DataBreaches.Net

Menu
  • About
  • Breach Notification Laws
  • Privacy Policy
  • Transparency Report
Menu

When can the feds hack into your computer? Case involving scam targeting Wegmans could decide.

Posted on January 6, 2019 by Dissent

Phil Fairbanks reports:

When the FBI uncovered a scammer targeting Wegmans two years ago, agents hacked into the suspect’s computer in an effort to learn his identity.

The hacking, approved by a judge, involved an email and attachment that, when opened, connected the suspect’s computer to an FBI server.

A new lawsuit in Buffalo federal court says the Wegmans case is just one example of how the government is now using hacking in ordinary, day-to-day investigations, and not just in national security and foreign intelligence probes.

Read more on The Buffalo News. They don’t seem to give the case information, but I’m embedding the complaint, filed in federal court for the Western District of New York, below so you can read it all for yourself.

pi_v._fbi_-_hacking_foia_-_complaint_-_as_filed


Related:

  • Two more entities have folded after ransomware attacks
  • British institutions to be banned from paying ransoms to Russian hackers
  • Global hack on Microsoft product hits U.S., state agencies, researchers say
  • More than 100 British government personnel exposed by Ministry of Defence data leak
  • North Country Healthcare responds to Stormous's claims of a breach
  • Gladney Adoption Center had serious data exposures in the past few months. What will they do to prevent more?
Category: Commentaries and AnalysesFederalOf Note

Post navigation

← Mom shocked to find driver’s license on metro Atlanta school website: Turns out, she’s not the only one
Growing Pains: As HackerOne has grown, is it harming what it intended to help? Part 1. →

1 thought on “When can the feds hack into your computer? Case involving scam targeting Wegmans could decide.”

  1. Regret says:
    January 6, 2019 at 3:06 pm

    There seems to be a lot to unpack here. I am not an attorney, but it seems to me that the Wegmans reverse hack isn’t that controversial, given (as I understand it) it was a targeted investigation toward one individual and was authorized by a court via a search warrant. Although the specific identity of the individual doesn’t appear to have been known in advance, this doesn’t sound like an overly broad effort in which uninvolved parties could have been caught up.

    The FOIA requests that are not being properly responded to should be enforced by the court, although the entities involved seem to believe that this suit will magically lead to a change in investigatory methods, which seems a stretch to me. I don’t see that they have standing to follow-up the FOIA lawsuit to sue on the merits of warrantless or overly broad searches. I’d guess they’ll eventually get the FOIA responses, the interesting facts will be redacted (to protect investigatory methods) and that will be the end of it.

    Lastly, the policy issues of overly broad searches using new forms of technology are best dealt with by Congress, who to date has shown little appetite to reign in law enforcement on 4th amendment issues (no politician wants to be seen as soft on crime). The courts may smack down specific search methods periodically, but it’s hard to see the courts broadly redefining privacy rights absent an act of Congress.

Comments are closed.

Now more than ever

"Stand with Ukraine:" above raised hands. The illustration is in blue and yellow, the colors of Ukraine's flag.

Search

Browse by Categories

Recent Posts

  • Au: Qantas hackers gave airline 72-hour deadline
  • Honeywell vulnerability exposes building systems to cyber attacks
  • Recent public service announcements of note — parents should take special note of these
  • Au: Junior doctor faces fresh toilet spying charges as probe widens to other major hospitals
  • Average Brit hit by five data breaches since 2004
  • BlackSuit ransomware site seized as part of Operation Checkmate
  • The day after XSS.is forum was seized, it struggles to come back online — but is it really them?
  • U.S. nuclear and health agencies hit in Microsoft SharePoint breach
  • Russia suspected of hacking Dutch prosecution service systems
  • Korea imposes 343 million won penalty on HAESUNG DS for data breach of 70,000 shareholders

No, You Can’t Buy a Post or an Interview

This site does not accept sponsored posts or link-back arrangements. Inquiries about either are ignored.

And despite what some trolls may try to claim: DataBreaches has never accepted even one dime to interview or report on anyone. Nor will DataBreaches ever pay anyone for data or to interview them.

Want to Get Our RSS Feed?

Grab it here:

https://databreaches.net/feed/

RSS Recent Posts on PogoWasRight.org

  • Indonesia asked to reassess data privacy terms in new U.S. trade deal
  • Meta Denies Tracking Menstrual Data in Flo Health Privacy Trial
  • Wikipedia seeks to shield contributors from UK law targeting online anonymity
  • British government reportedlu set to back down on secret iCloud backdoor after US pressure
  • Idaho agrees not to prosecute doctors for out-of-state abortion referrals
  • As companies race to add AI, terms of service changes are going to freak a lot of people out. Think twice before granting consent!
  • Uganda orders Google to register as a data-controller within 30 days after landmark privacy ruling

Have a News Tip?

Email: Tips[at]DataBreaches.net

Signal: +1 516-776-7756

Contact Me

Email: info[at]databreaches.net

Mastodon: Infosec.Exchange/@PogoWasRight

Signal: +1 516-776-7756

DMCA Concern: dmca[at]databreaches.net
© 2009 – 2025 DataBreaches.net and DataBreaches LLC. All rights reserved.