Malicious actors may even be able to hijack the malware the government uses to infiltrate botnets, because the government often doesn’t design its malware securely. Government access to the computers of botnet victims also raises serious privacy concerns, as a wide range of sensitive, unrelated personal data could well be accessed during the investigation. This is a dangerous expansion of powers, and not something to be granted without any public debate on the topic.
The key word here is “procedural.” By law, the rules and proposals are supposed to be procedural and must not change substantive rights. But the amendment to Rule 41 isn’t procedural at all. It creates new avenues for government hacking that were never approved by Congress.
people who reject location tracking by apps on their smartphone
Quote from: HollowedTurkey on May 06, 2016, 07:58:11 PMas long as it's under a search warrantthe government/law enforement has been using warrants less and less as time goes on though
as long as it's under a search warrant
So because nobody needs to know exactly where the fuck I am at all time the police now have reasonable suspicion enough that I'm engaging in criminal activity to get a warrant to search my electronics.
Quote from: HollowedTurkey on May 06, 2016, 08:02:47 PMQuote from: Varg on May 06, 2016, 08:00:19 PMQuote from: HollowedTurkey on May 06, 2016, 07:58:11 PMas long as it's under a search warrantthe government/law enforement has been using warrants less and less as time goes on thoughYou're implying that the government illegally searches private property and uses that evidence against them in court; I'd love to see any shred of evidence supporting this. The fact is that this is no different the a cop's right to search your home with a warrant.Who says they'd be taking things to court?
Quote from: Varg on May 06, 2016, 08:00:19 PMQuote from: HollowedTurkey on May 06, 2016, 07:58:11 PMas long as it's under a search warrantthe government/law enforement has been using warrants less and less as time goes on thoughYou're implying that the government illegally searches private property and uses that evidence against them in court; I'd love to see any shred of evidence supporting this. The fact is that this is no different the a cop's right to search your home with a warrant.
Quote from: THE BOAT ecks two on May 06, 2016, 08:02:00 PMSo because nobody needs to know exactly where the fuck I am at all time the police now have reasonable suspicion enough that I'm engaging in criminal activity to get a warrant to search my electronics. Where is this stated, though? All it's saying is that law enforcement would have the right to access devices under a search warrant that would otherwise be protected by a VPN.
Quote from: HollowedTurkey on May 06, 2016, 08:05:37 PMQuote from: Varg on May 06, 2016, 08:04:20 PMQuote from: HollowedTurkey on May 06, 2016, 08:02:47 PMQuote from: Varg on May 06, 2016, 08:00:19 PMQuote from: HollowedTurkey on May 06, 2016, 07:58:11 PMas long as it's under a search warrantthe government/law enforement has been using warrants less and less as time goes on thoughYou're implying that the government illegally searches private property and uses that evidence against them in court; I'd love to see any shred of evidence supporting this. The fact is that this is no different the a cop's right to search your home with a warrant.Who says they'd be taking things to court?Why would a search warrant be obtained if not to collect evidence to charge somebody with a crime?Suspicion of possible criminal activity. There's no prosecution necessarily. It's just an excuse to legally track people who don't want to be tracked.
Quote from: Varg on May 06, 2016, 08:04:20 PMQuote from: HollowedTurkey on May 06, 2016, 08:02:47 PMQuote from: Varg on May 06, 2016, 08:00:19 PMQuote from: HollowedTurkey on May 06, 2016, 07:58:11 PMas long as it's under a search warrantthe government/law enforement has been using warrants less and less as time goes on thoughYou're implying that the government illegally searches private property and uses that evidence against them in court; I'd love to see any shred of evidence supporting this. The fact is that this is no different the a cop's right to search your home with a warrant.Who says they'd be taking things to court?Why would a search warrant be obtained if not to collect evidence to charge somebody with a crime?
(3) Requesting a Warrant by Telephonic or Other Reliable Electronic Means. In accordance with Rule 4.1, a magistrate judge may issue a warrant based on information communicated by telephone or other reliable electronic means.
What interests me most currently is under what conditions a warrant can be requested, to which I found thisQuote(3) Requesting a Warrant by Telephonic or Other Reliable Electronic Means. In accordance with Rule 4.1, a magistrate judge may issue a warrant based on information communicated by telephone or other reliable electronic means.What on earth does "other reliable means" even mean? It's no news-flash to me that calls are monitored, but I have yet to know the extent to which monitoring already occurs online. Is anyone particularly knowledgeable in this topic to clarify what "other reliable means" actually means? Perhaps to the extent which online content is already monitored?
you're much too trusting of big brother
"probable cause" is an extremely loose term these days that's pretty open to fairly open to interpretationsuspicion alone can be used as probable cause in quite a few cases
It sounds like they're saying law enforcement officers can tell a judge information pertinent to a warrant over the phone or email, text, fax, etc. It doesn't seem to have anything to do with how information is gathered; a warrant wouldn't be issued after a phone has been tapped.
An update to the innocuous-sounding Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure could soon grant powers to judges across the US to issue search warrants for law enforcement to remotely access devices that are using privacy tools.
tbh I'm not sure where all the confusion is coming from.
It sickens me to my stomach how trusting people like Turkey are of the government.
Malicious actors may even be able to hijack the malware the government uses to infiltrate botnets
Why would the government try to hunt down botnets? All tracks just lead to Microsoft and Windows 10. QuoteMalicious actors may even be able to hijack the malware the government uses to infiltrate botnets
Quote from: Verbatim on May 08, 2016, 06:47:29 PMi could not conceivably give a single fuck lessla verdad que estoy muy cansado de tu obsesion con dar tus opiniones de mierda hermano
i could not conceivably give a single fuck less
US government will target TOR and VPN users.
