United States News
See other United States News Articles
Title: Scalia’s Dead, Now Supreme Court Grants FBI Remote Access to Any Computer in the US
Source:
Daily Sheeple
URL Source: http://www.thedailysheeple.com/scal ... -any-computer-in-the-us_052016
Published: May 2, 2016
Author: Melissa Dykes
Post Date: 2016-05-02 10:47:15 by Deckard
Keywords: None
Views: 1668
Comments: 20
Justice Scalia, love him or hate him, was perhaps the most staunchly Constitutional Supreme Court justice we had. Now he’s dead and not even two months later, the Supreme Court has approved new rules that would allow the FBI to not only hack any computer in the U.S., but around the globe. Legally. In an April 28th letter to Congress, a change to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41 was approved: “A magistrate judge with authority in any district where activities related to a crime may have occurred has authority to issue a warrant to use remote access to search electronic storage media and to seize or copy electronically stored information located within or outside that district if: (A) the district where the media or information is located has been concealed through technological means; or (B) in an investigation of a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(5), the media are protected computers that have been damaged without authorization and are located in five or more districts.” Warrants to gain remote access — in other words, government hacking — to include computers that have been “concealed through technological means” such as TOR technology. And it isn’t just relegated to crime suspects who they get a warrant against (via RT): Currently, magistrate judges cannot issue warrants for “remote searches” to the FBI if law enforcement doesn’t know where a computer in question is physically located, since its location could potentially be outside of the court’s jurisdiction. Not only does the new rule change that, it also could allow the FBI to gain access to computers that have been already hacked by malicious software, meaning that victims of cyberattacks could see their computers searched by the government. If a computer is suspected to be part of compromised network, that network could also be searched. If a computer is ultimately located overseas but hidden via Tor, then authorities may potentially be able to hack into it as well. Warrants for “remote government searches” of any computer… “Legally”. You know who might’ve had a problem with that? Justice Scalia. Wonder how long it’ll be until we get to Minority Report - style pre-crime? Congress has until December to stop this, but they can also tweak it or approve it… considering they have a nine percent approval rating, I’m not holding my breath. But hey, at least one whole Senator is bothering to pretend to care: However, not everyone is buying the Justice Department’s argument. Senator Ron Wyden (D-Oregon) questioned the wisdom of the changes to Rule 41, adding that he will ask the government to detail its hacking process. He also said he will propose legislation to reverse the amendments. “These amendments will have significant consequences for Americans’ privacy and the scope of the government’s powers to conduct remote surveillance and searches of electronic devices,” he said Thursday in a statement. “Under the proposed rules, the government would now be able to obtain a single warrant to access and search thousands or millions of computers at once; and the vast majority of the affected computers would belong to the victims, not the perpetrators, of a cybercrime.” Delivered by The Daily Sheeple
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 5.
#3. To: Deckard (#0)
(Edited)
First of all, a US Magistrate Judge has no plenary power in final decision making. The only duties they actually have is to that of reports and recommendations in pre-trial proceedings. It is the U.S. District Judge who has plenary power decision making in de novo judgments. Also, see here concerning The Judicial Conference of the United States unders section "Duty Station" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_judge Also, you have a right to remain silent and to invoke the fruit of poisoned tree doctrine. I'd be curious to know what Article (Article I, III or IV) this Judicial Conference actually falls under and who created it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_tribunals_in_the_United_States Could not the case of Expo Facto law be addressed as question of original intent or brought into Federal Judicial Review?
The rule change says nothing of worldwide hacking. It refers to warrant application outside the judicial district. The last underlined portion indicates that refers to judicial districts outside the district of the court.
You are, of course, referring to https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/636 Might want to read this carefully under "Review by an Article III tribunal" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_magistrate_judge
#7. To: goldilucky (#5)
No, I made no reference to that at all. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote of the draft materials submitted to the Court for its consideration pursuant to Section 331 of Title 28, United States Code. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_magistrate_judge I don't know what point you are trying to make. The sole topic of the article is a revision of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, and discussion has largely focused on revision of Rule 41(b), which pertains to search and seizure, authority to issue a warrant, and what the warrant may cover. Rule 41, in relevant part, previously read: https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/rule_41 (a) Scope and Definitions. (1) Scope. This rule does not modify any statute regulating search or seizure, or the issuance and execution of a search warrant in special circumstances. [...] (b) Authority to Issue a Warrant. At the request of a federal law enforcement officer or an attorney for the government: (1) a magistrate judge with authority in the district—or if none is reasonably available, a judge of a state court of record in the district—has authority to issue a warrant to search for and seize a person or property located within the district; (2) a magistrate judge with authority in the district has authority to issue a warrant for a person or property outside the district if the person or property is located within the district when the warrant is issued but might move or be moved outside the district before the warrant is executed; (3) a magistrate judge—in an investigation of domestic terrorism or international terrorism—with authority in any district in which activities related to the terrorism may have occurred has authority to issue a warrant for a person or property within or outside that district; (4) a magistrate judge with authority in the district has authority to issue a warrant to install within the district a tracking device; the warrant may authorize use of the device to track the movement of a person or property located within the district, outside the district, or both; and (5) a magistrate judge having authority in any district where activities related to the crime may have occurred, or in the District of Columbia, may issue a warrant for property that is located outside the jurisdiction of any state or district, but within any of the following: (A) a United States territory, possession, or commonwealth; (B) the premises—no matter who owns them—of a United States diplomatic or consular mission in a foreign state, including any appurtenant building, part of a building, or land used for the mission's purposes; or (C) a residence and any appurtenant land owned or leased by the United States and used by United States personnel assigned to a United States diplomatic or consular mission in a foreign state.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#4. To: goldilucky, goodnessmarlok, Deckard (#3)
“A magistrate judge with authority in any district where activities related to a crime may have occurred has authority to issue a warrant to use remote access to search electronic storage media and to seize or copy electronically stored information located within or outside that district if: (A) the district where the media or information is located has been concealed through technological means; or (B) in an investigation of a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(5), the media are protected computers that have been damaged without authorization and are located in five or more districts.”
#5. To: nolu chan (#4)
(Edited)
Replies to Comment # 5. You are, of course, referring to
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/636 Might want to read this carefully under "Review by an Article III tribunal"
Rule 41. Search and Seizure
End Trace Mode for Comment # 5.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]