51–60 of 168 posts
What's the justification for no-knock raids here?
Then, like all things with a shred of reasonableness too them, they become an awesome "check this box every single time" way of doing business for the guys who get their thrills kicking in doors.
What's the justification for no-knock raids here?
no-knocks pretty much don't need justification anymore The laws are so vague and the precedents are so sweeping when it comes to no-knock raids.
I'm concerned about the knock-down approach by the FBI. Say I live in a state which allows one to kill home intruders on sight, could I not legally set up an alarm system that sprays some bullets in the direction of the door if it's opened without being disabled? By knocking I can disable it and let them in instead of having a few dead FBI agents on my doorstep.
Of course you couldn't legally set that up, are you insane? On what planet would that be justifiable? Even in Texas, you need to demonstrate a reasonable belief that you were in imminent danger of being robbed or attacked before you are permitted to use deadly force on an intruder in your home.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, you cannot legally create lethal booby traps, in any state in the US.
Good to know. How about non-lethal? (Say, something that might break a few bones but you'll recover.)
There are legally defensible reasons for breaking into someone else's property. For example, if someone thinks there is someone incapacitated inside, or if someone is running from danger and needs to hide.
Finally, it's not really a booby trap if you're inside deciding which visitors get blasted.
>The FBI yesterday reminded the public that "facilitating or conducting a DDoS attack is illegal, punishable by up to 10 years in prison, as well as exposing participants to significant civil liability." What exactly is the relevant statute? As the other Ars article on the subject states, it's the digital equivalent of a sit-in.
It's silly to pretend that a DDoS attack is the same as a sit-in, such a contention is intellectually and morally bankrupt. Moreover, sit-ins are not legal either. If you choose to attempt to disrupt a place of business and you refuse to leave private property when asked to do so you can be arrested.
Of course you can be arrested for a sit-in, but you won't go to gaol for ten years.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, you cannot legally create lethal booby traps, in any state in the US.
Good to know. How about non-lethal? (Say, something that might break a few bones but you'll recover.)
>The FBI yesterday reminded the public that "facilitating or conducting a DDoS attack is illegal, punishable by up to 10 years in prison, as well as exposing participants to significant civil liability." What exactly is the relevant statute? As the other Ars article on the subject states, it's the digital equivalent of a sit-in.
It's silly to pretend that a DDoS attack is the same as a sit-in, such a contention is intellectually and morally bankrupt. Moreover, sit-ins are not legal either. If you choose to attempt to disrupt a place of business and you refuse to leave private property when asked to do so you can be arrested.
It's clearly illegal. But I don't think anyone there has done anything such that 10 years in prison is an even remotely reasonable punishment. I would say it's a misdemeanor at worst, and it should carry something between community service and six months in jail.
And really, the sit-in analogy is probably better than that nonsense I just wrote.
Let me get this straight. All this fanfare, and all they got was a bunch of teenagers (who most likely are not even legally liable) + their moms?
Their goal is to deter the behaviour by making examples of out people. I think they achieved this.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can get people to participate in DDoS attacks with a malicious website though. Just use some JS to create image elements, script tags, iframes etc all with sources pointing at the target, should be able to do a few hundred a second at least. Even trivial to get people to participate without using javascript. Just pop in a hidden iframe with a million tags in the source. As things move on, I don't think individual…
I guarantee the FBI did further surveillance before sending the raids. They didn't just pick a random IP and then send a team. They picked the IP, sniffed their traffic, monitored their internet behaviour, read their forum posts, and then finally selected them to be an example. By performing surveillance like this you can be 99% sure who is a real voluntary participant and who is just a stooge. A voluntary participan…
So it's like assassination, then: all you have to do to get away clean is to execute only on others' commands, making no plans of your own, and not discussing, bragging, or asking questions. Historically, this leads quickly to a two-level military structure: officers to point, and enlistedmen to shoot.
The only question is whether any sort of hierarchy is possible within a completely decentralized system of mutually non-trusting agents, who are nonetheless driven by either status or belonging. That sounds like it should have a mathematical answer...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I find it hard to believe that the FBI interacts well with law enforcement in, say, Poland. you might be disappointed. Law enforcement cooperates extensively throughout the World.
Don't get me wrong. I'm all for laws. I'm just skeptical that they work really well across borders.
I don't :)
I know it's hard to believe, but law enforcement of different countries indeed does cooperate really well, often even if these countries don't have very good diplomatic relationships.
And it's not just Interpol/Europol.