Judge rejects FBI attempt to use Spyware to use your webcam secretly
36 replies, posted
[quote][B]Judge Rejects FBI Attempt to Use Spyware to Infiltrate Unknown Suspect's Computer[/B]
Pursuing criminal hacking groups is high on the FBI’s list of priorities—but the bureau is adopting some hacking techniques of its own. And a Texas judge isn’t happy about it.
On Monday, a judge denied an FBI request to install a spy Trojan on a computer in an unknown location in order to track down a suspected fraudster. The order rejecting the request revealed that the FBI wanted to use the surveillance tool to covertly infiltrate the computer and take photographs of its user through his or her webcam. The plan also included recording Internet activity, user location, email contents, chat messaging logs, photographs, documents, and passwords.
As the Wall Street Journal reported, Houston magistrate Judge Stephen Smith said that he could not approve the “extremely intrusive” tactic because the FBI did not know the location or identity of the suspect and could not guarantee the spy software would not end up targeting innocents. Smith wrote in a 13-page memorandum:
[I]What if the Target Computer is located in a public library, an Internet café, or a workplace accessible to others? What if the computer is used by family or friends uninvolved in the illegal scheme? What if the counterfeit email address is used for legitimate reasons by others unconnected to the criminal conspiracy? What if the email address is accessed by more than one computer, or by a cell phone and other digital devices? There may well be sufficient answers to these questions, but the Government’s application does not supply them.[/I]
According to court documents, the FBI wanted to use the software to identify a person responsible for allegedly violating computer security laws and committing federal bank fraud and identity theft. A criminal is said to have infiltrated the email of a Texas man and later tried to steal a “sizable” amount of money from his bank by transferring it to a foreign account. But investigators apparently admitted that they did not know the physical location of the suspect, creating a major legal roadblock in gaining surveillance approval. There are rules in place that put territorial limits on magistrate judges’ authority, so that they can issue warrants only for their own districts—in this case, the Southern District of Texas. Smith made it clear in his refusal that he was particularly uncomfortable authorizing the feds to “hack a computer” that could have been based anywhere in the world.
Perhaps what is most interesting is the level of detail the memorandum discloses about the surveillance technology at the FBI’s disposal. Back in 2007, the bureau was revealed to be using a spyware that could infect computers and gather IP addresses, the last visited website address, and a range of other metadata. But the spy Trojan disclosed in the Houston documents is far more advanced, capable of copying content and turning a person’s webcam effectively into a surveillance camera. According to Smith:
[I][T]he Government’s data extraction software will activate the Target Computer’s built-in-camera and snap photographs sufficient to identify the persons using the computer. The Government couches its description of this technique in terms of “photo monitoring,” as opposed to video surveillance, but this is a distinction without a difference. In between snapping photographs, the Government will have real time access to the camera’s video feed.[/I]
Sophisticated spy Trojans like the one described above are sold by companies that sell only to governments and law enforcement agencies—like England’s Gamma Group, which has developed a line of controversial “FinFisher” Trojan tools. It is possible that the FBI could have developed its own Trojan, but equally it may have procured the technology from a private company. Last month, I asked the feds whether they had ever purchased Gamma’s spyware, following a report that FinFisher servers had been detected in the United States. However, a spokesman for the bureau said that as a matter of policy it would not discuss “specific law enforcement tactics, techniques, or procedures, and we likewise would not be able to confirm specific products or services that the FBI may or may not purchase or use.”[/quote]
[url=http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2013/04/25/texas_judge_denies_fbi_request_to_use_trojan_to_infiltrate_unknown_suspect.html]Source[/url]
Yay, not every lawyer is retarded!
Haha that's pretty sad when you need to resort to dirty tactics. Good thing I don't have a webcam either, I just feel weird being in front of a camera.
[QUOTE=don868;40424283]I just feel weird being in front of a camera.[/QUOTE]
I know what you mean. When I'm masturbating and my webcam is sitting on top of my screen I feel really uncomfortable, even when I'm not using it.
