I
get it. The FBI is afraid they will not be able to keep up with the
crooks if they have to follow the current rules. The new rule would
allow a magistrate to issue a warrant (good anywhere) that allows
them to hack into any suspect computer. Once this is on the books,
what would be next?
Ed
Pilkington writes:
The FBI is attempting to persuade an obscure regulatory body in
Washington to change its rules of engagement in order to seize
significant new powers to hack into and carry out surveillance of
computers throughout the US and around the world.
Civil liberties groups warn that the proposed
rule change amounts to a power grab by the agency that would ride
roughshod over strict limits to searches and seizures laid out under
the fourth amendment of the US constitution, as well as violate first
amendment privacy rights. They have protested that the
FBI is seeking to transform its cyber capabilities with minimal
public debate and with no congressional oversight.
The
regulatory body to which the Department of Justice has applied to
make the rule change, the advisory committee on criminal rules, will
meet for the first time on November 5 to discuss the issue. The
panel will be addressed by a slew of technology experts and privacy
advocates concerned about the possible ramifications were the
proposals allowed to go into effect next year.
Read
more on The
Guardian.
(Related)
Something is missing from this story. What judge would issue a
warrant based on a video obtained this way?
A
lawsuit
alleges that FBI agents shut off internet access to three Las Vegas
villas and then posed as repairman to gain access to the houses.
The
agency was investigating the residents of the houses — located at a
luxury hotel — for their suspected involvement in online sports
betting.
Defense
attorneys for the men who were charged in the betting case said FBI
agents used the tactic despite the opposition of an assistant U.S.
attorney.
…
Posing as technicians, they recorded video that was later used to
obtain a warrant to arrest the residents.
Worth
reading and thinking about.
Digital
Life in 2025
The
world is moving rapidly towards ubiquitous connectivity that will
further change how and where people associate, gather and share
information, and consume media. A canvassing of 2,558 experts and
technology builders about where we will stand by the year 2025 finds
striking patterns in their predictions.
…
In their responses, these experts foresee an ambient information
environment where accessing the Internet will be effortless and most
people will tap into it so easily it
will flow through their lives “like electricity.”
They predict mobile, wearable, and embedded computing will be tied
together in the Internet of Things, allowing people and their
surroundings to tap into artificial intelligence-enhanced cloud-based
information storage and sharing.
(Related)
A graphic novel explaining Big Data (and the Internet of Things) for
the complete novice.
Terms
of Service
For
my Computer Forensics students. What happens when a reporter calls
your CEO asking for confirmation? You better have a plan.
Both
Kelly
Jackson Higgins and Brian
Krebs had columns yesterday on a report by Allison Nixon of
Deloitte on how to vet a data dump. The report should be required
reading for journalists as the reputation harm that can occur by
publishing or repeating false claims of a hack can be significant.
While many will immediately think of Dropbox’s recent attempt to
reassure users they had not been hacked, remember that Dropbox was
also in the news earlier this year over a claimed
hack that was not a hack at all.
Regular
readers know that this blog and DataLossDB.org instituted policies of
attempting to verify breach claims with the breached entity before
publishing claims of a breach by anonymous hackers or hacktivists.
It’s been a useful policy. Although it may delay publication of
“news,” it reduces the risk of falsely reporting an entity has
been compromised when they haven’t been. Unfortunately, not
all entities respond to inquiries or requests, often
leaving us with a “Go – No Go” decision to make. The
techniques Nixon describes are not foolproof (see the discussion of
“combolists”), but it’s a lot better than just repeating claims
without investigation.
Brian
has kindly uploaded a copy of the report here
(pdf).
No comments:
Post a Comment