's quite reasonable to assume that anyone who has gone to the trouble to register to a site dedicated solely to the dissemination of child ****, and then accesses it with his account, is engaged in the criminal activity stated in the warrant, and a search is justified. Note also that the warrant was very specific with what could be obtained by the hack (which was basically information required to identify the computer and location which accessed the site). This data was then used to obtain a standard search warrant for the owners home and computer.

So yeah. Not really a problem unless you do what the article writer did and gloss over the important details in favor of sensationalizing things. This decision does not allow the government to just hack your phone or computer for any reason they want.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#8 Jul 06 2016 at 7:00 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
angrymnk wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
On one hand it's pretty dumb to say that just because criminals do it it should be okay for everyone to do it, but on the other hand it's just as dumb to say it was warrantless and the constitution doesn't actually give protection of privacy.


It does, however, protect one from unreasonable searches. Or it would had the constitution been actually followed.


While I admit to just skimming the decision itself, no where was the idea that "since home computers are subject to hacking anyway, that it's ok for the government to do it" even remotely a basis for defending the warrant in question (and resulting search and seizure of materials and use of materials in a criminal prosecution). Maybe I missed it, but the parts I read didn't mention anything like that at all. It was all about whether the warrant was too broad, whether the defendant could demand the source code for the hack as part of discovery, and whether silly minutia like the site's logo changing between when the warrant was written (which included a description of the logo image) and when the warrant was exercised on the defendant made the warrant void (and thus invalidated all fruits from said search).
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#9 Jul 07 2016 at 5:29 AM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
Why do people ever assume that there is privacy? No reasonable nation state with the technology would allow individuals to openly discuss terrorism, abduction, human trafficking, etc.
#10 Jul 07 2016 at 6:10 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,240 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Why do people ever assume that there is privacy? No reasonable nation state with the technology would allow individuals to openly discuss terrorism, abduction, human trafficking, etc.


Yeah, or political change, protest, emigration, crypto-currencies...
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#11 Jul 07 2016 at 6:54 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
1,323 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Why do people ever assume that there is privacy? No reasonable nation state with the technology would allow individuals to openly discuss terrorism, abduction, human trafficking, etc.


... .... .... .... .... .... ... ... ... ...

That is why. Once you figure out what the dots are for, get back to me.
____________________________
Your soul was made of fists.

Jar the Sam
#12 Jul 07 2016 at 7:32 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
The ants go marching one by one, hurrah! Hurrah!
The ants go marching one by one, hurrah! Hurrah!
The ants go marching one by one;
The little one stops to suck his thumb
And they all go marching down to the ground
To get out of the rain

____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#13 Jul 07 2016 at 7:33 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
angrymnk wrote:
It does, however, protect one from unreasonable searches.
There isn't anything unreasonable in believing that someone who uses an illegal service would have the products of said illegal services in their homes.
gbaji wrote:
Maybe I missed it, but the parts I read didn't mention anything like that at all.
It's literally the third sentence in this thread.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#14 Jul 07 2016 at 1:21 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,666 posts
The One and Only Poldaran wrote:
According to court documents, Playpen had over 150,000 members. Over two weeks, the FBI hacked into over 1,000 computers using a single warrant.
The numbers in these cases were always the uncomfortably unnerving thing. 150,000 is a lot of people even if there are some duplicate accounts and whatnot. That's on one site, in a back corner of the internet. Good to know there's so many wonderful people in the world. Smiley: glare

Also, remind me not to leave my computer connected to the internet any more than absolutely necessary. Smiley: rolleyes
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#15 Jul 07 2016 at 2:38 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
Timelordwho wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Why do people ever assume that there is privacy? No reasonable nation state with the technology would allow individuals to openly discuss terrorism, abduction, human trafficking, etc.


Yeah, or political change, protest, emigration, crypto-currencies...


Yeah, because child abduction, human trafficking and mass killings are the same as protests, emigration and political change.Smiley: rolleyes
#16 Jul 07 2016 at 5:02 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
1,323 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Timelordwho wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Why do people ever assume that there is privacy? No reasonable nation state with the technology would allow individuals to openly discuss terrorism, abduction, human trafficking, etc.


Yeah, or political change, protest, emigration, crypto-currencies...


