Remember when you were outraged that the NSA was storing your phone number....?

[Colonel Hogan]

Well, you missed this one:

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20160429/04233634312/supreme-court-approves-rule-41-changes-putting-fbi-closer-to-searching-any-computer-anywhere-with-single-warrant.shtml

And for those of you who don't read well, the above link is to a story from April of this year when the Supreme Court paved the way for the sweeping government reach by removing the jurisdictional restriction on the approval of such warrants.

Why am I bringing this up now? Two reasons:

1. The Senate failed to take legislative action two days ago on Wednesday to block the government's authority under the Supreme Court's April ruling. As a result, the ability of local judges to issue the warrants now goes into effect.

2. The shit is going to hit the fan on this in a few weeks (or maybe as long as a few months) and whenever that happens, most of you liberal idiots are going to convince yourselves it's all the part of the ongoing fascist plot of President Trump.

And, as usual, you'll be wrong.

Just trying to get out ahead on this one.

 

[Ms_Ann]

What are they looking for Colonel?

 

[Ms_Ann]

And...It's Bush's fault.

 

[pointless]

you've really hopped on the bandwagon, haven't you?

 

[Ms_Ann]

What an archaic expression.

 

[Hard_Rom]

It's legal and apparently unopposed by your duly elected government. Beyond complaining about it on WWW forums, not much you can do about it.

The Criminal Code up here is a federal responsibility. It has jurisdiction across the country. We have a top down not a bottom up delegation of powers. Wouldn't make sense with our small pop. to have separate criminal statutes for each province.

They do have a point. With computers you can easily hide your location or bounce between servers across the country or world. So it does bring laws up to date with modern computer science.

Like I said legal by top court and unopposed by government. Done deal.

 

[ifrtbttrflys]

The American people have wholesale demonstrated that they don't value the 4th Amendment enough to demand that, indeed, "[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and 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" shall rule as the law of the land above all else.

Both political Partys have proven time and again they don't respect that constitutional guarantee anymore than the people in general themselves, the current President, or the President-elect - both of whom are tyrannically draconian with their views on federal government surveillance of the American people. This is nothing new; it is simply the same illegal path still being unconstitutionally trampled down, regardless of the alarms still be sounded after all this time. You get the exact, corrupt government you deserve.

Enjoy your constitutional crisis while it lasts, because after it finishes and the entire Constitution is finally and fully cast aside due to the same, repugnant citizen apathy, all that's left for you is political slavery.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

What are they looking for Colonel?

They're looking for any criminal activity conducted over the internet (child pornography in particular) where the perpetrators are concealing the IP address of the computer in use. Concealment of the IP address obviously makes the location of the computer unknown, and if the location is unknown, the local jurisdiction of the particular court empowered to issue an appropriate search warrant is likewise unknown.

The change in the rule gets around the inability of any court to issue the warrant. But the other side of the coin is that now, ANY COURT can issue a warrant to search the location of any computer in THE WORLD -- a capability the U. S. government has had for some time but has not been able to legally use.

As a law enforcement tool, there are obviously good reasons to do this, as Hard_Rom argues. But there were no less good reasons to store your phone number in the NSA database on the remote chance that you might have gotten a phone call at some time in the past from a suspected terrorist, a practice I steadfastly defended at the time, but about which this entire country went ape shit over despite the fact that the United States Supreme Court had ruled years before that neither you nor I had a Fourth Amendment right of privacy to telephony metadata (i.e. MERELY the connected phone numbers of a specific phone call made at a specific date and time DEVOID of any actual content of the conversation!!) THAT WE DID NOT EVEN "OWN" because it was collected and owned by the phone company for billing purposes.

The principle is exactly the same under the rule change which just went into effect, because the bad guys who conceal their IP addresses can also hijack access to your computer and that of your neighbors to construct a network that further conceals their activities. You would never know it. Your computer or data would not be adversely affected in any way.

But under the current rule change, the search warrant issued by ANY COURT would apply to all computers ON THAT "CRIMINAL" NETWORK including yours.

Actually, the principle is not quite the same. Under the NSA phone program the mere saving of a database of phone calls and the respective phone numbers did NOT constitute a search of any sort. Listening in on ANY phone call as part of a criminal investigation would have STILL REQUIRED a FISA warrant at the very least.

