FBI Demands New Powers To Hack Into Computers

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
The only thing surprising about this move by the FBI is that it is actually seeking approval first. Don't these guys normally just do it and then argue the legality later? ;)

The FBI is attempting to persuade an obscure regulatory body in Washington to change its rules of engagement in order to seize significant new powers to hack into and carry out surveillance of computers throughout the US and around the world.
 

djoye

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 31, 2004
Messages
2,885
I wouldn't be surprised if they already did it and are pushing laws to make it legal so they don't get in trouble.
 

Lith1um

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 3, 2004
Messages
2,838
Government always seeks to expand it's power, that's what it does. In a post 9/11 USA it wouldn't surprise me if we eventually end up with pre-crime, probably the day after such technology exists.
 

lcpiper

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 16, 2008
Messages
10,611
This breaks from the Guardian? Is there a link or something that sources the report. I can't get to the Guardian at work, they are blocked. I'd like to know more of the details on this one.
 

reb00tin

Gawd
Joined
Apr 13, 2009
Messages
864
Edward Snowden has already confirmed that you live in a police state, now you're worried about the technicalities?
 

lcpiper

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 16, 2008
Messages
10,611
Edward Snowden didn't prove any such thing. The media, namely The Guardian, Der Speigle, and a couple of others that are all foreign sources, convinced many people who don't take the time to carefully read and try and understand the details that you live in a police state. Tell me, how is it the Guardian, an English Media Source is the first to publish this? Why is it if it happens in the US and it's supposed to be quiet then why is the Guardian the first to break it?
 

lcpiper

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 16, 2008
Messages
10,611
Yes it's the same deal; vaaaaasly different vocabulary though lol

Oh, so the Guardian had more to say about what InfoWorld said in Sep 17, 2014.
http://www.infoworld.com/article/2684796/government/feds-seek-expanded-pc-hacking-powers-for-criminal-investigations.html

And InfoWorld was adding their spin to what NetWorkWorld said on Aug 25, 2014.
http://www.networkworld.com/article/2597972/microsoft-subnet/feds-closer-to-expanded-search-and-seizure-authority-to-remotely-hack-into-pcs.html

And of course NetWorkWorld was just adding to what Bloomburg said on May 9, 2014.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-05-09/federal-agents-seek-to-loosen-rules-on-hacking-computers.html

So, I suppose it's a slow day at the Guardian and 5 month old shit can still be polished off and made to smell brand new as long as the Headline sounds juicy enough.
 

timta2

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Feb 3, 2010
Messages
1,393
Edward Snowden didn't prove any such thing. The media, namely The Guardian, Der Speigle, and a couple of others that are all foreign sources, convinced many people who don't take the time to carefully read and try and understand the details that you live in a police state. Tell me, how is it the Guardian, an English Media Source is the first to publish this? Why is it if it happens in the US and it's supposed to be quiet then why is the Guardian the first to break it?

You would really have to have your head in the sand or have other motivations to believe that.
 

wgm3446

Gawd
Joined
May 8, 2007
Messages
858
FBI needs probable cause and get an issued search warrant by a federal judge before touching any system. They're not going after your porn stash that you may or may not have downloaded illegaly from xhamster. They're going after cyber-theft rings, terrorists, and sexual predators obfuscating their connection to conduct their acts.

Their means of "hacking" is infiltrating the Tor network and extracting any keys used for encryption and tapping into their data connection.

What the FBI is doing is legal and I see no problems with it. The only issue I take with it is when it is done unlawfully and nobody is held accountable for their acts.

Snowden is a piece of shit traitor and mislead the dumb masses that the government wants to get all in your life.

And No... I don't work for the government.
 

mullet

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Aug 19, 2004
Messages
1,625
Government always seeks to expand it's power, that's what it does. In a post 9/11 USA it wouldn't surprise me if we eventually end up with pre-crime, probably the day after such technology exists.

QFT
 

wgm3446

Gawd
Joined
May 8, 2007
Messages
858
Don't these guys normally just do it and then argue the legality later? ;)

Simple answer... No.

