Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Judge says the FBI can hack your computer without a warrant
Endgadget ^ | June 24, 2016 | By Jessica Conditt

Posted on 06/25/2016 9:30:05 AM PDT by Swordmaker

'Computers accessing the internet can -- and eventually will -- be hacked,' says Judge Henry Coke Morgan, Jr.

The FBI did not need a warrant to hack a US citizen's computer, according to a ruling handed down on Tuesday by Senior US District Court Judge Henry Coke Morgan, Jr. If the decision is upheld, it may have ripple effects that essentially allow government agencies to remotely search and seize information from any computer in the US without a warrant, probable cause or suspicion, the EFF argues.

The ruling relates to a worldwide FBI sting dubbed Operation Pacifier that targeted child pornography sites on anonymity networks such as Tor. The FBI deployed hacking tools across computers in the US, Chile, Denmark and Greece, and caught 1,500 pedophiles on the Dark Web. As part of Operation Pacifier, authorities briefly seized and continued running a server that hosted the child pornography site Playpen, meanwhile deploying a hacking tool known internally as a network investigative technique. The NIT collected roughly 1,500 IP addresses of visitors to the site.

Judge Morgan, Jr. wrote on Tuesday that the FBI's actions did not violate the Fourth Amendment, which protects US citizens from unreasonable search and seizure. "The Court finds that no Fourth Amendment violation occurred here because the government did not need a warrant to capture Defendant's IP address" and other information from the suspect's computer, he wrote.

"Generally, one has no reasonable expectation of privacy in an IP address when using the internet," Morgan, Jr. said. "Even an internet user who employs the Tor network in an attempt to mask his or her IP address lacks a reasonable expectation of privacy in his or her IP address."

Basically, the judge argued, computers are hacked every day and no one should expect privacy while operating online.

"The rise of computer hacking via the internet has changed the public's reasonable expectations of privacy," he wrote. "Now, it seems unreasonable to think that a computer connected to the web is immune from invasion. Indeed, the opposite holds true: In today's digital world, it appears to be a virtual certainty that computers accessing the internet can -- and eventually will -- be hacked."

A Massachusetts court previously threw out evidence gathered by the FBI in one Playpen case, ruling that the operation relied on an invalid warrant. The bureau has moved to keep its NIT software classified, citing national security concerns if it were made public.

In April, the Supreme Court upheld the FBI's proposed changes to Rule 41, allowing judges to approve remote access to suspects' computers that fall outside their jurisdiction. Under the new rules, a judge in New York can authorize hacking a computer in Alaska, for example. A bipartisan Senate bill called the Stop Mass Hacking Act aims to block these expanded powers. There's a similar bill making its way through the House of Representatives, as well, according to Reuters. Congress has until December 1st to reject or amend the Supreme Court's ruling -- if it doesn't, the changes to Rule 41 will take effect as planned.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: applepinglist; bigbrother; fbi; hacking; henrycokemorganjr; nannystate; nsa; policestate; privacy; rinos; surveillancestate
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-59 next last
To: Fresh Wind

Correction, that should be 1791.


21 posted on 06/25/2016 9:50:27 AM PDT by Fresh Wind (Hey now baby, get into my big black car, I just want to show you what my politics are.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: abclily
I was under the impression that Windows 10 erased all privacy.
It does - or tries to - but there are fixes: "Follow this guide to fix Windows 10 and restore your privacy."
22 posted on 06/25/2016 9:52:39 AM PDT by oh8eleven (RVN '67-'68)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: PIF

If the FBI would codify warrantless searches only in the case of suspected child molesters, Jihadists, etc. I wouldn’t have an issue with that.

The Law Enforcement agencies in this country have many times used employees who posed as children in so-called sting operations to catch demented perverts.

Entrapment? Not in cases such as these, I don’t have a problem with that either.

But the door has been opened to MORE government overreach!


23 posted on 06/25/2016 9:52:48 AM PDT by heterosupremacist ("Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God." Thomas Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Swordmaker

When you get down to it, across the board, your personal information on the internet is ALREADY collected and sold to the information marketplace. Anyone who thinks there is ANYTHING private about the internet, forget about it. Your computer content, your traffic, is hacked by the internet service provider and SOLD. It is a huge market and this was the big reason behind Windows 10 being a platform for taking your information — there is HUGE money to be made by selling it. Add to this, your cell phone, traffic, location information — everything you buy in a grocery store or any store if you give them a “membership” number — your credit card transactions -— I could keep going.

*** NOTHING IS PRIVATE *** and it is all public.


24 posted on 06/25/2016 9:56:07 AM PDT by EagleUSA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Swordmaker; greeneyes
An extended family member works for the agency that starts with n, then s, then a - can you say telephones/and maybe now computers? I am very careful with the title I give emails so they won't be suspect titles. I am careful to disguise govn. agency names that are designated by capital letters.

I knew we were in trouble when Obama’s agency began being able to turn off our TVs and radios. I bought a fancy battery radio that picks up short wave. Should TVs and radios be shut off, they can't shut down messages sent by short wave. I checked that out before I bought that radio.