The ENTIRE THRUST of this rule change, however, is the NEW geographic REACH OF EVERY SINGLE U. S. FEDERAL COURT IN ISSUING SEARCH WARRANTS for computer networks suspected in the commission of a crime -- any crime and no matter how many innocent computer owners might be unknowingly connected to that criminal network.

Get it?

 

[about_average]

Well, you missed this one:

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20160429/04233634312/supreme-court-approves-rule-41-changes-putting-fbi-closer-to-searching-any-computer-anywhere-with-single-warrant.shtml

Actually I didn't miss it.

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/...-proposes-grant-new-hacking-powers-government

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Well, you missed this one:

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20160429/04233634312/supreme-court-approves-rule-41-changes-putting-fbi-closer-to-searching-any-computer-anywhere-with-single-warrant.shtml

And for those of you who don't read well, the above link is to a story from April of this year when the Supreme Court paved the way for the sweeping government reach by removing the jurisdictional restriction on the approval of such warrants.

Why am I bringing this up now? Two reasons:

1. The Senate failed to take legislative action two days ago on Wednesday to block the government's authority under the Supreme Court's April ruling. As a result, the ability of local judges to issue the warrants now goes into effect.

2. The shit is going to hit the fan on this in a few weeks (or maybe as long as a few months) and whenever that happens, most of you liberal idiots are going to convince yourselves it's all the part of the ongoing fascist plot of President Trump.

And, as usual, you'll be wrong.

Just trying to get out ahead on this one.

Colonel, a large part of the liberal Idiocracy has trouble recalling what they had for lunch yesterday...

 

[Colonel Hogan]

Actually I didn't miss it.

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/...-proposes-grant-new-hacking-powers-government

Good for you. I just didn't recall anyone posting anything about it.

 

[Comshaw]

Well, you missed this one:

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20160429/04233634312/supreme-court-approves-rule-41-changes-putting-fbi-closer-to-searching-any-computer-anywhere-with-single-warrant.shtml

And for those of you who don't read well, the above link is to a story from April of this year when the Supreme Court paved the way for the sweeping government reach by removing the jurisdictional restriction on the approval of such warrants.

Why am I bringing this up now? Two reasons:

1. The Senate failed to take legislative action two days ago on Wednesday to block the government's authority under the Supreme Court's April ruling. As a result, the ability of local judges to issue the warrants now goes into effect.

2. The shit is going to hit the fan on this in a few weeks (or maybe as long as a few months) and whenever that happens, most of you liberal idiots are going to convince yourselves it's all the part of the ongoing fascist plot of President Trump.

And, as usual, you'll be wrong.

Just trying to get out ahead on this one.

I'm sure you are, but isn't this disingenuous and replete with misdirection? You're absolutely correct in stating that the Trump administration has nothing to do with this. However, you didn't add that it falls directly into the lap of a conservative, Republican lead Senate, so while Trump had nothing to do with it, his party did, big time. A sophisticated case of misdirection if I ever saw one.

Republicans best gird their loins and prepare to get to work, because the next two years are going to be a tell all. There better be more jobs, a booming economy and a better life for the middle of America. Promises to the American people need to be kept. There are no excuses this time. Time to put up or shut up.



Comshaw

 

[zipman]

I'm sure you are, but isn't this disingenuous and replete with misdirection? You're absolutely correct in stating that the Trump administration has nothing to do with this. However, you didn't add that it falls directly into the lap of a conservative, Republican lead Senate, so while Trump had nothing to do with it, his party did, big time. A sophisticated case of misdirection if I ever saw one.

Republicans best gird their loins and prepare to get to work, because the next two years are going to be a tell all. There better be more jobs, a booming economy and a better life for the middle of America. Promises to the American people need to be kept. There are no excuses this time. Time to put up or shut up.



Comshaw

Sadly, Hogan is no longer the objective person he once was.

 

[Sean]

They're looking for any criminal activity conducted over the internet (child pornography in particular) where the perpetrators are concealing the IP address of the computer in use. Concealment of the IP address obviously makes the location of the computer unknown, and if the location is unknown, the local jurisdiction of the particular court empowered to issue an appropriate search warrant is likewise unknown.