Yeah, because child abduction, human trafficking and mass killings are the same as protests, emigration and political change.Smiley: rolleyes


Yes, child, because power would never seek to gain more power. That, literally, never happens in this world. Oh wait, it ******* does. All the ******* time. You just start limiting with an easy target ( "first they came for" rings a ******* bell? )You want to see it in action, check out Australia, UK and, amusingly enough, Germany.

Also, thanks to helpful idiots such as yourself, we are slowly seeing a push for similar level of retardation here in the US. Thanks. From the bottom of my heart.
____________________________
Your soul was made of fists.

Jar the Sam
#17 Jul 07 2016 at 5:32 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
angrymnk wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Timelordwho wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Why do people ever assume that there is privacy? No reasonable nation state with the technology would allow individuals to openly discuss terrorism, abduction, human trafficking, etc.


Yeah, or political change, protest, emigration, crypto-currencies...


Yeah, because child abduction, human trafficking and mass killings are the same as protests, emigration and political change.Smiley: rolleyes


Yes, child, because power would never seek to gain more power. That, literally, never happens in this world. Oh wait, it ******* does. All the ******* time. You just start limiting with an easy target ( "first they came for" rings a ******* bell? )You want to see it in action, check out Australia, UK and, amusingly enough, Germany.

Also, thanks to helpful idiots such as yourself, we are slowly seeing a push for similar level of retardation here in the US. Thanks. From the bottom of my heart.


Oh, so you support anarchy.Got it.Smiley: oyvey
#18 Jul 07 2016 at 5:45 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,240 posts
Almalieque wrote:
angrymnk wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Timelordwho wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Why do people ever assume that there is privacy? No reasonable nation state with the technology would allow individuals to openly discuss terrorism, abduction, human trafficking, etc.


Yeah, or political change, protest, emigration, crypto-currencies...


Yeah, because child abduction, human trafficking and mass killings are the same as protests, emigration and political change.Smiley: rolleyes


Yes, child, because power would never seek to gain more power. That, literally, never happens in this world. Oh wait, it ******* does. All the ******* time. You just start limiting with an easy target ( "first they came for" rings a ******* bell? )You want to see it in action, check out Australia, UK and, amusingly enough, Germany.

Also, thanks to helpful idiots such as yourself, we are slowly seeing a push for similar level of retardation here in the US. Thanks. From the bottom of my heart.


Oh, so you support anarchy.Got it.Smiley: oyvey


Discussion should not be curtailed by the government. Actions that harm others? Absolutely.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#19 Jul 07 2016 at 6:12 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
1,323 posts
Almalieque wrote:
angrymnk wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Timelordwho wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Why do people ever assume that there is privacy? No reasonable nation state with the technology would allow individuals to openly discuss terrorism, abduction, human trafficking, etc.


Yeah, or political change, protest, emigration, crypto-currencies...


Yeah, because child abduction, human trafficking and mass killings are the same as protests, emigration and political change.Smiley: rolleyes


Yes, child, because power would never seek to gain more power. That, literally, never happens in this world. Oh wait, it ******* does. All the ******* time. You just start limiting with an easy target ( "first they came for" rings a ******* bell? )You want to see it in action, check out Australia, UK and, amusingly enough, Germany.

Also, thanks to helpful idiots such as yourself, we are slowly seeing a push for similar level of retardation here in the US. Thanks. From the bottom of my heart.


Oh, so you support anarchy.Got it.Smiley: oyvey


Nice straw man you got there..
____________________________
Your soul was made of fists.

Jar the Sam
#20 Jul 07 2016 at 6:12 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
You're supposed to follow up with "...be a real shame if anything was to happen to it".
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#21 Jul 07 2016 at 6:22 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
1,323 posts
Jophiel wrote:
You're supposed to follow up with "...be a real shame if anything was to happen to it".


You put me in a real pickle here. I rather thought something just did.
____________________________
Your soul was made of fists.

Jar the Sam
#22 Jul 07 2016 at 7:28 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
TLW wrote:

Discussion should not be curtailed by the government. Actions that harm others? Absolutely.
I wouldn't classify monitoring terrorists discussion as "curtailing" discussion. If anything, the government allows them to talk in order to gather as much information as possible.
#23 Jul 07 2016 at 7:29 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Maybe I missed it, but the parts I read didn't mention anything like that at all.
It's literally the third sentence in this thread.