They don't because it jeopardizes the conviction in court if an investigation was not conducted legally. If the defendant's lawyer discovers that a surveillance order was never sanctioned by a federal judge, then the court case would be thrown out the window and the defendant gets out scot-free. And the FBI doesn't like to lose cases to stupid shit like that.
 

Dekoth-E-

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Mar 23, 2010
Messages
7,599
Simple answer... No.

They don't because it jeopardizes the conviction in court if an investigation was not conducted legally. If the defendant's lawyer discovers that a surveillance order was never sanctioned by a federal judge, then the court case would be thrown out the window and the defendant gets out scot-free. And the FBI doesn't like to lose cases to stupid shit like that.

The cases where they use these kinds of methods aren't ending up in a "court of law" ever. You have far too much faith in your government abiding by the rules.
 

wgm3446

Gawd
Joined
May 8, 2007
Messages
858
The cases where they use these kinds of methods aren't ending up in a "court of law" ever. You have far too much faith in your government abiding by the rules.

Let's just say I grew up in a family of law enforcement and these processes are taken very seriously and there is a long vetting process.


Keep in mind this article is about the FBI. Not the other soup alphabet organizations. The FBI only gets involved with investigations AFTER a crime is committed.
 

Dekoth-E-

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Mar 23, 2010
Messages
7,599
Let's just say I grew up in a family of law enforcement and these processes are taken very seriously and there is a long vetting process.


Keep in mind this article is about the FBI. Not the other soup alphabet organizations. The FBI only gets involved with investigations AFTER a crime is committed.

Cops != FBI

Also the branch of the FBI that deals with the local cops is not the same as that which deals with higher level issues. We aren't dealing with the same entities here.
 

m heisty

Gawd
Joined
May 14, 2014
Messages
638
FBI needs probable cause and get an issued search warrant by a federal judge before touching any system. They're not going after your porn stash that you may or may not have downloaded illegaly from xhamster. They're going after cyber-theft rings, terrorists, and sexual predators obfuscating their connection to conduct their acts.

Their means of "hacking" is infiltrating the Tor network and extracting any keys used for encryption and tapping into their data connection.

What the FBI is doing is legal and I see no problems with it. The only issue I take with it is when it is done unlawfully and nobody is held accountable for their acts.

Snowden is a piece of shit traitor and mislead the dumb masses that the government wants to get all in your life.

And No... I don't work for the government.

Okay, this is idiotic. The government does what they want, and then justifies it later by making up boogey men. Every government ever created at any point in history follows the same trajectory. They always try to increase their power. It gets to a point that the only way to sustain the current level of governmental corruption is to expand the level of government in order to silence more people. This has nothing to do with "catching criminals" since it seems like the only criminals the FBI catches anyway are mentally unstable people they entrap. Most of the time that doesn't even work right and the person they are tying to entrap ends up killing innocent people because the FBI can't even manage to conduct a fabricated scheme properly.

This is all about blackmail, you don't keep your high level cushy high paying job in government unless you have a safe full of shit on all of your peers. If these ass hats spent even half of the time they do scheming against each other actually running the government in a productive manner we wouldn't have half of the problems we do.
 

m heisty

Gawd
Joined
May 14, 2014
Messages
638
Let's just say I grew up in a family of law enforcement and these processes are taken very seriously and there is a long vetting process.


Keep in mind this article is about the FBI. Not the other soup alphabet organizations. The FBI only gets involved with investigations AFTER a crime is committed.

These cases actually do never see the light of day because the toss them in a black hole to shut them up label of terrorist is slapped on the accused and they never see a court room. You actually think the FBI is a benevolent org, you need to do some more research. Ever find it odd how the FBI happens to be one of the 1st agencies on the scene at these random events that happen in the middle of no where? Ever wondered how the FBI was on the scene of that LA airport shooting a couple of minuets after the airport police.

