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

The courts are our new overlords

[xxxJonBoyxxx]

>> "FBI sneaks radical expansion of power through courts, avoiding public debate."

This is the same route that everyone is pursuing today. Witness the recent changes in gay marriage (court decision), our new national health care "tax" (court decision), political speech contribution limits (court decision) and more.

It's getting to the point where "public debate" leading to "legislation" or "constitutional amendments" (i.e., changes in the law) almost seems like a thing of the past. Instead, you just stack the highest court you can find with like-minded people, then shove court cases involving your favorite issues at them until they issue the ruling you want - no messy democracy needed!

How do they do this?

[Jiro]

Could someone please explain to me exactly what the Supreme Court does? I didn't even know that they do this kind of thing. I thought they heard cases and made rulings on the cases.

Reading the Wikipedia article on the US Supreme Court doesn't help, either. It's all about hearing cases.

Direct Response to NIT Ruling?

[Dr. Evil]

This sounds like a direct response to the recent ruling covered here a few days ago:

https://yro.slashdot.org/story/16/04/21/1718230/in-a-first-judge-throws-out-evidence-obtained-from-fbi-malware

"Based on the foregoing analysis, the Court concludes that the NIT warrant was issued without jurisdiction and thus was void ab initio,"

And now:

"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."

Would be nice to hear from a lawyer if the previous ruling was taken to the supreme court and amended based on... no clue, but some legal reason.

Re:Needs to be said

[Ksevio]

Looking at the list of Corrupt Governments, there seem to be a lot of "big government" countries with the least corruption and a lot of "small/no government" countries at the bottom. Clearly there is a very weak correlation if any between corruption and government size.