US becoming a police state.
-
Jeorj Euler — 9 years ago(December 03, 2016 08:06 AM)
According to Rule 41, the only probable cause they need is a computer concealed through technological means.
But a computer being concealed through technological means isn't crime, nor is it an indication of a known crime being associated with a given concealed computer. If law enforcement brakes into a person's host without a probable cause and reasonable suspicion, and is caught doing so, then law enforcement will have committed crime. The person can press charges or file suit, and if necessary (like trying to press charges against the feds), expose the relevant law enforcement organization in the press. -
Kreegor — 9 years ago(December 03, 2016 08:33 AM)
then law enforcement will have committed crime.
That's why I'm saying this is turning them into a police state. With a signed warrant under Rule 41, they can legally monitor or hack into a computer. The only requirements needing to be met in order to get such a warrant is "concealed through technological means". That's IT. Whether you're committing a crime or not, whether they have proof of a crime or not, it's not relevant. All they need to know is that you use Tor like services or VPN's and they have the legal right to hack you or monitor you.
www.400monkeys.com/God/ -
Jeorj Euler — 9 years ago(December 03, 2016 09:05 PM)
All they need to know is that you use Tor like services or VPN's and they have the legal right to hack you or monitor you.
It still needs to be tested in court and the press, as this Rule 41 sounds like pure
obiter dictum
. Breaking into computers out of pure curiosity is just inviting trouble. (Unlike breaking into a house, there is no risk of being shot or devoured by a dog, though.) People will have to resort to setting up decoys, but sadly only criminals (or the Army, or the Navy, or the Agency) would really be pioneers of such mechanisms. It would seem that only military organizations and their assets in one nation or another are beyond the reach of law enforcement agencies, simply by virtue of "firepower", cyber of otherwise. The Central Intelligence Agency is so badass, it can plant bugs in the offices of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and get away with it, something that could easily make the feds jealous. -
Kreegor — 9 years ago(December 04, 2016 05:33 AM)
Breaking into computers out of pure curiosity is just inviting trouble.
Irrelevant, they're allowed to, so they will.
It's like warantless wiretaps all over again. It was legal, so the government tapped pretty much every phone. You give the government a power, and they WILL abuse it. There's no "there only going to use this to spy on terrorists, or pedophiles". They're going to use this to spy on everyone that hides their computer. Which means a lot of anti-govermnent people. And I'm willing to bet THAT was why the Rule was passed. The government doesn't care about pedo's, they're more interested in the people who leak government information.
Granted this one needs a warrant, but it's an easy one to get. The judge mearly needs to know the computer has been blocked by technological means and they can sign off on the warrant. And if a judge in say Los Angeles doesn't want to sign off on it, then they can go to a judge in Houston. They can judge hop to find one more amenable to their cause.
www.400monkeys.com/God/ -
Jeorj Euler — 9 years ago(December 04, 2016 04:24 PM)
Irrelevant, they're allowed to, so they will.
They're still inviting trouble if they get caught. Are the feds smart enough not to mess with a corporate entity more powerful and more lawful than them?
Which means a lot of anti-government people.
Like seditious agents. -
Kreegor — 9 years ago(December 04, 2016 05:46 PM)
Like seditious agents.
Except it's not like that at all. They want to monitor it like a dictator would, possibly shut them up as well, or hamper their abilities. There is nothing wrong with people voicing their opinions on the government.
Not to mention with the broad definition of "concealed by technological means" this is something that can easily infringe on the 4th Amendment. Simply having a VPN cannot possibly be reasonable cause to search a persons property.
There is a reason why a crime must first be shown to have been committed before they go about finding a culprit. But this removes the crime needing to be there all together, and treats everyone as culprits.
www.400monkeys.com/God/ -
Jeorj Euler — 9 years ago(December 05, 2016 10:41 PM)
Not to mention with the broad definition of "concealed by technological means" this is something that can easily infringe on the 4th Amendment. Simply having a VPN cannot possibly be reasonable cause to search a persons property.
There is a reason why a crime must first be shown to have been committed before they go about finding a culprit. But this removes the crime needing to be there all together, and treats everyone as culprits.
Right. Don't get me wrong. I understand all that. I think what the judicial, executive and legislative branches supposedly "intend" to do in this regard is unconstitutional and absurd, which theoretically means that they can be stopped without the states amending in the extreme whatever it is these judges believes justifies Rule 41.