These guys aren't even good at attempting to make it look not obvious.
 

flashoverride

Limp Gawd
Joined
Dec 10, 2013
Messages
496
FBI needs probable cause and get an issued search warrant by a federal judge before touching any system. They're not going after your porn stash that you may or may not have downloaded illegaly from xhamster. They're going after cyber-theft rings, terrorists, and sexual predators obfuscating their connection to conduct their acts.

Their means of "hacking" is infiltrating the Tor network and extracting any keys used for encryption and tapping into their data connection.

What the FBI is doing is legal and I see no problems with it. The only issue I take with it is when it is done unlawfully and nobody is held accountable for their acts.

Snowden is a piece of shit traitor and mislead the dumb masses that the government wants to get all in your life.

And No... I don't work for the government.

Well, tell you what skippy. You tell me who bugged Sheryl Attkisson's computer, and we'll see who in government we can trust.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/cbs-news-confirms-sharyl-attkissons-computer-hacked/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/17/sharyl-attkisson-computer-hacked-outraged_n_3454427.html
http://patterico.com/2014/10/27/sha...ware-and-classified-documents-on-my-computer/
 

BladeVenom

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jun 29, 2005
Messages
7,707
FBI needs probable cause and get an issued search warrant by a federal judge before touching any system. They're not going after your porn stash that you may or may not have downloaded illegaly from xhamster. .

Wrong, they do go after copyright infringement.

The federal government is illegally obtaining evidence without a warrant. They then work backwards to find probably cause, and hide how they have illegally gotten their initial evidence. http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/05/us-dea-sod-idUSBRE97409R20130805
 

amddragonpc

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Sep 20, 2012
Messages
1,996
I thought hacking into computers was easier than hacking into someone's smartphone but I guess not. Since the FBI has lost an avenue of information with the new crop of smartphones being encrypted from Google and Apple, they want another avenue of information that connects a person, a computer, and the Internet. Anyway, time to add some honeypots to the network.
 

wgm3446

Gawd
Joined
May 8, 2007
Messages
858
Wrong, they do go after copyright infringement.

The federal government is illegally obtaining evidence without a warrant. They then work backwards to find probably cause, and hide how they have illegally gotten their initial evidence. http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/05/us-dea-sod-idUSBRE97409R20130805


First of all, this is the DEA. Not the FBI, even though the process *should* be the same, But the article explains exactly what I said earlier.

"I was pissed," the prosecutor said. "Lying about where the information came from is a bad start if you're trying to comply with the law because it can lead to all kinds of problems with discovery and candor to the court." The prosecutor never filed charges in the case because he lost confidence in the investigation, he said.

A senior DEA official said he was not aware of the case but said the agent should not have misled the prosecutor. How often such misdirection occurs is unknown, even to the government; the DEA official said the agency does not track what happens with tips after the SOD sends them to agents in the field.

Look, I know the agencies aren't a bunch of boy scouts. And this administration isn't the role model of executing in accordance to the law. That is a leadership issue. But for investigators that really want criminals locked up they follow the legal process to ensure a conviction. Keep in min that we're talking about the FBI. CIA, NSA, DoD, DHS, are completely different agencies with totally different policies on how they obtain their intelligence.

Ever find it odd how the FBI happens to be one of the 1st agencies on the scene at these random events that happen in the middle of no where? Ever wondered how the FBI was on the scene of that LA airport shooting a couple of minuets after the airport police.

That question is easy and can disprove your conspiracy theory. Every local law enforcement agency, even airport police, have FBI deputized Task Force Officers and when an investigation involving federal laws occurs within "minutes", those local law enforcers represent the FBI. ALSO, every major city has a FBI branch location so they can quickly get to any situation.

Time to take the tin foil hat off.
 

m heisty

Gawd
Joined
May 14, 2014
Messages
638
First of all, this is the DEA. Not the FBI, even though the process *should* be the same, But the article explains exactly what I said earlier.



Look, I know the agencies aren't a bunch of boy scouts. And this administration isn't the role model of executing in accordance to the law. That is a leadership issue. But for investigators that really want criminals locked up they follow the legal process to ensure a conviction. Keep in min that we're talking about the FBI. CIA, NSA, DoD, DHS, are completely different agencies with totally different policies on how they obtain their intelligence.