The change in the rule gets around the inability of any court to issue the warrant. But the other side of the coin is that now, ANY COURT can issue a warrant to search the location of any computer in THE WORLD -- a capability the U. S. government has had for some time but has not been able to legally use.

As a law enforcement tool, there are obviously good reasons to do this, as Hard_Rom argues. But there were no less good reasons to store your phone number in the NSA database on the remote chance that you might have gotten a phone call at some time in the past from a suspected terrorist, a practice I steadfastly defended at the time, but about which this entire country went ape shit over despite the fact that the United States Supreme Court had ruled years before that neither you nor I had a Fourth Amendment right of privacy to telephony metadata (i.e. MERELY the connected phone numbers of a specific phone call made at a specific date and time DEVOID of any actual content of the conversation!!) THAT WE DID NOT EVEN "OWN" because it was collected and owned by the phone company for billing purposes.

The principle is exactly the same under the rule change which just went into effect, because the bad guys who conceal their IP addresses can also hijack access to your computer and that of your neighbors to construct a network that further conceals their activities. You would never know it. Your computer or data would not be adversely affected in any way.

But under the current rule change, the search warrant issued by ANY COURT would apply to all computers ON THAT "CRIMINAL" NETWORK including yours.

Actually, the principle is not quite the same. Under the NSA phone program the mere saving of a database of phone calls and the respective phone numbers did NOT constitute a search of any sort. Listening in on ANY phone call as part of a criminal investigation would have STILL REQUIRED a FISA warrant at the very least.

The ENTIRE THRUST of this rule change, however, is the NEW geographic REACH OF EVERY SINGLE U. S. FEDERAL COURT IN ISSUING SEARCH WARRANTS for computer networks suspected in the commission of a crime -- any crime and no matter how many innocent computer owners might be unknowingly connected to that criminal network.

Get it?

I can't wait for the first court case where the Germans prosecute the FBI or whoever for violating a computer in Bavaria.

 

[Sean]

Sadly, Hogan is no longer the objective person he once was.

This is true.

 

[about_average]

Good for you. I just didn't recall anyone posting anything about it.

I don't recall if anyone did. I don't post about a ton of that stuff I read about.
Most people don't care.

 

[Conager]

I'm sure you are, but isn't this disingenuous and replete with misdirection? You're absolutely correct in stating that the Trump administration has nothing to do with this. However, you didn't add that it falls directly into the lap of a conservative, Republican lead Senate, so while Trump had nothing to do with it, his party did, big time. A sophisticated case of misdirection if I ever saw one.

Republicans best gird their loins and prepare to get to work, because the next two years are going to be a tell all. There better be more jobs, a booming economy and a better life for the middle of America. Promises to the American people need to be kept. There are no excuses this time. Time to put up or shut up.



Comshaw

Why? Obama and the Democratic held House and Senate delivered none of those things. Obama still got 8 years.

 

[about_average]

Why? Obama and the Democratic held House and Senate delivered none of those things. Obama still got 8 years.

Only for the 111th congress, right after and during an economic collapse which came after the Republican controlled 104th-109th.

 

[ifrtbttrflys]

Here comes all the partisan Party, blame game bullshit again. Big surprise.

Whereas factually, for 2 terms Obama has held the power of Executive Order to do whatever he wishes about the tyrannically secret surveillance state in America - he's done nothing but nurture it more.

The FBI Director states the federal government must have access to every inch of the World Wide Web - which includes inside access to every computer connected to the net, lest some (fill in the blank) criminal/terrorist/pornographer/badperson can hide (while conveniently omitting how much criminal entry and spying the same federal government does anyway).

The Director of National Intelligence is directly asked before Congress whether agencies under his command are illegally spying and collecting information on American citizens - and he flat-out lies without any consequence(s) at all (while conveniently omitting how much spying and criminal entry his agencies are purposely conducting against other citizens and governments of the world).

The FBI illegally carries out previously what they're now legally allowed to do (Rule 41, the object of this thread, which empowered the FBI starting yesterday) with no consequence, while committing felony after felony as they grow to be one of the world's biggest distributors of illegal pornography.

