@requiem the talk of the town right now.
I know people setting up exploited hosts right now in hopes of catching them doing it. 😂
@requiem Its just a court order.
The court can provide permission for officers to violate the law. A good example of this is allowing an undercover cop to participate in illegal activities and if still under cover, lie under oath. This is all pre-supposed to be in service of a larger public goal.
I assume that in this case, the court felt that there was compelling public interest in having these infected servers remediated and low harm to the owners. This is my understanding, anyway, IANAL.
@requiem well, if your computer has illegal software (malware) on it, then I guess the court decided that they have the right to search the computer and seize the software (but leave your computer otherwise alone)?
@requiem There's generally a provision for police action that is"preventing or investigating a crime"; so if criminals were in your house police wouldn't need a warrant to enter - for that limited purpose.
In which case I guess they're extending the analogy to say that they can interfere with malware in order to prevent crime; it isn't that the malware is illegal, it's that it is a tool used in an illegal activity.
Of course, there are wider questions on how these actions need to be scoped, that apply to the real world as well as the virtual one. Having justified grounds for any action seems to be contentious ... "I stopped you because umm ... there was a crime reported somewhere and we thought it might be you ... and ooh, what's this here?"
I am very careful to avoid situations that would allow the police to enter my home. The rules for this are pretty clear (at least in my state in the u.s.), it seems a lot fuzzier when it comes to computers.
I think I need to go read the court order and see if I can talk my SO (who is a lawyer) to dig into this...
A bunch of technomancers in the fediverse. Keep it fairly clean please. This arcology is for all who wash up upon it's digital shore.