5 ms·

Obama Administration proposes adding civil forfeiture to CFAA

8 points by rosenjon 12y ago

zaroth 12y ago
The wording here truly blows my mind; any person who intentionally manufactures, assembles, possesses, or sells any electronic, mechanical, or other device, knowing or having reason to know that the design of such device renders it primarily useful for the purpose of the surreptitious interception of wire, oral, or electronic communications, and that such device *or any component thereof* has been *or will be* sent through the mail or *transported in interstate or foreign commerce* What does the phase "primarily useful" even mean in this context? Is the iPhone 'Voice Memo' app primarily useful for these purposes? Or more pointedly, what about mitmproxy or Wireshark? Forget 3 felonies a day, how about 10^3. Shit, I have in my possession dozens of 'electronic, mechanical, or other device(s) which are primarily useful for [surreptitious] interception of wire, oral, and electronic communications'. Last time I checked they ship with the OS. I Googled 'primarily useful' they are almost all links to this law itself. On page 2 there was link with the title 'Subwoofers primarily useful for action movies?' which was a nice reprieve. What differentiates a design, monitoring, or debugging tool designed for the interception of wire / electronic communications from one primarily useful for surreptitious interception? Maybe the later come with cool names like FOXACID and DEEPMINDFUCK. Maybe they should have thought twice before renaming Ethereal to WireShark!
- rosenjon 12y ago
  Exactly. It incorporates by reference statutes from an era where it was actually a huge hurdle to install a listening device. Now every piece of technology is essentially a listening device, amongst many other things. In addition, it waters down the statute from "intent to defraud" to "willfulness". Oh by the way, they also want to take all your stuff, regardless of if you're convicted.
- zaroth 12y ago
  Even better, the very next section is an exclusion from this law for common carriers and officers and agents of the United States.
  - rosenjon 12y ago
    Not that it matters. This guy broke the law and nothing happened. He didn't even lose his job. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QwiUVUJmGjs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QwiUVUJmGjs
    - zaroth 12y ago
      I mean, just look at the body language during that final answer. And then Senator Wyden's breathless, almost resigned, "Alright" at the end. Watching that never gets old. Apparently by Clapper's measure, the NSA is quite the bunch of dimwits.
hackerjam 12y ago
Given the recent press of how civil forfeiture laws have been / are being abused by police departments in this country [1], the idea that the Obama Admninistration would try to float such an idea, much less try to get it passed into legislation is mind boggling. Just shows just how out of touch they really are. 1. http://www.cato.org/events/policing-profit-abuse-civil-asset-forfeiture http://www.cato.org/events/policing-profit-abuse-civil-asset...
- rosenjon 12y ago
  The Obama Administration has already ramped up CFAA prosecutions. Adding Civil Forfeiture laws would only further incentivize law enforcement to pursue these cases.

8 points by rosenjon 12y ago

The wording here truly blows my mind; any person who intentionally manufactures, assembles, possesses, or sells any electronic, mechanical, or other device, knowing or having reason to know that the design of such device renders it primarily useful for the purpose of the surreptitious interception of wire, oral, or electronic communications, and that such device *or any component thereof* has been *or will be* sent through the mail or *transported in interstate or foreign commerce* What does the phase "primarily useful" even mean in this context? Is the iPhone 'Voice Memo' app primarily useful for these purposes? Or more pointedly, what about mitmproxy or Wireshark? Forget 3 felonies a day, how about 10^3. Shit, I have in my possession dozens of 'electronic, mechanical, or other device(s) which are primarily useful for [surreptitious] interception of wire, oral, and electronic communications'. Last time I checked they ship with the OS. I Googled 'primarily useful' they are almost all links to this law itself. On page 2 there was link with the title 'Subwoofers primarily useful for action movies?' which was a nice reprieve. What differentiates a design, monitoring, or debugging tool designed for the interception of wire / electronic communications from one primarily useful for surreptitious interception? Maybe the later come with cool names like FOXACID and DEEPMINDFUCK. Maybe they should have thought twice before renaming Ethereal to WireShark!

rosenjon 12y ago
Exactly. It incorporates by reference statutes from an era where it was actually a huge hurdle to install a listening device. Now every piece of technology is essentially a listening device, amongst many other things. In addition, it waters down the statute from "intent to defraud" to "willfulness". Oh by the way, they also want to take all your stuff, regardless of if you're convicted.
zaroth 12y ago
Even better, the very next section is an exclusion from this law for common carriers and officers and agents of the United States.
- rosenjon 12y ago
  Not that it matters. This guy broke the law and nothing happened. He didn't even lose his job. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QwiUVUJmGjs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QwiUVUJmGjs
  - zaroth 12y ago
    I mean, just look at the body language during that final answer. And then Senator Wyden's breathless, almost resigned, "Alright" at the end. Watching that never gets old. Apparently by Clapper's measure, the NSA is quite the bunch of dimwits.

hackerjam 12y ago

Given the recent press of how civil forfeiture laws have been / are being abused by police departments in this country [1], the idea that the Obama Admninistration would try to float such an idea, much less try to get it passed into legislation is mind boggling. Just shows just how out of touch they really are. 1. http://www.cato.org/events/policing-profit-abuse-civil-asset-forfeiture http://www.cato.org/events/policing-profit-abuse-civil-asset...

rosenjon 12y ago
The Obama Administration has already ramped up CFAA prosecutions. Adding Civil Forfeiture laws would only further incentivize law enforcement to pursue these cases.