Live data from Hacker News

Federal agents seek to loosen rules on hacking computers during investigations

bloomberg.com

21–30 of 53 posts

Re: Federal agents seek to loosen rules on hacking computers during investigations

#21
"...no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

I'm tickled that they're actually getting warrants sometimes, but this sort of warrant doesn't sound like it would meet that test.

If you can't describe a physical location of your search, you're opening up all sorts of potential for mischief that would play off the technical ignorance of some judges and the inherent interconnectedness of the Internet.

"Machines connecting to the target machine or relaying traffic for the target machine", etc.

Re: Federal agents seek to loosen rules on hacking computers during investigations

#22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Last time I checked, the 4th Amendment was about "due process" and "but upon probable cause". Everyone seems to forget about the "Probable Cause" line.

Probable cause is an under-appreciated term. Every American should know what it means. You'll see actors in movies and TV say to other actors posing as police that they can't enter their home without a warrant and that's not true. Police can enter your home without a warrant, all they need is probable cause. What is probable cause? Probable cause is when a police officer is 51% sure that a crime is occurring. So if p…

Thanks for the very nice explanation with an example.

Re: Federal agents seek to loosen rules on hacking computers during investigations

#23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately, projects such as DROPOUTJEEP confirm that the iPhone isn't to be trusted. This is impossible to guarantee today. Certainly if you run the zero-day magnets known as browsers, and even if not, there is always some possibility of physical intrusion. Today you can use OS's such as Tails to prevent most exploits from embedding themselves into your computer. This is what Snowden used, for example. But if har…

> The unfortunate conclusion is that in the future, someone like Snowden might immediately be caught. I think that is too naive. Snowden types don't assume they won't be caught, they probably assume that it is only a matter of time until they are caught, and play the cards they have in such a way that you make it really hard to send your garden variety cia/dia/spec ops/defense contractors out on a pick up operation n…

Also to note that offensive/defensive technical capabilities aren't as asymmetric as they appear for all possible targets of nation states, some yes, but probably not as much to those with the technical knowledge who can create/use such and derivative systems.

If you concede that your computer has a chip with DMA access which can be used by the government, then you must concede that the same chip can monitor you for activity that triggers active surveillance. For example, I think Tails is going to force governemnts into monitoring at least which operating system you're using. There's no way to target a specific Tails user, so the only recourse is for the government to do dragnet surveillance of everyone using Tails, or ignore the activities of those using Tails. Since the latter seems politically untenable, the former is becoming more likely with time. When the government can passively check whether your activity is fitting the pattern of some kind of criminal activity, the situation is about as asymmetric as I can imagine. Is there really any technical knowledge that could protect you?

Re: Federal agents seek to loosen rules on hacking computers during investigations

#24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Last time I checked, the 4th Amendment was about "due process" and "but upon probable cause". Everyone seems to forget about the "Probable Cause" line.

Probable cause is an under-appreciated term. Every American should know what it means. You'll see actors in movies and TV say to other actors posing as police that they can't enter their home without a warrant and that's not true. Police can enter your home without a warrant, all they need is probable cause. What is probable cause? Probable cause is when a police officer is 51% sure that a crime is occurring. So if p…

And even in the event that they do need a warrant, warrants can be issued easily through email and fax machines that are located in every single cop car.

So... if you deny the search, the police can often call a judge to write up a warrant really quick. Judges work overtime, on weekends and on night shifts for this kind of thing.

Re: Federal agents seek to loosen rules on hacking computers during investigations

#25
post #21

"...no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." I'm tickled that they're actually getting warrants sometimes, but this sort of warrant doesn't sound like it would meet that test. If you can't describe a physical location of your search, you're opening up all sorts of potential for mis…

You have to be pretty smart guy to become a judge and pass the whole confirmation grilling.

And from what I have seen recently a some of the judiciary have picked up enough tech know how to not be fooled into rubber stamping.

But you need wide programs to change the culture of the police departments and prosecutors. If I was doing my job/followed orders is not acceptable excuse at trial it cannot justify put the criminal behind bars by any means necessary.

Re: Federal agents seek to loosen rules on hacking computers during investigations

#26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The unfortunate conclusion is that in the future, someone like Snowden might immediately be caught. I think that is too naive. Snowden types don't assume they won't be caught, they probably assume that it is only a matter of time until they are caught, and play the cards they have in such a way that you make it really hard to send your garden variety cia/dia/spec ops/defense contractors out on a pick up operation n…

Also to note that offensive/defensive technical capabilities aren't as asymmetric as they appear for all possible targets of nation states, some yes, but probably not as much to those with the technical knowledge who can create/use such and derivative systems. If you concede that your computer has a chip with DMA access which can be used by the government, then you must concede that the same chip can monitor you for…

>If you concede that your computer has a chip with DMA access which can be used by the government, then you must concede that the same chip can monitor you for activity that triggers active surveillance.

Whats DMA access? Direct Memory Access access?