I have a webcam that lights up when the record mode is on, specifically since I'm paranoid about it being on without me realizing it.
[QUOTE=Sadim;40424302]I know what you mean. When I'm masturbating and my webcam is sitting on top of my screen I feel really uncomfortable, even when I'm not using it.[/QUOTE]
Then just... flip it around?
FBI will probably do it anyways.
This is why there's usually a strip of tape over my laptop camera.
Good thing I don't have a webcam at all :v:
Too bad this is some potential 1984 shit. If they started now, they'd probably start abusing it all the time.
[IMG]http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-LjfOxgRnDVY/USJGFiVWr1I/AAAAAAABEpM/Pg9uBDDSV6U/s1600/Logitech+Webcam+C930e.png[/IMG]
I just use tape and a strip of, something. I forgot what it is.
Duct tape over your webcam
Meatspace solutions > cyberspace
[QUOTE] The plan also included recording Internet activity, user location, email contents, chat messaging logs, photographs, documents, and [B]passwords[/B].[/QUOTE]
That just pisses me off more than all the other things.
I just disabled my laptop webcam through device manager
[QUOTE=Kendra;40424249][url=http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2013/04/25/texas_judge_denies_fbi_request_to_use_trojan_to_infiltrate_unknown_suspect.html]Source[/url]
Yay, not every lawyer is retarded![/QUOTE]
Lawyers aren't retarded. They're just greedy.
BRB. Sealing myself in a soundproof room with one hole through which food and water come in, and another for bodily waste. No FBI guy is going to spy on me!
But in all seriousness, I did cover my laptop's webcam with tape and a piece of paper. Fuck being spied on.
Hah! I don't have to worry about them finding me through my PC camera now!
I always try to look at the webcam straight on when I'm fapping. your move mr. lawman
Man I hope I can be like Gubbygub one day.
What a total bad ass.
I personally think it should be a legal requirement for a webcam to have an LED installed in such a way that it is not possible for the webcam to be on without the LED being on. It would answer a lot of privacy concerns for sure
[QUOTE=Elspin;40425475]I personally think it should be a legal requirement for a webcam to have an LED installed in such a way that it is not possible for the webcam to be on without the LED being on. It would answer a lot of privacy concerns for sure[/QUOTE]
I would assume there is an option to toggle the light, so when the computer isn't in use, there's always a chance of someone with remote access can simply turn it off? (The light, that is.)
the answer is obviously to print a tiny picture of goatse or that cat and hang it on a paperclip in front of your webcam when not in use.
I just unplug my webcam when I'm not using it.
I like how the article spins the ability to control the camera via a trojan as some top secret government thing that the general public can't get. While in reality it's as simple as taking a snapshot via the standard APIs and distributing it over HTTP or so.
[QUOTE=JgcxCub;40424769]Duct tape over your webcam
Meatspace solutions > cyberspace[/QUOTE]
meatspace
amazing
What's the point of this? All they're gonna do is catch thousands of people masturbating on cam :v:
This means nothing, the only reason they went ahead with this is because they've already been doing it and they want legal precedent to cover their asses and make the act legal when someone inevitably finds out.
I hate the FBI when they make descisions that also effects other nations than the U.S
Pretty misleading title.
Not that I agree with it, but if it's one case of a suspect who may be set to do harm to people and this would be the way to prove they're doing that, I don't see much of a problem.
Aside from the inevitable snowball effect.
[QUOTE=Kuro.;40428259]This means nothing, the only reason they went ahead with this is because they've already been doing it and they want legal precedent to cover their asses and make the act legal when someone inevitably finds out.[/QUOTE]
Basically. It's pitifully easy for an average person to gain remote access to webcams; thinking the FBI or any other high-profile agency doesn't make use of that technology for their own ends is simply living outside reality.
Hah, jokes on them.
I unplugged the webcam and built-in mic of my laptop when I disassembled it to clean out dust.
Never used the webcam anyway, and I only use a mic with a headset or similar
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
