@Harry Johnston • November 18, 2015 6:16 PM
And so you know a lot of federal laws were broken here when they hacked the network up.I couldn't find any evidence to support this claim, which is why I originally suggested Bruce had jumped the gun on this one. But if sufficient evidence has since turned up, then a criminal complaint should be laid. Or a lawsuit. Or a research ethics complaint, if it turns out it really was a research project. That's all fine with me.
Okay, so you are not a researcher, and not IT security or something -- so, nobody requires a license to be a "researcher" under DMCA. All sorts find security vulnerabilities and so perform "computer security research". Including criminal hackers.
So, security bug finders have a right to test applications on their own systems, but not on other's systems. And, really? That is as simple as it gets. So, no license needed. If you are smart enough to know how to find vulnerabilities, you are surely smart enough to know the really very simple laws.
It is even simpler then owning and using a gun. Actually, much simpler.
Did they break laws? Yes, as the evidence denotes, they certainly did breaking laws regarding unauthorized computer access (hacking) and wiretapping -- both federal laws. And for each case of each system they did this to.
Why? Because they certainly did not get warrants for those systems.
Can this be pursued? As I noted, 'maybe not'. What I did not note is that primarily, the FBI needs to be ethical, lawful and present the manner in which they performed these tests.
Further, the FBI is a division of the DoJ, and this means the prosecutors are in their same branch of government. The prosecutors took this bust as a high value political bust. They have ample reason not to pursue any irregularities.
Further problem is, it is difficult to understand material, so it is difficult to get a wide public concern enough to overturn that.
It might be leverage, still, however, for the defendant's on appeal.
Break the law... not break the law... they certainly broke the law. And they did it in a very, very bad way for authorities to do this, frankly. They did it so everyone sees it.
While the widespread public won't get it, everyone hacker sees it. Every hacker who their own selves might break the very same computer hacking laws.
That, obviously, sends a bad message.
'When the authorities break laws the people are corrupted' -- as the old saying goes.
Further, this sends a message to all other US authorities about disregarding hacking and wiretapping laws. With the signature "Department of Justice" and "FBI" across it. And it speaks of something else -- when criminals are at the stage of intentionally leaving clues instead of hiding those clues, they are at an advanced stage of their actions. They are flaunting.
That means they are on a powertrip and believe they can not be caught. (reference, Robert K Resseler, fmr FBI BSU, 'how to interview a cannibal', etc)
Though I just add that reference ironically. It is certainly disturbing to see federal authorities getting out of control and running amok.
My alarm here is because there is a significant pattern of this in the FBI cybercrime division.
You can see tip of the iceberg shadows of the corruption going on in federal domestic, by noting not one, but at least two federal officers were shown to be significantly dirty and specifically involving this case.
These sorts of messages, therefore do have influence. People say, "Others are cheating, why not me".
In another very large case, involving Anonymous, "Sabu", a Chicago pen testing consultant was under FBI control - literally in their custody, they were in an 'next door' (vertical) apartment 24/7 - when Sabu quite oddly ordered and watched over attack on Stratfor, on a police department, on an infragard, on foreign embassies... and other targets. And doxxed them, in many cases.
This was all also documented well by Vice and Daily Dot.
It looks highly sketchy. Those targets look really specific. Why didn't they raise these charges against Sabu when he was brought to court? Were they ordered by the FBI? Why? Was it some kind of revenge? Was it a poorly planned counterintelligence operation? The details are not yet fully known to the public.
Maybe they weren't guarding him as they were supposed to and just let all that fly to avoid embarrassment, even though it was reported in the news. It did not make mainstream. The details are just too technical for mainstream to cover.
Like many things, just takes time for the slow wheels of justice to turn.
But I think you missed my point when I talked about dishonesty - it wasn't anything to do with this case, I was talking about the way some people here (not you) were treating Justin and others. In particular, I don't think it is appropriate to accuse other posters of being government PR agents for no better reason than that they dared to disagree with you.
You could have said to what you were referring to in the post.
If it was implied in your link -- please just be forthcoming and clear, or do not be upset when people get upset. Especially when talking about a highly volatile subject like dirty cops.
Not everyone just winks at dirty cops or buys the whole "oh they are just cutting red tape to bust bad guys" line.
Silk Road was a political brownie points case. And there is endemic corruption in some parts of the FBI at this time.
FYI, clicking on sketchy, not very mainstream links from people posters do not know, is unwise at such a forum. It can help reveal their identity.
Proper authorities can obtain my identity, I do not use a proxy, except sometimes a roughly static business proxy when using my work system. I state this often to the mods. Not interested however in making it easy for non-authorities or "authorities" skirting the lines of legality.
Not so hard to see what posters connect to this site at what times, for how long, either, from an ISP view.
See, you are squirming around with definitions, trying to justify hacking.No, you're jumping to conclusions. I just asked some questions.
Okay, fair enough. I think the facts are pretty clear. I clarified them.
Is there more clarification needed?
You understand it is unlawful to attack an unauthorized system, right? You have to have either a lawful warrant or authorization from the owner of that system. This includes DoS. You also understand breaking someone's encryption to get their data is equivalent to wiretapping, even if that data "is only" some form of "metadat", right?
But, I am wondering, is this really fair of you? I mean, you surely understand these laws, though not a researching. You follow computer crime cases. They are very simple laws. You have found this blog and posted deep in here, and are offering opinions with confidence. You are over thirty, I would guess. So, I think you are understanding these laws... but pretending not to. Isn't that squirmy? Or is there another word? Squirely? Sketchy? Catchy? Shady?
Everyone does this on some things, sure.
Sometimes they even deny it when they do.
Maybe the issue is you believe if the perpetrator is likely to get away with it - say they are running from Estonia or Romania - that then it is not unlawful? Like the Lufthansa heist was not unlawful because they got away with it?
Because that is the only thing here I could say is "unlawful", in that weird, twisted sense foreign hackers and others do when they are flaunting the law. After all, you even taunted saying, "Why doesn't someone pursue the case then".
Seems like you already know it would be very difficult to pursue.
I mean, can you be polite and specific and clarify this confusion? If so, my apologies, it is a heated subject. Corrupt cops and all.
I hope they are not thinking this is even good to get off on appeal? Appeal acquittals are often quiet. You get the publicity from the first case. Budget increases, promotions.
But, what really bothers me here is: there is a distinct possibility that, on appeal, the corrupt DHS agents could get off on their charges, too.
Free get out of jail card from the Department of Justice.
Do you even care if they get out of jail?