The Investigatory Powers Bill 2016 in Britain (aka Snooper's Charter) just took effect Tuesday, whereby all ISPs are required to create databases of all their users' online activities, including each and every website they visit and for how long they stay on that website; here's the particulars per wiki:

The Act:[19][20][21]

introduced new powers, and restated existing ones, for UK intelligence agencies and law enforcement to carry out targeted interception of communications, bulk collection of communications data, and bulk interception of communications;[22][23][24][25]
created an Investigatory Powers Commission (IPC) to oversee the use of all investigatory powers, alongside the oversight provided by the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament and the Investigatory Powers Tribunal. The IPC consists of a number of serving or former senior judges. It combined and replaced the powers of the Interception of Communications Commissioner, Intelligence Services Commissioner, and Chief Surveillance Commissioner;[26][27]
established a requirement for a judge serving on the IPC to review warrants for accessing the content of communications and equipment interference authorised by a Secretary of State before they come into force;[28]
required communication service providers (CSPs) to retain UK internet users' "Internet connection records" – which websites were visited but not the particular pages and not the full browsing history – for one year;[29]
allowed police, intelligence officers and other government department managers (including HMRC, the Department of Health, the Food Standards Agency, the Gambling Commission, the Department for Work and Pensions, and the Department for Transport)[30][31][32] to see the Internet connection records, as part of a targeted and filtered investigation, without a warrant;[33]
permitted the police and intelligence agencies to carry out targeted equipment interference, that is, hacking into computers or devices to access their data,[34] and bulk equipment interference for national security matters related to foreign investigations;[35]
placed a legal obligation on CSPs to assist with targeted interception of data, and communications and equipment interference in relation to an investigation; foreign companies are not required to engage in bulk collection of data or communications;[19]
maintained an existing requirement on CSPs in the UK to have the ability to remove encryption applied by the CSP; foreign companies are not required to remove encryption;[19]
put the Wilson Doctrine on a statutory footing for the first time as well as safeguards for other sensitive professions such as journalists, lawyers and doctors;[19]
provided local government with some investigatory powers, for example to investigate someone fraudulently claiming benefits, but not access to Internet connection records;[19]
created a new criminal offence for unlawfully accessing internet data;[19]
created a new criminal offence for a CSP or someone who works for a CSP to reveal that data has been requested.[19]

Authorities allowed to access Internet connection records

List of authorities allowed to access Internet connection records without a warrant:[30][31][32]

Metropolitan police force
City of London police force
Police forces maintained under section 2 of the Police Act 1996
Police Service of Scotland
Police Service of Northern Ireland
British Transport Police
Ministry of Defence Police
Royal Navy Police
Royal Military Police
Royal Air Force Police
Security Service
Secret Intelligence Service
GCHQ
Ministry of Defence
Department of Health
Home Office
Ministry of Justice
National Crime Agency
HM Revenue & Customs
Department for Transport
Department for Work and Pensions
NHS trusts and foundation trusts in England that provide ambulance services
Common Services Agency for the Scottish Health Service
Competition and Markets Authority
Criminal Cases Review Commission
Department for Communities in Northern Ireland
Department for the Economy in Northern Ireland
Department of Justice in Northern Ireland
Financial Conduct Authority
Fire and rescue authorities under the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004
Food Standards Agency
Food Standards Scotland
Gambling Commission
Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority
Health and Safety Executive
Independent Police Complaints Commissioner
Information Commissioner
NHS Business Services Authority
Northern Ireland Ambulance Service Health and Social Care Trust
Northern Ireland Fire and Rescue Service Board
Northern Ireland Health and Social Care Regional Business Services Organisation
Office of Communications
Office of the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland
Police Investigations and Review Commissioner
Scottish Ambulance Service Board
Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission
Serious Fraud Office
Welsh Ambulance Services National Health Service Trust

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investigatory_Powers_Act_2016

Again: NO WARRANT is needed in Britain anymore to access any individual's online activities.

And now, with Rule 41 in effect in America, the federal government does not need to obtain a warrant to force access into any computer in the world.

With each passing day America is descending further down into the Big Brother surveillance hole, a hole which Obama has championed being dug 8 years more deep, and a hole the incoming Trump is only going to dig exponentially deeper (Trump and virtually all his appointees share the view of increasing surveillance and giving federal agencies even more anti-4th Amendment powers).