25 posted on 06/25/2016 9:56:18 AM PDT by Marcella (CRUZ (Prepping can save your life today))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Swordmaker

They are in it for the money. The government is trying to figure out how to get to the private wealth. Now they can. What is to stop them from stealing a person’s identity and clean out their finances and claim it was some other evildoer?


26 posted on 06/25/2016 9:57:46 AM PDT by disndat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Swordmaker
So now the circuitous argument goes something like this. The FBI is tasked with keeping the Internet secure. For whatever reason, through incompetence, laziness, deliberateness, etc., they admit their failure to do their job. This failure has now destroyed a citizen's 4th Amendment secured right to reasonably expect privacy in the Internet. Now that the FBI has destroyed the right by shirking their duty, they become the beneficiaries and are free to join the criminal hacker crowd to hack your system at their pleasure. What is wrong with this picture - the stupid judge's rationale, or the FBI’s self-fulfilling actions, or both?
27 posted on 06/25/2016 9:59:42 AM PDT by iontheball
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Swordmaker

They may not need a warrant but they’ll have to have a PayPal account.


28 posted on 06/25/2016 10:02:05 AM PDT by TigersEye (This is the age of the death of reason and rule of law. Prepare!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Swordmaker

“The rise of computer hacking via the internet has changed the public’s reasonable expectations of privacy...”

That judge should be impeached and removed from the bench.

1. A judge rules on the law, not on the public’s expectation. That is squarely in the domain of the legislature, not the courts.

2. Does this judge not even understand that hacking is ILLEGAL? And this illegal activity violates several of the US Constitution’s Bill of Rights? So, since hackers are routinely violating the rights of individuals, as a matter of law and precedent, we will extend that right of violation to the State?

The reasoning of this judge is insane.


29 posted on 06/25/2016 10:05:43 AM PDT by Bryan24 (When in doubt, move to the right..........)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Swordmaker

Not if I turn it off.


30 posted on 06/25/2016 10:10:02 AM PDT by Banjoguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Swordmaker

Funny...a dusty old axiom comes to mind...something about those who would sacrifice essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety...


31 posted on 06/25/2016 10:14:23 AM PDT by rockrr (Everything is different now...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Swordmaker

Really? Free BSD with no GUI and no listeners running? When I’m using an ID that is in its own group, with no privileges, to browse the internet?

I don’t think so.


32 posted on 06/25/2016 10:18:09 AM PDT by proxy_user
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Swordmaker

They already “can” do that and surely do. They are merely constrained from using the evidence obtained directly to charge or convict someone of something. The feds and others can also place child porn on your computer to be discovered if they wan to take you down for which you have no defense- you had child porn on your computer. I suspect this tactic is already employed, how extensively I cannot guess but I am not believing that all the good citizen types who have been arrested for that very reason were vicarious paedophiles. It seems that if someone has become inconvenient and perhaps building a case against him is a hassle they just find child porn on his box.


33 posted on 06/25/2016 10:31:40 AM PDT by arthurus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Swordmaker

In the past two weeks, I have gotten up in the morning to find that my computer was turned on, and the internet connection was set on “Guest”.


34 posted on 06/25/2016 10:39:38 AM PDT by ryderann
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ryderann

Don’t be surprised if you are now on the no-fly list. (Only 1/2 kidding)


35 posted on 06/25/2016 10:40:53 AM PDT by Protect the Bill of Rights
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Swordmaker

Well then they should be able to read this even though it is encrypted:

G&% Y) FUC& &%KJ(*$SED!SS!


36 posted on 06/25/2016 10:43:31 AM PDT by I want the USA back (Jihadi-hating CRUSADER. Like it or STFU.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Swordmaker

By this line of thinking, if I live in a high crime neighborhood, the police can kick my door in any time they want to.


37 posted on 06/25/2016 11:10:36 AM PDT by Defiant (After 8 years of Chump Change, it's time for Trump Change.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Swordmaker

Fag

You have to be targeted in order to get hacked Kama much the same way that a burglar might case your property and break in.

That should be illegal but, this ruling makes clear jungle law now applies


38 posted on 06/25/2016 11:16:07 AM PDT by Vendome (Don't take life so seriously-you won't live through it anyway - "Enjoy Yourself" ala Louis Prima)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy
Can I hack into a government computer and download their stuff? How about a bank’s computer?

"Tyranny is defined as that which is legal for the government but illegal for the citizenry."

-- Thomas Jefferson

39 posted on 06/25/2016 11:17:47 AM PDT by pgyanke (Republicans get in trouble when not living up to their principles. Democrats... when they do.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Swordmaker

Except if your a mooslim,then Odungo makes sure any and all info obtained is erased


40 posted on 06/25/2016 11:18:59 AM PDT by Doogle (( USAF.68-73..8th TFW Ubon Thailand..never store a threat you should have eliminated))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-59 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson