The 4th Amendment doesn't apply to home computers

Links to popular or interesting stories in the news.

Please post links rather than copies of stories due to honoring copyright rules.

Moderators: mpallett, bakerjw, renegade, Hush

Post Reply
poikilotrm
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 3851
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 12:52 pm

The 4th Amendment doesn't apply to home computers

Post by poikilotrm »

Good news, everyone!

Federal Court: The Fourth Amendment Does Not Protect Your Home Computer
June 23, 2016 | By Mark Rumold

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/06/f ... e-computer

In a dangerously flawed decision unsealed today, a federal district court in Virginia ruled that a criminal defendant has no “reasonable expectation of privacy” in his personal computer, located inside his home. According to the court, the federal government does not need a warrant to hack into an individual's computer.

This decision is the latest in, and perhaps the culmination of, a series of troubling decisions in prosecutions stemming from the FBI’s investigation of Playpen—a Tor hidden services site hosting child pornography. The FBI seized the server hosting the site in 2014, but continued to operate the site and serve malware to thousands of visitors that logged into the site. The malware located certain identifying information (e.g., MAC address, operating system, the computer’s “Host name”; etc) on the attacked computer and sent that information back to the FBI. There are hundreds of prosecutions, pending across the country, stemming from this investigation.

Courts overseeing these cases have struggled to apply traditional rules of criminal procedure and constitutional law to the technology at issue. Recognizing this, we've been participating as amicus to educate judges on the significant legal issues these cases present. In fact, EFF filed an amicus brief in this very case, arguing that the FBI’s investigation ran afoul of the Fourth Amendment. The brief, unfortunately, did not have the intended effect.

The implications for the decision, if upheld, are staggering: law enforcement would be free to remotely search and seize information from your computer, without a warrant, without probable cause, or without any suspicion at all. To say the least, the decision is bad news for privacy. But it's also incorrect as a matter of law, and we expect there is little chance it would hold up on appeal. (It also was not the central component of the judge's decision, which also diminishes the likelihood that it will become reliable precedent.)

But the decision underscores a broader trend in these cases: courts across the country, faced with unfamiliar technology and unsympathetic defendants, are issuing decisions that threaten everyone's rights. As hundreds of these cases work their way through the federal court system, we'll be keeping a careful eye on these decisions, developing resources to help educate the defense bar, and doing all we can to ensure that the Fourth Amendment's protections for our electronic devices aren't eroded further. We'll be writing more about these cases in the upcoming days, too, so be sure to check back in for an in-depth look at the of the legal issues in these cases, and the problems with the way the FBI handled its investigation.
The moments I was censored was the moment that I won. That's twice, now.Thanks jwbaker, et al, for my victories.
User avatar
atilliar
Silent Operator
Posts: 91
Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2011 11:11 am
Location: Florida
Contact:

Re: The 4th Amendment doesn't apply to home computers

Post by atilliar »

Wow.... just wow. It shouldn't be a surprise that it went that way... but it's still sickening.
"What worries me is not the younger generation's rebelliousness in petty matters, but their tameness in great matters." Albert Jay Nock
M4-1000
Eco 9
Omega
SBR
User avatar
TROOPER
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 7441
Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2007 1:24 pm
Location: Augusta, Georgia

Re: The 4th Amendment doesn't apply to home computers

Post by TROOPER »

Ignoring the subject matter of child pornography, what the FBI did was embed the malware into the illegal digital product which the end-user specifically went and got themselves. Then the user-downloaded malware sent back identifying information about the downloader which the FBI then used to carry out arrests.

The end-user could only acquire the FBI-reporting malware by specifically accessing illegal content. The FBI didn't send it out, but rather, the end-user had to go out to known illegal content and get it themselves.

Hypothetical situation: the FBI stuffs GPS tracking transmitters into the buttstock of P-90s, then puts them inside of a warehouse of post-86' weaponry that cannot be legal for folks like you or I to own. The warehouse has been being burglarized of a few items from time to time. The FBI understands that this is happening, which is why they put the GPS tracking transmitters into the stock of the post-86' MGs. Later, when enough of these stolen MGs are out in circulation, the FBI begins to quietly going to the locations, and conducting arrests.

Key elements:

Child-pornography = P90, because there is no legal way for us to own/posses them. The possession alone indicates that a crime has been committed.

Malware = GPS-transmitter, for two reasons: most obviously is that it alerts LE of its location, but of greater emphasis here, the MG-thief/child-pornographer has to go and get it themselves, and then bring it back to their own normal location. The downloader isn't physically going anywhere, but the courts have already ruled on this facet in discussing regular ol' porn which minors access. The stance of the courts in that matter -- which I completely agree with -- is that "playboy-dot-com" did not SEND images/data to the end-user, but rather, that the end-user went to "playboy-dot-com". That is, that the sharing of regulated content was solicited by the end-user, and not the server which hosts it.
The implications for the decision, if upheld, are staggering: law enforcement would be free to remotely search and seize information from your computer, without a warrant, without probable cause, or without any suspicion at all. To say the least, the decision is bad news for privacy. But it's also incorrect as a matter of law, and we expect there is little chance it would hold up on appeal. (It also was not the central component of the judge's decision, which also diminishes the likelihood that it will become reliable precedent.)
I didn't read the brief, so I'm most willing to admit that my understanding is incorrect. BUT... law enforcement physically went to the physical location to execute the arrests. This was only made possible because of the malware giving the relevant information to the FBI... but that malware was only acquired since it was attached to an illegal item. It's true that a person could use this maliciously by emailing the 'infected' pictures to other people, but this is also true of the P90 example: it could have been stashed at an innocent person's property. To wit, possession alone didn't guarantee a conviction... but it almost certainly guaranteed that the individual who possessed it (malware OR P90) would be the subject of an investigation.

Poik, can you give amplifying information on the matter? Did the FBI use the malware as a 'back-door' to sort through the end-users computer? That would be a warrantless search. But the claim that it would be "without probable cause" is false. If the GPS-transmitter is pinging on someone's property, I'd consider that 'probable cause'... just as with the malware. If the malware is on the computer, then logically, so was the illegal content. Again, it would be incorrect to send such an individual straight to prison without due process, but "without probable cause"? There was cause. There was suspicion.

I will happily concede that since this was a malware, which is nothing more than ephemeral code, that it could be easily altered to whatever end the coder chooses.... just as the GPS-transmitter could be taken from the stock and put into a neighbor's chimney. The issue isn't that the source isn't 100% reliable, because NO source is 'fail-proof', but rather how the information is used by the FBI. If they use it to kick down your door with a no-knock, kill your dog, and flash-bang your baby in her crib, then that's obviously condemnable on any number of levels, even if it is the correct suspect and address.

But simply based on what I've gathered from your post... I don't see the problem with what they did. I see the potential for abuse, sure, but not really any more potential for abuse than what LE already has. Even when they petition a judge for a warrant, the judge is basing the decision on evidence presented by LE... and that can be faked just as easily as a malware hit.

---- ETA ---
I had to go back and edit all of the "playboy,com" into a text type of format, because when I originally hit 'submit', it converted them into functional hyperlinks.
User avatar
whiterussian1974
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 2857
Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 11:37 pm
Location: On 8th line of eye chart.

Re: The 4th Amendment doesn't apply to home computers

Post by whiterussian1974 »

I've read the 2 large posts later. But a quick scan made some impressions.

The NIT malware that the Feds used wasn't "user-dl'd." It was planted by simply visiting the Site. So the GPS-tagged buttstock argument changes to: "By driving on a Publicly maintained Street, the Citizen agrees to have GPS tags emplanted on each and every 1 of his documents, items, firearms, thoughts, Intellectual Property, etc. Not only those present in the vehicle, but any thing that any of those items or persons come into contact with at a future date."

So simply by swerving from a Private Driveway onto the Roadway Apron by mistake, or crossing at an Intersection, Americans waive their 4thA Rights.

What would Paul Revere have had to go through? TSA Inspecting his horse's saddlebags before he could trot down a dirt road. Redcoats performing 'Zero Risk' Terry Searches. 72hr Investigative Arrest and Impound of his horse until he provided his Insurance Card, Horse Registration, Hoof and Teeth Inspections, Each Horseshoe having clearly marked serial #s without any scratches or 'defacement.' Then paying the Stable Master the Towing and Storage costs incurred via the Impound.

Guess what? American Independence was defeated during all of that Regulation.

So I guess that this (when taken along with all the other Court Rulings, Admin Actions, Exec Orders, Congressional waiver of Oversight, etc) we see the true purpose of all these Regs. The Gradual Enslavement of the Populace via the 'boiling frog hypothesis.'
The Darkest Corners of Hell are reserved for those who remain Neutral!-Dante
The Death of One is a Tragedy, a million only a statistic.-Stalin
silencertalk.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=135314
User avatar
TROOPER
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 7441
Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2007 1:24 pm
Location: Augusta, Georgia

Re: The 4th Amendment doesn't apply to home computers

Post by TROOPER »

That's not different than what normally goes on. If LE are staking out a location specifically because it is a known crime location, then any car/person that visits the location will have their license plate recorded, picture taken, and likely be included in the overall investigation... all without their consent or knowledge.

Perhaps I'm not clear on how the malware is distributed. I had assumed that the end-user needed to retrieve a picture, and that the malware was attached to the picture. This is not an insignificant detail, because there is no legal way to posses that particular item. Possession alone is a sufficient crime.

... but if you're telling me that the malware downloaded upon visit, that becomes critically different. Again, the details matter, because if they got it by agreeing to the terms and conditions of the website, then going back to the analogy, a 100% innocent person turns down the wrong street, is told by a lookout that "he'd better not be no cop", then that's a warning that an innocent person should've heeded.

That said, I feel confident that the malware was embedded in the product, and that a person would have to specifically choose to download a known illegal product. Meaning that not only would an innocent person have to accidentally go there, but they'd have to initiate the download of the malware themselves by 'accidentally' choosing to download something being billed as child-porn.

Again, I didn't read the brief, and those details matter. I'm not so much arguing for or against the thing, but just that as it's being explained now by Poik's original post, it seems philosophically comparable to physical tracking of contraband now.
User avatar
TROOPER
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 7441
Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2007 1:24 pm
Location: Augusta, Georgia

Re: The 4th Amendment doesn't apply to home computers

Post by TROOPER »

I clicked the link and I'm working my way through the article.

First, the malware is attached to people that log-in to the site. Logging-in means that the visit is not accidental.

Furthermore, the courts/judges did not say "The 4th Amendment doesn't apply to home computers". That headline is not a quote.

The wording of that article is meant to over-simplify the courts' decision in an attempt to generate outrage from the reader.

Hey, don't get me wrong, we're being worn-down and ultimately individually criminalized through over-regulation. I don't dispute the need to strive for a smaller government in order to maintain individual liberties. But this... this situation here... this ought not be the poster-child of the libertarian movement. It's too flawed, and the rulings are being intentionally taken out of context. Furthermore, there is adequate suspicion and "probable cause" based on the method of delivery for the malware. Finally, there is no legal way to posses that material, so it isn't as though a person in Connecticut got arrested for having an AR-15 which wouldn't have been a crime had he lived 200 miles southwest across some arbitrary man-made lines. There is not a context which legally justifies possession of the material.... so there's no way to acquire it and claim it was merely a 'misunderstanding'. That point can't be over-emphasized.
User avatar
whiterussian1974
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 2857
Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 11:37 pm
Location: On 8th line of eye chart.

Re: The 4th Amendment doesn't apply to home computers

Post by whiterussian1974 »

TROOPER wrote: Perhaps I'm not clear on how the malware is distributed. I had assumed that the end-user needed to retrieve a picture, and that the malware was attached to the picture. This is not an insignificant detail, because there is no legal way to posses that particular item. Possession alone is a sufficient crime.

... but if you're telling me that the malware downloaded upon visit, that becomes critically different.

That said, I feel confident that the malware was embedded in the product, and that a person would have to specifically choose to download a known illegal product.
NO. It's a snippet of code that is injected into your computer's RAM simply upon (visit to the Site, #I've learned that site visitation isn't required.) or "rubbing" against software/hardware that has had the Rootkit injected into the RAM and then embedded on a Storage Device like HDD.

The Malware uses the way that RAM assigns memory locations to attack the Hardware, not any Image/Exe/MP3/etc. So the analogy would be that if a Jehovah's Witness knocked on your front door, that's enough to allow Feds to plant surveillance cams and mics in your home, office, car, friends' and families' homes/cars/offices/etc.

You needn't answer the door. You certainly needn't invite them in. You simply need an open port in your router where they can knock on your door, then you're infected. The open port means that the Witnesses jumped your fence (Firewall) alluded your armed guards (Anit-Virus) and sneaked up to the side of your house. Then marked the side of your house with a Magic Marker that allows them free access to the premises to plant bugs and evidence.

Once they have System Admin Level Access, they can even plant illegal images on your HDD. This further justifies their presence and monitoring your system.
----
http://motherboard.vice.com/read/tor-is-teaming-up-with-researchers-to-protect-users-from-fbi-hacking wrote:The new method is meant to counteract what's known as “code reuse” exploits, where rather than attempting the much harder task of injecting new malicious code, an attacker will exploit a memory leak to reuse code libraries that already exist in the browser—essentially, building malware by rearranging things inside the application's memory.

To do that, an attacker generally needs to have an idea of where certain functions are located within the application's memory space. But the current security mechanisms in browsers only randomize the locations of code libraries, not the individual functions. Which is where the Selfrando technique comes in, creating a random address space for internal code that's much harder to exploit.

“Our solution significantly improves security over standard address space layout randomization (ASLR) techniques currently used by Firefox and other mainstream browsers,” the researchers write in their paper, whose findings will be presented in July at the Privacy Enhancing Technologies Symposium in Darmstadt, Germany.
According to my further research, I was wrong about even needing to visit a site. The Malware just needs ANY access to a PC. A USB stick, wi-fi connection, internet, or simply not shielded from certain radio frequencies that can attack the hardware within the machine.

Then, when the machine DOES connect to the Net, the malware rootkit broadcasts your ID and Location for the Gov't to to hijack (Remote Access) it into "Zombie"-mode. They control your PC, they simply allow you to use the OS under lower-level Privileges. But NOT access the Virus or any code that it's modified and taken ownership over. Including Firmware and BIOS on the Motherboard.
The Darkest Corners of Hell are reserved for those who remain Neutral!-Dante
The Death of One is a Tragedy, a million only a statistic.-Stalin
silencertalk.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=135314
User avatar
TROOPER
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 7441
Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2007 1:24 pm
Location: Augusta, Georgia

Re: The 4th Amendment doesn't apply to home computers

Post by TROOPER »

The article that Poik linked says that the malware was transferred at log-in... not visit. Logging-in isn't accidental.
User avatar
whiterussian1974
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 2857
Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 11:37 pm
Location: On 8th line of eye chart.

Re: The 4th Amendment doesn't apply to home computers

Post by whiterussian1974 »

TROOPER wrote:The article that Poik linked says that the malware was transferred at log-in... not visit. Logging-in isn't accidental.
His link is just that. A link provided by him. That doesn't mean that the Article Author was correctly informed.

I'm letting you know what OUR tech guys have stated. That this is a RAM exploit that doesn't require Net access. But being connected is 1 method of injection.

In the PlayPen case, it seems that Gov't is "self reporting" that they activated the Exploit only upon login. We all Guest Login to Silencertalk by default. Maybe some of the Accused clicked a link that carried them to the URL or the Rootkit directed them to a Mirror. We will never know. None of this is likely to come out at Trial.

Our Tech guys have advised Deputies that even Music sharing sites have similar rootkits that can hijack a PC and dl illegal content onto it. Including child images. They are sent to Hidden Folders and Protected Locations that take extremely well engineered Forensic Software to find. But if a Victim fails to pay the Ransom, the Hijacker can call the FBI and tell them precisely where to find the Illegal Images.

And it's nearly impossible to fully protect against this Rootkit. They told us several steps that we can take to minimize our risk. But there are always workarounds.

Many Hospitals have had to pay millions of $s to regain control of their Systems. Several Schools and other Gov't Agencies have had to destroy their hardware because it's impossible to cleanse the hardware of the Exploit. So buying new HDDs won't solve the problem.

And once the Exploit has been injected, there will always remain an unlocked door waiting to be opened by the next person. VPNs, Hardware Virtualization, Self-randomizing RAM addressing, Container Hosts, Resistant OSs, etc can all help. But nothing is completely safe.
The Darkest Corners of Hell are reserved for those who remain Neutral!-Dante
The Death of One is a Tragedy, a million only a statistic.-Stalin
silencertalk.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=135314
User avatar
TROOPER
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 7441
Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2007 1:24 pm
Location: Augusta, Georgia

Re: The 4th Amendment doesn't apply to home computers

Post by TROOPER »

I don't disagree with anything that you're saying, and frankly, I lack the expertise to refute it at any meaningful level even if I was inclined to do so.

That said, you're describing the behaviors of that type of malware in general, and not necessarily this particular malware. It would be as though we're talking about the HIV, but then you mention that viruses in general have multiple means of infection. I don't refute that... but THIS malware.... maybe a different story.

And yes, I reference the linked article because that's the sole source of this topic so far.

I don't like that you mentioned Paul Revere's ride in conjunction with LE putting a digital beacon on an illegal-content website which requires would-be consumers to LOG-IN.

You keep using inappropriate analogies, such as the Jehoviah's Witness knocking on your door. No. That is different. In the "Playpen" instance, the user not only must go to the website -- which could happen by accident (White House dot com - vs - White House dot gov) -- they must also log-in. How many times have you accidentally created a log-in to child porn sites? Or just porn sites? Or to ANY site?

You mention that we auto-log-in here at ST... yep. But we don't "auto-create-log-in" the first time we come here. In order for that analogy to work with Playpen, a defense lawyer would have to claim that their client was innocent, and that the log-in which caused the malware to alert the FBI was installed on accident when his client simply returned to the website after creating the log-in at an earlier time. That's not a defense.

The quality of your analogies is such that you seem to be against the malware practice being utilized, and you choose analogies that paint a disingenuous picture in pursuit of that agenda, as opposed to using analogies that are actually analogous.

You're glossing over the key points here:
-- that the end-user of THIS malware gets it by directing their computer to a website (website doesn't come to them)
-- that the end-user of THIS malware acquires the malware by logging-in to the website, NOT just visiting it. Their log-in is NOT accidental.
-- that the material being accessed is ONLY illegal, and there isn't a set of circumstances which change that; IE: you can legally kill someone... in self defense. But you can't "posses child-porn in self defense"

Facts that you're implying/stating that unnecessarily cloud the issue:
- I've accidentally gone to a website.. I've never accidentally logged-in and downloaded child-porn.
- Malware comes in many configurations; you're applying the characteristics of any malware to THIS malware.
- You're confusing TSA and civil-law with this situation. If Paul Revere is your chosen analogy, then in accordance with this situation - the Playpen scenario - Paul Revere would have been permitted to go, unobstructed, then somehow digitally tagged and traced back to his home later.

As already stated, yes, I agree, in general there are too many regulations, many of which are nonsensical and costly without giving a corresponding benefit. I also agree that the potential for abuse is there in that a judge must take the word of LE that the malware has indicated a particular house... BUT... the judge must also believe LE when they say "an informant says", or "we've staked out, and... ", or "this drugs in my hand came from... " So yes, there is potential for abuse, but there's potential for abuse anywhere.
User avatar
whiterussian1974
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 2857
Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 11:37 pm
Location: On 8th line of eye chart.

Re: The 4th Amendment doesn't apply to home computers

Post by whiterussian1974 »

I previously highlighted some of my text in blue which answers some of the ?s you addressed in your last post.

A- I gave (what I consider) a link to a technologically better explanation of the specific malware used in the Playpen case where the Gov't operated a disgusting website. (I can't bring myself to even type the abhorrent nature of their Site outside of Official Docs.)

In case you missed the link in the quote Header: http://motherboard.vice.com/read/tor-is ... bi-hacking

B: I mentioned the Paul Revere case of Treason (yes, at that time his Crime was far worse than what is involved in this case. He faced Capital Punishment and even his family and business Associates probably would have been hang and their Property taken by the Crown.) because you mentioned turning down a street where a lookout said "you better not be a cop" and the Innocent being able to turn around. In this and some other cases which haven't yet hit the Press, this was a faulty analogy.

C: The "Log-in" was a 'standard default' Guest Log-in. It is 'cookie behavior' the places code on your HDD whether you want it or not. You can reject 'cookie' persistence, but not the initial attempt which activates the 'digital beacon.'

You are assuming that Log-in requires a human action. It doesn't. Every Site that any of us visit places a 'tracker' on our PC. This is used by other Sites to provide advertising and other Services to target THEIR behavior of what to show you. Travel, Insurance, Food, Clothing, Movies, etc. The Gov't can also use these Trackers and use the Malware Exploit to inject their own "beacon."

D: Another reason why I used the Paul Revere analogy: He rode on Public dirt tracts and not solely upon Private land. Once he left Private land, did he lose his 4th A Rights? It was during a Time of Civil Unrest and yes, even Treason. So placing trackers on him, his horse, searching his saddlebags and arresting him for a 72hr Investigative Detention checking his Horseshoes for serial #s and any marking variances, Impounding his horse and Documents until he sued the Crown for return of his Personal Property, etc, etc, etc. was an attempt to show how crazy Laws and their Enforcement has become.

People often say that the Const is outdated. But how often do they imagine the Founders going through the very Regulations that Modern Americans now face? It quickly becomes absurd. They Colonials had far more Freedoms under the Monarchy than we do under 'Self Rule.'

E: The JWitness analogy of sneaking onto your land and marking your siding was precisely accurate. I placed in parentheses the PC Tech that directly related to their placing the Malware on a PC. Firewall, AV, RAM assignment, etc.

F: I also wrote how the person needn't intentionally go to this website. It's use 'in this case' may have been 'self-reported' as limited to visiting a particular URL. But the Method isn't specific to that Route. I showed how they can even send a "hidden browser" to URL Mirrors in a background process where the User never sees any of this on their screen.

G: You keep writing about Log-ins. I think that you mean a multi-step User-generated specific ID. This isn't what any article that I've read has stated. They state (In language that requires an IT guy to talk us through the meanings and procedures.) that it's a 'user-specific ID which the Site assigns the Individual PC or device. It reads the MAC and hardware info and generates a specific tag that they place for later use.

H: You mentioned that the Malware was already installed on the PCs and that it notified the Gov't when the PC visited the "Targeted" URL. This is correct. The Gov't used the malware to search through and control the PCs when they weren't on the Target Site.

I: What happens when it comes out that the Target PCs accessed the Site when no human was at that User location? It accessed the URL while all of the Home's Occupants had iron-clad alibis where there is video evidence that they were at work/school/etc?

The Malware is probably not set to 'Wake' PC from 'Sleep' while no User is typing. But it the System performs Maintenance during hrs when the Humans were gone, (such as Anti-virus updates and scans, Disc Defragment, etc) then these anomalies might creep in. And we'll never hear about this, because the Court will issue Gag Orders that prevent the Defense from ever leaking the Info. And hold in Contempt any Journalist or Leaker indefinitely without Notice or access to Habeus Relief.
---
Some of your 'key points' are valid:
-In this case, the Gov't is self-reporting that the Users went to this Site instead of their Malware directing the activity. We actually can't verify this. There may be some 'Irritants' like Libertarian Radio Hosts that have been accused of this crime. I don't recall the name of that Radio Station. But so far the info has been that the 'Illegal Activity' occurred when Off-site Security Video Surveillance shows that no human was present. That it was a Background Process which the Malware directed to occur while the System conducted Updates and Maintenance.
-Your other 2 points have been invalidated by the info coming out of this Case. The Login was Site assigned, and the Malware directed 'at least some' of the PCs to the Site when no human was present.

I'll try to find the article about the Libertarian News Radio Site that explains how this Malware is used to frame 'Enemies of the State.' Maybe someone else will recall the Article and publish the link b/f I can find it.
---
And do we believe that this malware is only used by FBI? IRS has shown its disregard for the Const. Including the 1st, 5th, and 14th Amends. So now if you do online banking or efile your taxes, don't be surprised if they inject your PC w a virus. You'd never even know that it happened. You'd just get an Audit Notice.
The Darkest Corners of Hell are reserved for those who remain Neutral!-Dante
The Death of One is a Tragedy, a million only a statistic.-Stalin
silencertalk.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=135314
User avatar
whiterussian1974
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 2857
Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 11:37 pm
Location: On 8th line of eye chart.

Re: The 4th Amendment doesn't apply to home computers

Post by whiterussian1974 »

Here's an update on the original story which I linked. I found it while SilTalk was down.
http://motherboard.vice.com/read/the-fb ... er-exploit

And some links about the Radio Station and Gov't Agents being caught in the Hack.
I didn't find the exact article that talks about the Off-site Security Video showing that no humans were around when the Site was supposedly visited. But here is another link to about the raid.
http://motherboard.vice.com/read/fbi-ra ... -porn-hack
The Darkest Corners of Hell are reserved for those who remain Neutral!-Dante
The Death of One is a Tragedy, a million only a statistic.-Stalin
silencertalk.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=135314
User avatar
TROOPER
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 7441
Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2007 1:24 pm
Location: Augusta, Georgia

Re: The 4th Amendment doesn't apply to home computers

Post by TROOPER »

The IRS debacle is a clear sign that over-reach has been achieved, assuming that it is a Boolean expression, because the standard checks-and-balances can neither prevent it, nor retroactively attempt to remedy it.

