The FBI Hacked Over 8,000 Computers in 120 Countries Based on One Warrant | Hacker News Reader

The FBI Hacked Over 8,000 Computers in 120 Countries Based on One Warrant

motherboard.vice.com

36 pointscruisestacy12 comments

It seems to me that this sort of thing is going to set a dangerous precedent. Allowing local authorities to breach their own jurisdictions and national boarders to attempt to locate and arrest suspected criminals based on local laws.

How long will it be before extraditions will start being requested between countries based on breaches of laws those individuals are not subject to?

In this case, it was child pornography but clearly the changes to how these warrants are granted are not going to be explicit to that crime.

I'm startled to see warrants required for unintended computer access - 'hacking' as this article calls it. Somebody can put a virus on my machine without repercussions. But FBI can't.

Since when did computer contents become protected? Does this mean my blog is protected by 'freedom of the press' in the US?

Are you suggesting that they should be able to do this without a warrant and the contents of your personal computer should not be protected?

Not suggesting. I just thought that freedom of the press didn't apply to computer communications. So what is the root of the idea that warrants are needed to search them?

What's freedom of the press got to do with anything? Freedom from unreasonable search and seizure is, at least in theory, a Constitutional guarantee.

Incidentally another (theoretical) Constitutional guarantee is that government only has powers specifically enumerated. So asking why the government isn't allowed to do something is a funny sort of way to come at it.

They made a child porn site serve viruses. It seems to be the only way to get real ip addresses for the people visiting. Idk what they are supposed to do in this situation especially since getting a warrant for every person would be very impractical

Its frustrating to be law enforcement in this day and age. But that doesn't justify throwing up hands.

I hate it when law enforcement just assumes that everyone is a criminal and just gathers a bunch of data and searches everyone. This is different because they are targeting a group of people that they already know are guilty of a specific crime

They actually didn't target any people at all. They targeted hardware that some people potentially used for a crime. Other people (in the same household?) could have had legitimate privacy concerns.

No its still blanket invasion of privacy.

I'm confused. How would people be infected other than visiting the site?

If I send you a .onion link (which does not easily explain what site is it), you open it, turns out to be a Playpen site, now you're a criminal just like the other because you visited it and got infected?

Again, people aren't infected, machines are. Perhaps a terminal at a library? Perhaps a machine shared by several people.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com