http://fee.org/freeman/detail/youll-never-guess-whos-trying-to-hack-your-iphone

The investigative arm of the Department of Justice is attempting to short-circuit the legal checks of the Fourth Amendment by requesting a change in the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. These procedural rules dictate how law enforcement agencies must conduct criminal prosecutions, from investigation to trial. Any deviations from the rules can have serious consequences, including dismissal of a case. The specific rule the FBI is targeting outlines the terms for obtaining a search warrant.
It’s called Federal Rule 41(b), and the requested change would allow law enforcement to obtain a warrant to search electronic data without providing any specific details as long as the target computer location has been hidden through a technical tool like Tor or a virtual private network. It would also allow nonspecific search warrants where computers have been intentionally damaged (such as through botnets, but also through common malware and viruses) and are in five or more separate federal judicial districts. Furthermore, the provision would allow investigators to seize electronically stored information regardless of whether that information is stored inside or outside the court’s jurisdiction.

This may be american law, but the UK is also trying to ban all forms of encryption that do not have a back door from which the government can easilly decrypt communications.. (including online banking etc)

These sorts of regressive laws, once in place, are unlikely every to be revoked.

Dropbear said:

http://fee.org/freeman/detail/youll-never-guess-whos-trying-to-hack-your-iphone

The investigative arm of the Department of Justice is attempting to short-circuit the legal checks of the Fourth Amendment by requesting a change in the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. These procedural rules dictate how law enforcement agencies must conduct criminal prosecutions, from investigation to trial. Any deviations from the rules can have serious consequences, including dismissal of a case. The specific rule the FBI is targeting outlines the terms for obtaining a search warrant.
It’s called Federal Rule 41(b), and the requested change would allow law enforcement to obtain a warrant to search electronic data without providing any specific details as long as the target computer location has been hidden through a technical tool like Tor or a virtual private network. It would also allow nonspecific search warrants where computers have been intentionally damaged (such as through botnets, but also through common malware and viruses) and are in five or more separate federal judicial districts. Furthermore, the provision would allow investigators to seize electronically stored information regardless of whether that information is stored inside or outside the court’s jurisdiction.

This may be american law, but the UK is also trying to ban all forms of encryption that do not have a back door from which the government can easilly decrypt communications.. (including online banking etc)

These sorts of regressive laws, once in place, are unlikely every to be revoked.

not a fan

Really bear?? that’s awful,. but thanks for bringing it to my attention…

said no one ever

Does seem pretty draconian…

If it was a Republican Administration this thread would be through the roof with outrage by now.

Dropbear said:

http://fee.org/freeman/detail/youll-never-guess-whos-trying-to-hack-your-iphone

The investigative arm of the Department of Justice is attempting to short-circuit the legal checks of the Fourth Amendment by requesting a change in the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. These procedural rules dictate how law enforcement agencies must conduct criminal prosecutions, from investigation to trial. Any deviations from the rules can have serious consequences, including dismissal of a case. The specific rule the FBI is targeting outlines the terms for obtaining a search warrant.
It’s called Federal Rule 41(b), and the requested change would allow law enforcement to obtain a warrant to search electronic data without providing any specific details as long as the target computer location has been hidden through a technical tool like Tor or a virtual private network. It would also allow nonspecific search warrants where computers have been intentionally damaged (such as through botnets, but also through common malware and viruses) and are in five or more separate federal judicial districts. Furthermore, the provision would allow investigators to seize electronically stored information regardless of whether that information is stored inside or outside the court’s jurisdiction.

Thank goodness. Perhaps they can track down and prosecute the spammers, virus writers, malware purveyors and out and out crooks when this is in place. Lets hope it goes international.

don’t believe spamming is a crime. also if you haven’t set up your mail clients, or chosen carefully, that you still get spam maybe you shouldn’t be on the internet.

Peak Warming Man said:

If it was a Republican Administration this thread would be through the roof with outrage by now.

I’m outraged.. but I seem to be on my own

mollwollfumble said:

Dropbear said:

http://fee.org/freeman/detail/youll-never-guess-whos-trying-to-hack-your-iphone

The investigative arm of the Department of Justice is attempting to short-circuit the legal checks of the Fourth Amendment by requesting a change in the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. These procedural rules dictate how law enforcement agencies must conduct criminal prosecutions, from investigation to trial. Any deviations from the rules can have serious consequences, including dismissal of a case. The specific rule the FBI is targeting outlines the terms for obtaining a search warrant.
It’s called Federal Rule 41(b), and the requested change would allow law enforcement to obtain a warrant to search electronic data without providing any specific details as long as the target computer location has been hidden through a technical tool like Tor or a virtual private network. It would also allow nonspecific search warrants where computers have been intentionally damaged (such as through botnets, but also through common malware and viruses) and are in five or more separate federal judicial districts. Furthermore, the provision would allow investigators to seize electronically stored information regardless of whether that information is stored inside or outside the court’s jurisdiction.

Thank goodness. Perhaps they can track down and prosecute the spammers, virus writers, malware purveyors and out and out crooks when this is in place. Lets hope it goes international.

Welll yes, putting a blanket ban on encryption and allowing reasonless warrants to intercept communications will sure beat those spammers..

rollseyes

Dropbear said:

Peak Warming Man said:

If it was a Republican Administration this thread would be through the roof with outrage by now.

I’m outraged.. but I seem to be on my own

We used to have a bus for that.

well, i’m far from pleased at the prospect but don’t have an answer. it seems to me that the law enforcement agencies want an easy ride and not have to work at getting some evidence to get a warrant.

JudgeMental said:

well, i’m far from pleased at the prospect but don’t have an answer. it seems to me that the law enforcement agencies want an easy ride and not have to work at getting some evidence to get a warrant.

The answer is to say no to this sort of facist lawmaking …..

JudgeMental said:

well, i’m far from pleased at the prospect but don’t have an answer. it seems to me that the law enforcement agencies want an easy ride and not have to work at getting some evidence to get a warrant.

this sort of thing isn’t about having unfettered access to communications, in this instance law enforcements agencies what to have the ability to actually access computers without the knowledge of the individual without the expressed permission of the justice system.

crazy madness are all those that support this type of thing

JudgeMental said:

don’t believe spamming is a crime. also if you haven’t set up your mail clients, or chosen carefully, that you still get spam maybe you shouldn’t be on the internet.

Would you like getting spam in your letter box?

It’s called junk mail, and there’s lots of it about.

No letter boxes in Rainbow Beach.

:)

Would you like getting spam in your letter box?

i have a PO box. get a certain amount of junk ,aol. some i like some i jusy chuck away. i could get the PO not to put any in if i wanted though.

Similar proposals in the UK:

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/jan/15/david-cameron-encryption-anti-terror-laws

What is a VPN?

bob(from black rock) said:

What is a VPN?

Virtual private network:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_private_network

Witty Rejoinder said:

bob(from black rock) said:

What is a VPN?

Virtual private network:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_private_network

Ta Witty.

Dropbear said:

The answer is to say no to this sort of facist lawmaking …..

That’s pretty ballsy bear..

But you’ll be ok as long you stay away from any of these.

The U.S. government is also fighting a battle about encryption software. As I recall it is something like for an American based developer or someone subject to american law any encryption technology is a protected entity and the government read NSA has to be provided keys.