The DEA has been corrupted for the same purposes too in that F&F ultimately lead to gun-control measures as a result of F&F, while simultaneously failing to address any of the stated problem. Meaning that the "purpose" of F&F was to disrupt the supply of illegal firearms to Mexico, yet there have been no convictions, no trials, and not even a single arrest. Furthermore, there is no indication that supply has been even annoyed, let alone disrupted.

I see no reason to assume that the FBI couldn't/haven't been equally corrupted, and that political enemies of this regime haven't been targeted.

Kind of makes me want to self-identify as a Libertarian, if only because one has been specifically targeted by this regime.... they must represent the true threat to Obama's philosophies... which, by default, makes him a true American.

Here is the halfass "you win" I'm going to begrudgingly concede: if we're only basing our arguments on Poik's link... I think I'm correct. But that's just not reality, so I agree with you: you were right, I was wrong.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RRzsv4vHNDs
User avatar
whiterussian1974
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 2857
Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 11:37 pm
Location: On 8th line of eye chart.

Re: The 4th Amendment doesn't apply to home computers

Post by whiterussian1974 »

TROOPER wrote:Kind of makes me want to self-identify as a Libertarian, if only because one has been specifically targeted by this regime.... they must represent the true threat to Obama's philosophies... which, by default, makes him a true American.
I think you meant "them." The plural 3rd Person Pronoun would indicate the Radio Station.
"Him" indicates Obama.
---
TROOPER wrote:Here is the halfass "you win" I'm going to begrudgingly concede: if we're only basing our arguments on Poik's link... I think I'm correct. But that's just not reality, so I agree with you: you were right, I was wrong. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RRzsv4vHNDs
You honor me greatly, my steadfast Jedi Master. :D
Regrettably, I'm not nearly as handsome as Carl Weathers. :( "You are Handsome, I'm... not very attractive."-Adam Sandler
---
As an aside, I made Custom Ringtones of my Mom's VoiceMail saying "Pick up the F'ing phone!" and of my wife saying in a Russian-accented Sing-song voice "Oooohhh-KAAAAY. You were Riiiight, I was Wrooong."
---
And for those interested, this is the Technique and a sample Trojan used to "Digitally Broadcast" the User ID and Location of the Infected Bios Motherboard. It inserts itself at PC Power-on before the 'OS Start-up' begins. So no Anti-Virus, Firewall, Root-Kit Killer, etc can stop it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoning_home#Malicious_phoning_home wrote:There are many malware applications that "phone home" to gather and store information about a person's machine. For example, the Pushdo Trojan[8] shows the new complexity of modern malware applications and the phoning home capabilities of these systems. Pushdo has 421 executables available to be sent to an infected Windows client.
This is only 1 of the available techniques. Another is the "WaterMark" that Trooper and I first thought was used. That WM is a Digital Signature in the file that any Network or ISP can read against a BlackList of MD5s or Checksums for Illegal Content. Including Copyrighted films and songs.

People can also be 'set-up' by tampering w the MD5:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Md5sum wrote:The underlying MD5 algorithm is no longer deemed secure, thus while md5sum is well-suited for identifying known files in situations that are not security related, it should not be relied on if there is a chance that files have been purposefully and maliciously tampered.
This means that a totally legal file like a recorded Open-Air Broadcast of a Tv show can appear to be a violation of 18 USC 1466A. (Sexual depiction of a Fictional Character. Ie: a nude cupid angel or frogs having sex as Colbert "Late Show" had to blur a line drawing of 2 frogs in the 1st episode. Then they could show them the following night by calling it "Tandem Skydiving" instead of a newly discovered frog sex position.)

So be VERY careful when casually checking links. Like Teasers and ClickBait on News Sites. Or Photo and File Sharing. PhotoBucket hasn't been infected that I know of. But Pix.ru has several times. So far they have 'cleaned' their System each time. Same with many others that have Pop-ups that Hijack with Ransom-ware.

These can easily infect your System and 'dope' your MotherBoard with a Rootkit that can place illegal content in 'Hidden Files' in 'Protected Folders' that even extremely sophisticated Gov't Forensic Software can miss. So simple AV scans and Net-based 'delousers' won't pick them up. You need dedicated BIOS level 'detached' startups from USB/DVDs to detect and clean your system.
The Darkest Corners of Hell are reserved for those who remain Neutral!-Dante
The Death of One is a Tragedy, a million only a statistic.-Stalin
silencertalk.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=135314
Post Reply