That aside, I'm not willing to concede that across every computer than has been/can be built and be exploited by a government out of the box remotely [because dragnet] (most of them, I will concede probably can though, and conversely anyone technical enough can probably exploit many systems in the same way for their own means[don't trust your spouse/freinds/employees?, bug them with remote backups of data to analyze in real-time, hell, companies do such things now as-a-Service]). But continuing on with your conclusion of a dragnet (which is more or less present today), access isn't really the problem, but you have a signal and a noise problem, wherein you will have false positives and false negatives. Text book example of the mal-possibilities is the NSA providing data which led to the targeting phones in the ME, which drone strikes we're initiated and hit innocent civilians[0]. Just wait when we're at the point when this is happening within a countries national borders by domestic agencies, one day, someone is going to be taken out that wasn't meant to be taken out. Can't ignore the false neg/positives forever, though governments seem to try very hard to do so. I think corporations are more forthright about the extent the data they collect is able to be used because if you knowingly contract/ utilize bogus data for certain applications, someone else will eat your lunch eventually.

>activity is fitting the pattern of some kind of criminal activity

From a predatory-prey/evolutionary standpoint, criminal activity is always evolving (typically every living being and the systems they rely on are). Not to mention the time sensitive nature of these systems that do the analysis so if $criminal_activity is always changing and over a defined period of time, you risk that you will get no signal for those who conduct such $criminal_activity in less than the defined period of time or that by the time the analysis has been done, or any signals collected from such device will be moot (i.e. computer was destroyed, thrown away or even worse: passed along to/associated to someone else which also means any point there after associated with such systems is akin to going after a ghost within the machine).

>Is there really any technical knowledge that could protect you?

Well since the focus is on tails [but mostly on the dragnet], one can clone the sc[1] and go through it for what could possibly define one as a Tails user, replace that with something else, build their own image and voila, you just avoided being in the dragnet. The thing about dragnets is that they can only really capture the lowest common denominator, deviate only slightly from that, and the adversary will have to expand resources going for an targeted operation (any adversary, not just nation states is technically possible of doing these things and by definition not a dragnet). This is what happens today. Not in some far off distant dystopian future meant (intended or not) to invoke fear in the ignorant/lazy. Yes if one wants to avoid being in a dragnet with some of the tools they use, then one will take the steps necessary to keep such information obfuscated/opaque from the dragnet.

[0]: http://www.policymic.com/articles/16949/predator-drone-strik...

[1]: https://tails.boum.org/contribute/build/

Re: Federal agents seek to loosen rules on hacking computers during investigations

#27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Last time I checked, the 4th Amendment was about "due process" and "but upon probable cause". Everyone seems to forget about the "Probable Cause" line.

Probable cause is an under-appreciated term. Every American should know what it means. You'll see actors in movies and TV say to other actors posing as police that they can't enter their home without a warrant and that's not true. Police can enter your home without a warrant, all they need is probable cause. What is probable cause? Probable cause is when a police officer is 51% sure that a crime is occurring. So if p…

[deleted]

Re: Federal agents seek to loosen rules on hacking computers during investigations

#28
post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The takeaway is that your children may grow up in a world where it's impossible to guarantee the government can't get into your computer if it really wanted to. This is impossible to guarantee today. Certainly if you run the zero-day magnets known as browsers, and even if not, there is always some possibility of physical intrusion. > More and more network adapters seem to have DMA access to your computer. With an I…

Unfortunately, projects such as DROPOUTJEEP confirm that the iPhone isn't to be trusted. This is impossible to guarantee today. Certainly if you run the zero-day magnets known as browsers, and even if not, there is always some possibility of physical intrusion. Today you can use OS's such as Tails to prevent most exploits from embedding themselves into your computer. This is what Snowden used, for example. But if har…

> Once hardware begins to turn against you, there seems to be nothing anyone can do to protect themselves. Encryption doesn't work against an adversary that has access to your computer's memory.

In the future (or today, depending on your setup), IOMMU. In the present, there is no evidence that baseband backdoors of this type actually exist (as opposed to hacks). When the adversary adds backdoors deeper in the hardware? ...well, we'll see if that is discovered someday.

To editorialize a bit, I guess it can't hurt to worry about and try to head off anticipated future threats - it's not like anticipating different threats is mutually exclusive - but still, I somehow can't shake the feeling that people's emphasis on secret backdoors unduly weights threats that are easier to romanticize over more pragmatic but more dangerous ones.

Re: Federal agents seek to loosen rules on hacking computers during investigations

#29
So if a botnet operator infects my machine, gaining access to my files... and then the FBI gets a warrant to install further software on my machine, ostensibly to investigate the people operating the botnet, haven't they just gotten a "warrant" that entitles them to everything on my machine, independent of who owns it?

Re: Federal agents seek to loosen rules on hacking computers during investigations

#30

Didn't these folks take an oath to defend the US constitution? This pretty clearly violates 4th Amendment protections against unreasonable search and seizure. Yes, I'm not a lawyer, so I don't know what "doctrine", "touchstone" or "Three Pronged Test" makes the clearly unconstitutional into something lawfully constitutional, but that's a lawyer problem. Beyond practical considerations, like this makes the FBI into an…

Last time I checked, the 4th Amendment was about "due process" and "but upon probable cause". Everyone seems to forget about the "Probable Cause" line.

Did you read the article?

a proposal made public yesterday that would give federal agents greater leeway to secretly access suspected criminals’ computers in bunches, not simply one at a time.

"Secretly access" and "in bunches". Sounds rather like a general warrant to me, and without probable cause, except maybe to fearful know-nothings, where "hacking" is essentially the same as "magic".

Post reply on HN