Yes. I get that the article says that. I was talking about the actual decision. And yeah, it's in one of the sections I skimmed over. But I skimmed over it because it's not terribly relevant to the major findings in the case, and only applied to a denial of a motion made by the defense at some point, and was by far not the only reason for said denial. Um... It also did not apply to "any government hack of a computer", as implied by the article, but merely to using a back hack to discover identifying information about a computer connected to a server across a tor network.

The article grossly misrepresents what the ruling actually said, and what precedent it may or may not have set.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#24 Jul 07 2016 at 7:38 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Timelordwho wrote:
Discussion should not be curtailed by the government. Actions that harm others? Absolutely.


The concern is that the same surveillance powers we may allow our government to use to find child molesters and terrorists can be used to find political dissidents, organizers, activists, people without the correct thinking on <insert social or political issue here>, etc. Which is a legitimate concern, but IMO, this specific decision doesn't really push that boundary.

I'm probably one of the more pro-privacy posters on this forum, but there's a danger of crying wolf too often and too easily. You actually hurt your position when you go looking for violations of privacy using a criteria that is insanely broad, and then use misleading articles and quotations to try to make your case artificially appear stronger. When nothing comes of this complaint, or the next one, or the next, people stop listening. And that's when real violations of privacy can more easily be slipped in. The public starts ignoring the warnings because they've heard so many false ones.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#25 Jul 07 2016 at 7:44 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
1,323 posts
Almalieque wrote:
TLW wrote:

Discussion should not be curtailed by the government. Actions that harm others? Absolutely.
I wouldn't classify monitoring terrorists discussion as "curtailing" discussion. If anything, the government allows them to talk in order to gather as much information as possible.


I always found it somewhat amusing the extent to which a job defines people's perspectives and how they perceive the world. All the cops I met, for example, have these blinders on, which allow them to ignore all laws, privacy and common sense in the name of catching a perp. In their ideal world, we would all be sitting with hands on the table at all times. But we do not live in a cops' world, yet.

In a similar vein, military has similar views about the 'civilians', but this is not what I want to talk about.

I do find it... cute, however, that it is your belief that the purpose of the government is to vacuum as much information as possible. Very Hoover of you.
____________________________
Your soul was made of fists.

Jar the Sam
#26 Jul 07 2016 at 8:04 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Almalieque wrote:
TLW wrote:

Discussion should not be curtailed by the government. Actions that harm others? Absolutely.
I wouldn't classify monitoring terrorists discussion as "curtailing" discussion. If anything, the government allows them to talk in order to gather as much information as possible.


Again though, the concern is that the very fact that the government may be listening in on conversations to detect signs of terrorist discussions also means they may be listening in on any conversation any random group of people might be having about any topic (you can't know if that group is discussing a terrorist bombing plot or how to make the best spinach dip until you listen in, right?). Which may absolutely have a chilling effect on free speech. Maybe you don't care if the government is listening in on your conversation about spinach dip, but you might become more concerned about other, less popular, discussions (even if they aren't illegal). Even the mere fear that a conversation may be listened to by the government will affect your choices in terms of what you talk about. Which runs counter to the idea of free speech.

Do we want to live in a society where every time you open your mouth, you have to stop and think about whether what you say might be viewed negatively by the government? And in today's digital age, that never goes away. So maybe some topic or opinion is just fine today, but 30 years from now will be condemned. Do you just not talk about anything which might ever be controversial? We're already seeing this effect with social media. Teens do and say things online without thinking about how those things may be viewed down the line. And when they go to get a job, they discover that their potential employer is searching through social media to find anything they did or said (or that others did or said about them), to determine if they're a good "fit" for the company.

So yeah, we're kinda already there with some of this stuff. We already live in a world where we have to be aware that things we say or do will almost certainly become "public knowledge" at some point in the future. Now amplify that to include the possibility of a government that is possibly watching/listening to what you do/say at times when you believe you are in a private place. That can absolutely be chilling.

Does that mean we don't allow the government to do this at all? No. However, we need to be *really* careful about what we allow and don't allow. And we also need to restrain ourselves to targeting only actual violation of privacy when engaged in broadly, or randomly, and/or absent sufficient due process. Because, as I mentioned above, when we condemn everything, we ultimately are condemning nothing.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
« Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 422 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (422)