VPNs, proxies, relays, bouncers and shells are all over the place. A multitude of people and organizations use them for lawful purposes and for measures of security, convenience and profit, the pursuit of happiness. There are also Tor, i2p, Gnunet, Freenet, Bitcoin, Torrent and Freifunk (hell, there are even telecommunications entirely separate from the "Internet", or alternative Internets), which are all also lawful and used for lawful purposes. That's a lot of stuff to be construed as capable of concealing an Internet host. There is nothing in the world that is used for strictly lawful purposes either, or strictly unlawful purposes for that matter.
What the law enforcement are dealing with, of course, are situations like using their warrant to raid the house of somebody who has secretly installed remote hidden cameras in a bunch of other people's houses. The investigators cannot unsee what the feeds render onto the assailant's monitor, and they don't exactly have an obligation to disable the feeds and pretend like the implied associations never existed. I don't believe even this new rule allows them to follow a trail that isn't riddled with evidence of crime. The police can also wind up wasting a lot of resources if they are not careful. -
Kreegor — 9 years ago(December 03, 2016 08:37 AM)
Keep in mind England has already arrested two people for just that calling someone a fgt via Twitter. To think that nanny states cannot happen to us is wrong.
Also EVERYONE has something to hide, something they want to keep private.
www.400monkeys.com/God/ -
washclothrepairman — 9 years ago(December 03, 2016 09:17 AM)
England's justice system is even more fcked up than ours. I read about a case where two teenager murderers that killed three people in cold blood got like 5 years in prison while the adult that hurt no one and helped them cover it up got 30 years.
Limeys are fcking stupid.
Never trust a black man named "Chip." -
Kreegor — 9 years ago(December 03, 2016 11:56 AM)
The only thing I'd be worried about them finding would be the music and the odd game I've pirated. I download TV shows too, but I don't see this as stealing since I pay for HBO and Netflix but I hate MS Silverlight so I download them instead. Music's the biggy here, I haven't bought music in well over a decade.
But Canada seems to be a lot more lax on piracy than the US. The US probably cares more about piracy and protecting corporate interests than stopping child pornography. I would not be surprised if the money spent combating piracy was at least twice that of combating pedos.
I'm sure it's only a matter of time before they start handing out fines to people who've downloaded copyrighted materials, or watched a copyrighted vid, etc.
www.400monkeys.com/God/ -
!!!deleted!!! (62963595) — 9 years ago(December 03, 2016 12:10 PM)
It seems like it takes more resources than its worth to charge random people who download stuff. You do see the odd "public execution" every now and then, where they charge some guy 10 trillion dollhairs and sentence him to 5 millennia in exile on a barren planet, but I feel like the harsh punishment is indicative of the lack of effectiveness in enforcement in a lot of these kinds of cases.
Maybe if they develop Skynet and it can just run searches through everyone's sh!t, automatically dispensing insta-tickets every time it catches something illegal, but with the current system I don't think you have much to worry about. Just don't be that one guy lol. -
Kreegor — 9 years ago(December 03, 2016 12:17 PM)
I'm sure it will get to the point when they see your IP has downloaded something copyrighted, they'll fine you automatically. Kind of like how they send a ticket to your house if you get caught in red light / speeding cameras.
And I know they can tell because I was talking to my cousin in the US and told him to get Westworld, he downloaded the first episode and got an e-mail from his ISP telling him not to do it again.
I cannot see it being a prison sentence, but an auto-fine is something they can easily do. At that point a VPN would be nice.. but then there is a problem with that because see topic.
www.400monkeys.com/God/ -
Kreegor — 9 years ago(December 03, 2016 12:37 PM)
Screw that, Copyright has been perverted by the corporations anyway. You know copyright used to only be 7 years? Now it's the life of the creator + 75 years or some such nonsense.
I ain't going back to paying for music.
www.400monkeys.com/God/ -
Kreegor — 9 years ago(December 03, 2016 02:45 AM)
Step aside gulags, military crackdowns, and execution by AA guns, teh fckin USA givin you a run for your money by searching your property with a warrant.
that needs no proof or any evidence of a crime. Simply a person concealing their computer through electronic means.
They need a judge to sign off on this warrant, and some judges won't. But since this would be a federal law, they can district shop to find a judge who will sign off on it, even if that judge is no where near the area in which the computer they want info on is located.
www.400monkeys.com/God/