Supreme Court Gives FBI More Hacking Power (theintercept.com)

An anonymous reader cites an article on The Intercept (edited and condensed): The Supreme Court on Thursday approved changes that would make it easier for the FBI to hack into computers, many of them belonging to victims of cybercrime. The changes, which will take immediate effect in December unless Congress adopts competing legislation, would allow the FBI go hunting for anyone browsing the Internet anonymously in the U.S. with a single warrant. Previously, under the federal rules on criminal procedures, a magistrate judge couldn't approve a warrant request to search a computer remotely if the investigator didn't know where the computer was -- because it might be outside his or her jurisdiction. The rule change would allow a magistrate judge to issue a warrant to search or seize an electronic device if the target is using anonymity software like Tor."Unbelievable," said Edward Snowden. "FBI sneaks radical expansion of power through courts, avoiding public debate." Ahmed Ghappour, a visiting professor at University of California Hastings Law School, has described it as "possibly the broadest expansion of extraterritorial surveillance power since the FBI's inception."

Comments

So SCOTUS says anonymous software = illegal

[Anonymous Coward]

"search or seize an electronic device if the target is using anonymity software like Tor"

They basically ruled that using the Tor Browser or any anonymity software is an admission you must be doing something wrong so therefore the warrant covers it all.

What is innocent until proven guilty?

"immediate effect in December"

Either the effect is immediate (this means NOW) or in December (which means later). What is the English language?

Re:So SCOTUS says anonymous software = illegal

[tranquilidad]

"search or seize an electronic device if the target is using anonymity software like Tor"

That might be what the article said but that's not what the Supreme Court said in its letter to Congress and the President.

The Supreme Court said:

(b) Venue for a Warrant Application. At the request of a federal law enforcement officer or an attorney for the government:
* * * * *
(6) 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;

The change here is that a magistrate can now issue a warrant to remotely access or size electronic information outside their district if the location of that equipment is concealed. What's changed is that a magistrate can now issue a warrant for something outside their district rather than only for devices within their district; but only if the location of the device is concealed.

Re:So SCOTUS says anonymous software = illegal

[tranquilidad]

Here's the problem they want to solve:

If a device is thought to contain evidence and a judge is convinced to issue a warrant, which, admittedly isn't necessarily a high bar, then the only judge that can issue a warrant today is a judge with jurisdiction over whatever geographic area in which the device is located. If the location of the device is unknown then no judge can issue a warrant.

If the device is going to be physically seized then the location will, ultimately, need to be known.

However, if the device is going to be accessed remotely then the location doesn't need to be known but a warrant is still needed.

I do see a bigger problem if the device is located outside the jurisdiction of the United States. What is the issue of a U.S. judge issuing a warrant that gathers information from a device located in Germany; especially if access to that data violates German law?

So, what's the balance? If the location of the device is unknown does that mean that no judge may ever issue a warrant to gather information? Or, does hiding a device open the device to warrants from any jurisdiction?

Re:Needs to be said

[TheGratefulNet]

this isn't 'big government'.

this is corruption, pure and simple, and can happen even in the smallest of governments.

please explain why you think 'size matters' (ahem..) in this kind of situation.

human psychology kicks in, here. humans love to control and manipulate each other. stanford prisoner experiment and all that. this is what happens when you give unlimited power to ANY kind of authority figure; large, small, doesn't matter.

this is why checks and balances are so important.

sadly, we threw out the balance and we only have the check left....

Re:Needs to be said

[Anonymous Coward]

"Big Government" is a term explicitly used to justify the elimination of social programs such as medicaid, social security and education.

In no instance of any 'fight' against "Big Government" has corporate welfare, military overspending and the vast overreaching groping rapehands of our overzealous intelligence apparatus *ever* so much as once been placed or suggested as the necessary cuts.

These are the oversized moneysinks being used to strangle both our rights and our economy, and none of us outside of their actual apparatus ever wanted them around.

Yet we're forced to pick between cutting education and refusing our retirees the retirement investment they've spent their entire working life paying into, "to get rid of big government"