FBI don't need no stinking warrants!

[Dakota Bob]

Link

Justice Department decides it's totes fine if government institutions hack into foreign servers without warrants if they suspect illegal activity, then have the gall to get all pissy when Google and Apple say they're gonna encrypt iOS and Android by default

[Eiki-mun]

Just when you think our government can't get any more pants-on-head retarded.

[RavynousHunter]

Well, the US once classified cryptography as munitions, sooooo...yeah.  Guv'mint don't undahstand no teknologee.

[Ultimate Paragon]

In fairness, this seems like it may be a legal gray area.

[Askold]

In fairness, this seems like it may be a legal gray area.

...HOW THE FUCK IS HACKING INTO SERVERS WITHOUT ANY KIND OF LEGAL WARRANT OR APPROVAL ON A GRAY AREA!?

Just because those servers are in a different country it does not mean that you don't need warrant. If it is legal at all you would either need a warrant from the authorities of that country or a permission from the owners/controllers of those servers.

Are you the kind of guy who says that it is perfectly ok for USA to assassinate foreign citizens if the president says so? (USA did write that into her laws...)

This is nothing less than espionage by a foreign country.

Oh for the love of L Ron Hubbard! If North Korea wrote a law saying that Kim can approve hacks into FBI servers would that suddenly be ok or "on a grey area?"

[Ultimate Paragon]

In fairness, this seems like it may be a legal gray area.

...HOW THE FUCK IS HACKING INTO SERVERS WITHOUT ANY KIND OF LEGAL WARRANT OR APPROVAL ON A GRAY AREA!?

Just because those servers are in a different country it does not mean that you don't need warrant. If it is legal at all you would either need a warrant from the authorities of that country or a permission from the owners/controllers of those servers.

Are you the kind of guy who says that it is perfectly ok for USA to assassinate foreign citizens if the president says so? (USA did write that into her laws...)

This is nothing less than espionage by a foreign country.

Oh for the love of L Ron Hubbard! If North Korea wrote a law saying that Kim can approve hacks into FBI servers would that suddenly be ok or "on a grey area?"

I never said I agreed with this.  And Apple and Google have every right to shield themselves from hacking.

[Askold]

No, you said that this is a "gray area" and I want to know what in this entire scenario is somehow ambigious.

[Ultimate Paragon]

No, you said that this is a "gray area" and I want to know what in this entire scenario is somehow ambigious.

Okay, maybe I was wrong in calling it a "legal" gray area.  But espionage is a complicated issue.

[Ironchew]

No, you said that this is a "gray area" and I want to know what in this entire scenario is somehow ambigious.

Okay, maybe I was wrong in calling it a "legal" gray area.  But espionage is a complicated issue.

Everyone does it to everyone else. Intelligence organizations wouldn't be doing their most important job without engaging in foreign espionage. Turning around and saying it's bad when foreign countries spy on us is just childish.

[Askold]

Most of the espionage is done legally.

My problem is that USA is trying to justify things they do by claiming "it is legal when WE do it."

Like, I could declare that it is totally ok for me to punch that dickhead who lives next door. And that he would have no right to retaliate because what I did was "totally ok."

[Canadian Mojo]

Most of the espionage is done legally.

My problem is that USA is trying to justify things they do by claiming "it is legal when WE do it."

Like, I could declare that it is totally ok for me to punch that dickhead who lives next door. And that he would have no right to retaliate because what I did was "totally ok."

Yeah, even though they deserve it I don't think punching Russia in the head would go over too well for you guys. 

[Tolpuddle Martyr]

What's the EU have to say about that, doesn't that sort of thing normally get them rather miffed?

[Lt. Fred]

Most of the espionage is done legally.

My problem is that USA is trying to justify things they do by claiming "it is legal when WE do it."

Like, I could declare that it is totally ok for me to punch that dickhead who lives next door. And that he would have no right to retaliate because what I did was "totally ok."

Espionage is by definition illegal (just about everywhere has an Espionage Act or some such). The only reason people get away with it is they always have diplomatic immunity. Anyone without it is deemed an illegal agent, and we don't use them much any more. Very risky!

[Askold]

Most of the espionage is done legally.

My problem is that USA is trying to justify things they do by claiming "it is legal when WE do it."

Like, I could declare that it is totally ok for me to punch that dickhead who lives next door. And that he would have no right to retaliate because what I did was "totally ok."

Espionage is by definition illegal (just about everywhere has an Espionage Act or some such). The only reason people get away with it is they always have diplomatic immunity. Anyone without it is deemed an illegal agent, and we don't use them much any more. Very risky!

...No.

You see most of the information that an intellegence agency needs can be obtained legally. This is why there are analysts that go through all that information and add the data and make estimates of the things that are classified and can not be easily found legally.

It is true that diplomatic immunity can be used to help the "illegal" part of intellegence agencies to work but unlike James Bond movies imply most of the espionage/intellegence work can be done without breaking national/international laws. (Also, there are a lot less gunfights, beatiful women, car chases and gunfighs with beautiful women than the movies imply. The jury is still out wether or not secret agents drink Heineken like James Bond does.)

[Lt. Fred]

Most of the espionage is done legally.

My problem is that USA is trying to justify things they do by claiming "it is legal when WE do it."

Like, I could declare that it is totally ok for me to punch that dickhead who lives next door. And that he would have no right to retaliate because what I did was "totally ok."

Espionage is by definition illegal (just about everywhere has an Espionage Act or some such). The only reason people get away with it is they always have diplomatic immunity. Anyone without it is deemed an illegal agent, and we don't use them much any more. Very risky!

...No.

You see most of the information that an intellegence agency needs can be obtained legally. This is why there are analysts that go through all that information and add the data and make estimates of the things that are classified and can not be easily found legally.

It is true that diplomatic immunity can be used to help the "illegal" part of intellegence agencies to work but unlike James Bond movies imply most of the espionage/intellegence work can be done without breaking national/international laws. (Also, there are a lot less gunfights, beatiful women, car chases and gunfighs with beautiful women than the movies imply. The jury is still out wether or not secret agents drink Heineken like James Bond does.)

Well, I mean, it depends on what you mean by "espionage" doesn't it? If you just mean defence-related research, sure you might well have the odd guy reading Jane's or what have you and he might well pick up something useful. And, of course, you've got Sigint. But if you want a classified document or a name or to run a double-agent you're breaking a law and you'd better have diplomatic immunity when you're caught. Basically anything MI6 does is probably illegal. Everything the CIA does is illegal. That's typically what most people mean by espionage.

Please note: we don't run illegal agents any more. They're all Cultural attaches or Defence under-secretaries or cleaners or whatever.