FBI wants access to browser history without a warrant in terrorism, spy cases

266 点作者 edgall大约 9 年前

24 条评论

csense大约 9 年前

A couple decades ago when the government wanted to get civil forfeiture powers, they said it was only going to be for the worst organized crime bosses and drug lords.Then within the last few years, a black kid who takes his life savings -- $10,000 cash -- and moves across the country to start a new life is (apparently entirely legally) relieved of it by two police officers and has no means to get it back, despite never being arrested nor charged with any crime.History shows that it's impossible to trust the government's promise that they'll restrict any new capabilities to the worst bad guys.

评论 #11857266 未加载

评论 #11862092 未加载

评论 #11857551 未加载

评论 #11857299 未加载

评论 #11857866 未加载

patrickg_zill大约 9 年前

"Terrorism/spy cases" is just the camel's nose under the tent.It wasn't even 2 years after the 2001 PATRIOT act that the DOJ was using the provisions for drug cases.A probably non-exhaustive list is here: <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversial_invocations_of_the_Patriot_Act" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversial_invocations_of_t...</a>

评论 #11857521 未加载

评论 #11857184 未加载

marze大约 9 年前

You'd think terrorism/spy cases would be a small minority of overall cases. And not that hard to justify a warrant. Seems odd that they feel it is important to skip the warrant step for such cases.Why not require a warrant? The more checks and balances the better.

评论 #11855869 未加载

评论 #11856647 未加载

评论 #11860761 未加载

techthroway443大约 9 年前

Wow whoever came up with the whole 'in the name of terrorism' is a goddamn genius. Pretty much a free card to get access to anything and everything for the sake of 'security'.

评论 #11856308 未加载

评论 #11856510 未加载

评论 #11855949 未加载

评论 #11856099 未加载

评论 #11856882 未加载

评论 #11855952 未加载

评论 #11856394 未加载

评论 #11859362 未加载

评论 #11856238 未加载

评论 #11857053 未加载

nitrogen大约 9 年前

Call to Firefox devs: restore the option to keep history for a specified number of days. Why was this option ever removed? It originated all the way back in Netscape.Also: make a prominent "clear last hour" option for mobile; I hate following a link from someone and finding a ton of tracking cookies have just been added.

评论 #11858180 未加载

评论 #11856944 未加载

pvg大约 9 年前

The title is inadvertently misleading - the records sought under the amendment are transaction records on the remote end (closer to access logs) rather than your actual browser history.

xviia大约 9 年前

Hey that's fine, no need for a warrant. You just have to let the judge know that you think that person is a terrorist. And also what reasons led you to think they're a terrorist. Oh, and also what it is you're looking for, and why you think you'll find it.So... basically a warrant.

评论 #11856327 未加载

Esau大约 9 年前

They take every tool we give them and abuse it. Fuck the FBI.

评论 #11857308 未加载

knieveltech大约 9 年前

"The FBI wants to access N without a warrant." Sane answer: no, for all values of N.

评论 #11857780 未加载

评论 #11862077 未加载

ktRolster大约 9 年前

Warrants are so easy to get, why do they need this?Looking at browser history might not hurt most people, but getting a warrant isn't hard, and it's the proper way to do things.

busterarm大约 9 年前

Is it just me or is the FBI a little out of control lately...

评论 #11857327 未加载

评论 #11856408 未加载

slyrus大约 9 年前

And let's not forget whistleblowing, hacking, and piracy!

mirimir大约 9 年前

This isn't about "browser history". It's about traffic logs from ISPs.

评论 #11860319 未加载

chrismcb大约 9 年前

Don't we already have laws to go after criminals? Calling them a terrorist doesn't make them more or less criminal. And do we have so many of these boogeymen?

labster大约 9 年前

I don't understand why the FBI isn't prepared to just act illegally in terrorism cases. If they're so damn sure that there's going to be an attack, just do the warrantless search and prevent the attack. And just be fine with the fact that they won't get to prosecute the bad guys -- the attack was thwarted, and that's good enough for me. And if they don't find anything? Well, Lucy's got some 'splainin to do!

评论 #11857611 未加载

bunkydoo大约 9 年前

Well it honestly depends what classifies a terrorism or spy case as such. I could see how this could be easily abused in many regards, but also how it could help someone do their job. Double edged sword really, but I do wish the people had more of a say in these matters instead of just hearing about more liberty being lost via the news :/

marssaxman大约 9 年前

I'm sure the FBI wants access to browser history without a warrant in any cases where it would be convenient.

DoctorBit大约 9 年前

And a pony. They want a pony too.

awqrre大约 9 年前

Go ahead and let them but only if at the same time, you get rid of the Government's option of using NSLs for all cases, including this one.

nxzero将近 9 年前

If the FBI is so sure someone is what they say, seems like it'd be easy to get a warrant; otherwise, sounds like BS to me.

AdmiralAsshat大约 9 年前

Another reason to have an always-running VPN: they can't scrape what they can't see.

评论 #11856055 未加载

评论 #11857591 未加载

Fej将近 9 年前

I'll quote The Who -"Ya caaaan't have it!"

moribondus将近 9 年前

Well, they will further and further encroach until they meet some kind of resistance. Unfortunately, resistance will not easily materialize because people here would be the first ones to utterly condemn respect-instilling reprisals.As far as I am concerned, they can do whatever they want with people who accept that. Concerning myself, I am always on the outlook for some kind of counter-veiling power, the most interesting of which is Islam. It really retaliates. So, I am positive about it.

smnscu大约 9 年前

I read that as "Director Comedy". Probably a more apt title, I imagine. <a href="http://i.imgur.com/ty7LY4E.jpg" rel="nofollow">http://i.imgur.com/ty7LY4E.jpg</a>