That question is easy and can disprove your conspiracy theory. Every local law enforcement agency, even airport police, have FBI deputized Task Force Officers and when an investigation involving federal laws occurs within "minutes", those local law enforcers represent the FBI. ALSO, every major city has a FBI branch location so they can quickly get to any situation.

Time to take the tin foil hat off.

Deputized officers =/= an entire task force. The FBI has admitted they entrap people in terrorism stings. There is a reason theories like the 6 week cycle exist.
 

Uvaman

Gawd
Joined
Jan 6, 2008
Messages
849
Simple answer... No.

They don't because it jeopardizes the conviction in court if an investigation was not conducted legally. If the defendant's lawyer discovers that a surveillance order was never sanctioned by a federal judge, then the court case would be thrown out the window and the defendant gets out scot-free. And the FBI doesn't like to lose cases to stupid shit like that.

.. now a days we do a parallel construction, you know soviet style.
 

weebling1

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 31, 2002
Messages
2,233
The only thing surprising about this move by the FBI is that it is actually seeking approval first. Don't these guys normally just do it and then argue the legality later? ;)

Actually.....they're NOT

http://rt.com/usa/200131-seattle-times-hacked-bomb/

"...When agents with the Seattle division of the FBI swarmed the home of a 15-year-old high school student that year and charged him with making bomb threats, media reports noted that the arrest was made possible with the use of a so-called “Computer & Internet Protocol Address Verifier” program, or CIPAV, that had been remotely installed on the individual’s machine to collect and then communicate to the authorities the user-specific information that eventually identified the suspect...."
 

wgm3446

Gawd
Joined
May 8, 2007
Messages
858
Actually.....they're NOT

http://rt.com/usa/200131-seattle-times-hacked-bomb/

"...When agents with the Seattle division of the FBI swarmed the home of a 15-year-old high school student that year and charged him with making bomb threats, media reports noted that the arrest was made possible with the use of a so-called “Computer & Internet Protocol Address Verifier” program, or CIPAV, that had been remotely installed on the individual’s machine to collect and then communicate to the authorities the user-specific information that eventually identified the suspect...."

The image from the email shows that investigator is meeting with the Judge before deploying.... So that is asking for permission to do their surveillance... on a guy making bomb threats....
 

SockMan!

2[H]4U
Joined
Jul 31, 2004
Messages
2,187
Government always seeks to expand it's power, that's what it does. In a post 9/11 USA it wouldn't surprise me if we eventually end up with pre-crime, probably the day after such technology exists.

The scary thing is: the technology already exists. Replace pre-cogs with massive data mining operations, databases, and behavioral filters and Minority Report starts looking an awful lot like a prophecy. The same data used to sell you personalized ads today may be used to get you arrested in the future - all because a computer correlates your activity with pre-criminal behavior.

Even scarier is that many people will want this; after all, they have "nothing to hide".
 

choppedliver

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jan 3, 2005
Messages
476
Edward Snowden didn't prove any such thing. The media, namely The Guardian, Der Speigle, and a couple of others that are all foreign sources, convinced many people who don't take the time to carefully read and try and understand the details that you live in a police state. Tell me, how is it the Guardian, an English Media Source is the first to publish this? Why is it if it happens in the US and it's supposed to be quiet then why is the Guardian the first to break it?

Thats the funniest thing I've heard all year if it was in jest, or the saddest thing I've ever heard if you actually meant it.
 

sleepeeg3

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Mar 4, 2004
Messages
4,961
Government always seeks to expand it's power, that's what it does. In a post 9/11 USA it wouldn't surprise me if we eventually end up with pre-crime, probably the day after such technology exists.
Sorry, but you will be going to jail for those thoughts in 2027. I came back from the future to tell you that. ;)
 

Lith1um

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 3, 2004
Messages
2,838
www.npr.org/2014/10/29/359725475/ca...lities-and-pose-as-repairmen-to-search-a-home

Can Authorities Cut Off Utilities And Pose As Repairmen To Search A Home?

