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: 1666
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 # 9.
#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?
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? All good points, but right now I think it is more important to first know how to either protect or infect any computer hacking into ours. Then we can fight the legal fight. So my call to techies, is How do we protect ours and/or infect those hacking into ours?
#11. To: BobCeleste (#9)
I agree.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#9. To: goldilucky (#3)
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.
Replies to Comment # 9.
End Trace Mode for Comment # 9.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]