It's now no doubt simply a matter of time before every software/hardware manufacturer in the world must provide backdoor access to their product to the American federal government if they wish to do any business in America at all.

Every government's Leviathanian nature is to constantly grab and omnipotently wield all the power it possibly can, no matter what so-called "limits" are purposely placed upon it, while it is an American citizen's duty to guarantee that no government exceeds any limit the Constitution intentionally places upon it.

The federal government intentionally lies to its citizens, knowing that really the only thing which can prevent it from doing as it pleases is if enough citizens finally get fed up with their criminal unconstitutionality and stand up patriotically and command: NO MORE!

It ain't the government, stupids - it's you. Quit blaming anyone - anything - else.

 

[BotanyBoy]

I can't wait for the first court case where the Germans prosecute the FBI or whoever for violating a computer in Bavaria.

Why do you think they have it in them to do shit?

There is not big (D) cuck in the WH anymore.

Germany will simply be told to get fucked and there isn't a fucking thing anyone can do about it.

 

[Ms_Ann]

Sadly, Hogan is no longer the objective person he once was.

Like you're objective...

 

[Bray123]

<Long list of Government Agencies>

Again: NO WARRANT is needed in Britain anymore to access any individual's online activities.

And now, with Rule 41 in effect in America, the federal government does not need to obtain a warrant to force access into any computer in the world.

With each passing day America is descending further down into the Big Brother surveillance hole, a hole which Obama has championed being dug 8 years more deep, and a hole the incoming Trump is only going to dig exponentially deeper (Trump and virtually all his appointees share the view of increasing surveillance and giving federal agencies even more anti-4th Amendment powers).

It's now no doubt simply a matter of time before every software/hardware manufacturer in the world must provide backdoor access to their product to the American federal government if they wish to do any business in America at all.

Every government's Leviathanian nature is to constantly grab and omnipotently wield all the power it possibly can, no matter what so-called "limits" are purposely placed upon it, while it is an American citizen's duty to guarantee that no government exceeds any limit the Constitution intentionally places upon it.

The federal government intentionally lies to its citizens, knowing that really the only thing which can prevent it from doing as it pleases is if enough citizens finally get fed up with their criminal unconstitutionality and stand up patriotically and command: NO MORE!

It ain't the government, stupids - it's you. Quit blaming anyone - anything - else.

There's a lot of derpyness in merely quoting a list of Prosecuting Authorities. Obviously every organisation that handles prosecutions has equal rights in accessing data; just adding them all up will give you a number and - shock-horror all those organisations hav e the right to force entry to your computer.

Well, surprise surprise the Ambulance drivers of the UK will have very little interest in this, but are in the list just because.

And it's not giving them anything in your computer, just IP activity. They still have to smash your front door in to find if you've been accessing topless ladies on badjojo. Just like in the old days. Unless you support the rape and abuse of babies, of course. In which case I have little sympathy. The National Crime Agency will be on your case anyway.

 

[Conager]

Only for the 111th congress, right after and during an economic collapse which came after the Republican controlled 104th-109th.

So they delivered on all those promises and then they do nothing hundred and 12th Congress took it back?

 

[Sean]

There's a lot of derpyness in merely quoting a list of Prosecuting Authorities. Obviously every organisation that handles prosecutions has equal rights in accessing data; just adding them all up will give you a number and - shock-horror all those organisations hav e the right to force entry to your computer.

Well, surprise surprise the Ambulance drivers of the UK will have very little interest in this, but are in the list just because.

And it's not giving them anything in your computer, just IP activity. They still have to smash your front door in to find if you've been accessing topless ladies on badjojo. Just like in the old days. Unless you support the rape and abuse of babies, of course. In which case I have little sympathy. The National Crime Agency will be on your case anyway.

Actually, the Investigatory Powers Bill is one of the most draconian, awful pieces of legislation I've ever seen. The Conservative government has been trying to get it through for years. The LibDems stopped it in the last parliament. Labour didn't even fight it this time, too scared of being accused in the bogroll press of being "soft on terror".

 

[about_average]

So they delivered on all those promises and then they do nothing hundred and 12th Congress took it back?

Try reading my whole post and not just the first and third clauses.