The FBI Hacked Over 8,000 Computers in 120 Countries Based on One Warrant • Hacker News Board

Re: The FBI Hacked Over 8,000 Computers in 120 Countries Based on One Warrant

#11

Post by mdrzn » Wed, Nov 23, 2016, 4:50 PM UTC

tdb7893 wrote: post #10

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They actually didn't target any people at all. They targeted hardware that some people potentially used for a crime. Other people (in the same household?) could have had legitimate privacy concerns. No its still blanket invasion of privacy.

I'm confused. How would people be infected other than visiting the site?

If I send you a .onion link (which does not easily explain what site is it), you open it, turns out to be a Playpen site, now you're a criminal just like the other because you visited it and got infected?

Re: The FBI Hacked Over 8,000 Computers in 120 Countries Based on One Warrant

#12

Post by dTal » Wed, Nov 23, 2016, 7:15 PM UTC

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #9

ionised wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you suggesting that they should be able to do this without a warrant and the contents of your personal computer should not be protected?

Not suggesting. I just thought that freedom of the press didn't apply to computer communications. So what is the root of the idea that warrants are needed to search them?

What's freedom of the press got to do with anything? Freedom from unreasonable search and seizure is, at least in theory, a Constitutional guarantee.

Incidentally another (theoretical) Constitutional guarantee is that government only has powers specifically enumerated. So asking why the government isn't allowed to do something is a funny sort of way to come at it.

Re: The FBI Hacked Over 8,000 Computers in 120 Countries Based on One Warrant

#13

Post by JoeAltmaier » Wed, Nov 23, 2016, 10:57 PM UTC

tdb7893 wrote: post #10

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They actually didn't target any people at all. They targeted hardware that some people potentially used for a crime. Other people (in the same household?) could have had legitimate privacy concerns. No its still blanket invasion of privacy.

I'm confused. How would people be infected other than visiting the site?

Again, people aren't infected, machines are. Perhaps a terminal at a library? Perhaps a machine shared by several people.