Some legal cases do more than raise eyebrows — they push the legal envelope to change the law. Such is a federal case in Las Vegas now working its way through the courts. The question is whether federal agents can disrupt service to a house and then, masquerading as helpful technicians, gain entry to covertly search the premises in hopes of finding evidence that might later justify a search warrant.

The defendants in this case are not your everyday Americans. They are, in fact, Chinese gamblers who were staying in Las Vegas at Caesar's Palace earlier this year.

Caesar's, and other gambling casinos, thrive on these high-rollers and provide them with free villas, butlers and other services. But in this case, at least one of the high-rollers had been tossed out of Macau for running an illegal sportsbooking operation. That fact made the Nevada Gaming Commission and the FBI suspicious that the high-rollers were doing the same thing here.

Suspicions, however, aren't enough for a search warrant. So, according to court papers filed by defense lawyers late Tuesday, the FBI came up with a plan: Working with a computer contractor for Caesar's Palace, the agents first tried to get into the villas by delivering laptops and asking to come in to make sure the connections worked.

The butler, however, wouldn't let them in. Tape from the secret cameras worn by the agents clearly shows the butler blocking their way.

"I just want to make sure they can connect before I leave. Can we just make sure they can connect, OK?" the agent asks.

"The thing is, you can't go in there right now," replies the butler.

When that ploy failed, the agents came up with "another trick," according to defense lawyer Tom Goldstein: "We'll dress up as technicians, we'll come inside, we'll claim to be fixing the Internet connection — even though we can't, 'cause we broke it from outside — and then we'll just look around and see what we see."

Pre-crime?
 

Lith1um

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 3, 2004
Messages
2,838
Continued,

Once inside, the agents wandered around the premises as they covertly photographed the rooms, entering the previously off-limits media room. Inside, they saw a group of men watching the World Cup soccer game and looking at betting odds on their laptops — perfectly legal in Las Vegas.

What else the agents saw is not entirely clear at this point, but when they left, they seemed satisfied they had enough to get a search warrant.

"Yeah, we saw what we needed to see," an agent is heard on the tapes saying. His partner responds, "Very cool."

Defense lawyer Goldstein contends that not only was the search illegal, but the government knew it was and tried to cover it up. He contends that the materials submitted to a federal magistrate judge in seeking a warrant later carefully eliminated all indications that the federal agents had themselves cut the Internet line so that the villa occupants would ask for repairmen to come to the villa to fix the problem.

"They just managed not to tell the magistrate what it is they had actually done," says Goldstein.

Indeed, Goldstein notes that he and his clients never would have known that it was the FBI agents who cut the line were it not for one slip of the tongue that the agents made — recorded on tape — when talking among themselves. He adds that when the defense asked for further recordings, the FBI provided two blank CDs, claiming the recording devices malfunctioned.

"There's no real way of looking at this other than to say that it is a cover-up," contends Goldstein.

Cover-up or not, the legal theory used here by the Justice Department and the FBI would change the legal rules of the road dramatically if adopted by the courts.

"The theory behind this search is scary," says George Washington University law professor Stephen Saltzburg, author of a leading criminal law text. "It means the government can cut off your service, intentionally, and then pretend to be a repair person, and then while they're there, they spend extra time searching your house. It is scary beyond belief."

And it's not just Internet service that could be cut off. Cable TV lines, plumbing or water lines — the list in the modern world is a long one.

Saltzburg, who has himself worked for the Justice Department, is frankly puzzled by the brazenness of the search here.

"It's very difficult to understand, unless they want to try to push the law of consent beyond where it's ever gone before," he says.

The Justice Department declined to comment for this story, saying it would make its arguments in court when the time comes.
 

kirbyrj

Fully [H]
Joined
Feb 1, 2005
Messages
26,752
Doesn't seem to me to be anything other than an update of existing practice to fit new technology. For example, the 4th amendment was written before the automobile existed, and now we have a slew of automobile case law.
 
Top