There’s no intrinsic logic in trusting judges more than agents or cops.

Other than the fact that one is trained to understand the law and the other isn’t. Why not let the orderly take out your appendix? They’re both in the medical field.

Clearly, we are already living in a police state. 

If they need an “other country warrant” if they know the country, that’s fine. If they don’t need a warrant if the computer is actively involved in lawbreaking IN THE NETHERLANDS that’s fine too.

It’s the “not bothering to get a warrant” when neither the computer nor its actions are within their jurisdiction that is a problem.

Replace all instances of “Dutch” with “Iranian”. Or  ”Taliban”. Or “MPAA”. Or “Soviet Russia”.

Still think it’s a good law? If so, why?

Apparently, they were capable of accessing the controller and  shutting down the botnet (for how long is anyone’s guess), but stringent Dutch laws prevented them from doing so.

Ostensibly, this proposal would have allowed them to take action at the time. Of course, the question is always how such powers would be used on the rest of us.

I wonder how long it’ll be before Dutch  .gov sites are hacked to shit?

This proposal is just the Netherlands trying to be more correct than others while missing the point of doing the right thing by an AU. Then again maybe that’s just practical realism.

Should any country have laws granting it power over objects owned by people who aren’t citizens of that country? Of course not. But the net is an anarchy, and in anarchies laws are irrelevant. The only people to who this law is going to mean a disadvantage that doesn’t exist yet are those who can be prosecuted in the Netherlands. And it will validate what bigger and more powerful countries are already doing anyway, but I can’t imagine “the Dutch seem to think it’s OK” being a convincing argument in any debate.

Secure your computers. There are far worse and far more likely things than Dutch police that will do unwanted things to your data, and they don’t give a damn about anyones laws.

Disclaimer: I’m from the Netherlands.

What can possibly go wrong?

I’m sorry?! This is completely unacceptable.

The way you stop that is to demonstrate that turnabout is fair play.  Have the long arm of EU law reach into the US, whether erasing computers or nabbing and exfiltrating a few wanted suspects off US streets.  (But do give them proper treatment and trials.)

Publicise that you’ve done so.  When the inevitable uproar happens, remind people that you’re operating by US practices, and that you’d be happy to agree with the US to abide by each other’s laws and jurisdiction instead.

If law enforcement is allowed to remotely install spyware or destroy data, how is that different from tampering with evidence ? or should a personal computer no longer be considered a reliable source of evidence ?

The point is that law enforcement having a legal framework to perform digital search and surveillance is not something that is avoidable, it’s more a matter of having well-written or poorly-written legislation. With legislation in place that ensures due process, authoritarian agitators on politics and law enforcement have less of an argument for more draconian legislation like the Patriot Act.

I would say that opposing legislation like this on the grounds that it will restrict some freedoms (which all laws invariably do) is kind of just anarchist. For years, I’ve tended to take my cues from Cory when it comes to online civil liberties. But now I’m curious: Cory, do you support any kind of reasonable search and surveil laws when it comes to the internet, or are you a more of an internet anarchist?

Guys, calm down. This is exactly the kind of law you WANT.

Surprising as it may be, sometimes law enforcement officials need to break into homes or conduct surveillance in order to do their duties. The difference between how this is done in democracies and how it is done in police states is pretty simple: judicial oversight. Police need to go to a judge, convince them that their intrusion is justified, and get a warrant. That’s part of the system of checks and balances that allow police to do their jobs without the temptation of becoming overzealous thugs. 

In Canada we just had a lot of very bad digital laws come in with Bill C-11, and Bill C-30 is hovering around, which would allow law enforcement to spy on the public WITHOUT A WARRANT. I think about that and it makes me feel that Canadians were stupid to reject the Liberals’ Lawful Access Proposal years earlier, which on hindsight was actually pretty reasonable

My suggestion to Dutch people? Support this bill. Get it passed. Because if you don’t, conservative elements in law enforcement and government are eventually going to push through a law that DOESN’T require judicial oversight. And then police really will be able to spy on whomever they like.