from Hacker News

U.S. high court approves rule change to expand FBI hacking power

by lucasjans on 4/29/16, 9:28 AM with 62 comments

  • by rayiner on 4/29/16, 2:32 PM

    The actual proposed edits are here: http://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/frcr16_8mad.p... (page 6 of the documents after the letters).

    Note that "jurisdiction" in this context is primarily referring to "venue." Venue is a set of rules within the federal courts' rules of procedure that specify which of the 94 judicial districts within the federal court system particular matters must be brought to. Generally, a warrant must be issued by the court in the district where the person or property to be searched may be found. This change relaxes that requirement under specific circumstances: 1) the location of the computer to be searched has been concealed by some technological means; or 2) for cases under 18 U.S. Code ยง 1030 (fraud in connection with computers). In that case, a judge in any jurisdiction where some of the criminal activity occurred can issue the warrant.

  • by ptx on 4/29/16, 2:04 PM

    > The U.S. Justice Department, which has pushed for the rule change since 2013, has described it as a minor modification needed to modernize the criminal code for the digital age, and has said it would not permit searches or seizures that are not already legal.

    So... "Don't worry about this seemingly bad change, because it will have no effect!"?

    I have a counter-proposal then: Let's not make the change, as that will also have no effect, and everyone will be happy.

  • by benevol on 4/29/16, 4:32 PM

    Let's admit it, we are at the stage where we are discussing nothing but semantics anymore.

    Anyone who's actually followed and understood the Snowden leaks knows that the government will get all the data it wants, legally or not. And it wants all of it.

    Unless somebody like Snowden gets elected President and credibly rolls back the surveillance state we have now, we have absolutely no right to privacy anymore and have become completely manipulable.

  • by lucasjans on 4/29/16, 9:29 AM

    I am not a lawyer but I am curious what affect this will have. Does this mean that the FBI can cherry pick to it's favorite judges to get any wiretap subpoena they need?

    Is there a source of public information to monitor judges actions in giving out these subpoenas?

  • by disposition2 on 4/29/16, 2:29 PM

    Possibly with a little nudge, Congress can be convinced to get behind blocking this. Provided the argument against is framed as, would you Congress-person be okay with a judge in (county / state across the country) having the legal authority to hack in to your machine here in (home county / state)? Because unless I'm confused, this law would apply to Congress-people as well as citizen Joe.

  • by matt_wulfeck on 4/29/16, 5:59 PM

    Why do they need to hack? What's wrong with them showing up at the door with a gun and a warrant and walking off with everything they need?

    My guess is this expansion is for doing things in secret. If they show up at the door of a civil liberties office and issue a warrant people are going to get pissed.

  • by us0r on 4/29/16, 2:21 PM

    I wonder if this is related to Microsoft's case (which has also been going on since 2013)?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Corporation_v._Unite...

  • by Zelphyr on 4/29/16, 7:29 PM

    This and other stories lately are making it clear that the FBI is becoming a military organization instead of a police organization. But the real problem is that their enemy is the American people.

  • by jasonjei on 4/29/16, 2:52 PM

    The title of the submission isn't clear. "[A]ny jurisdiction" implies those extralegal jurisdictions outside of the United States.

  • by dmix on 4/29/16, 9:17 PM

    This is the realistic solution to fighting encryption. Not banning encryption.

    I don't know why this took so long to be clarified in law. Even though they've been doing it for quite some time.

    The "Going Dark" thing was always bullshit. They just have greater difficulty doing passive surveillance now... and actually have to do targeted searches of peoples computers now using warrants. Things like Stingrays can't be used to warrantlessly intercept SMS (as people move to WhatsApp) and most internet traffic is becoming HTTPS. Additionally, warrant-based wiretaps on ISPs and mobile traffic is becoming less useful. Mostly thanks to Snowden.

    This is a good sign IMO, which means that encryption is finally becoming widespread enough that law enforcement has to up their game. It means law enforcement will be forced to do targeted searches, similar to searching houses, and dragnets become less effective.

  • by phkahler on 4/29/16, 1:50 PM

    My first thought on reading the headline is: Everyone use full-disk encryption so they need to order the user to unlock it. You know, since they seem to think the electronic world is separate from people in the real world. But upon reading TFA it sounds like they're hacking them anyway, so no user intervention required.

  • by wrong_variable on 4/29/16, 1:40 PM

    Does it only apply to computers within the borders of the US or also outside of it ?

  • by Spooky23 on 4/29/16, 2:20 PM

    I think this makes sense at one level -- say they are investigating a crime in NYC where players are located in NYC, North Jersey, Ulster County NY, and Connecticut. It seems weird that 4 judges should be involved in that sort of thing.

    On the other hand, if routine motions to squash or otherwise deal with a case in NYC need to be filed and litigated in Northern Oklahoma or Hawaii, obviously that becomes a big overreach that makes doing business with the court a major hassle and very expensive, as you need lawyers accredited in multiple places.

  • by drawkbox on 4/29/16, 8:55 PM

    Freedoms/rights only go in one direction, they slowly erode unless reset and fought for.

    People lose sight of why it is important to have privacy for short term reasons, and why the Constitution and Bill of Rights are what they are.

    It will eventually come back around to these FBI guys (and politicians), we'll all be burned by it one day. Even the ones taking away rights/freedoms/privacy, they all have something to hide because they like personal privacy, one day they won't have it.

  • by nxzero on 4/29/16, 10:59 PM

    Anyone able to explain why explicitly not an attempt to circumvent due process and create a kangaroo court:

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kangaroo_court

  • by nkrisc on 4/29/16, 3:51 PM

    I assume this affects Federal judges, is that correct? I couldn't tell for sure from article.

  • by Fjolsvith on 5/1/16, 11:29 PM

    So, how do you keep the FBI out of your computer?

  • by duaneb on 4/29/16, 9:31 PM

    This is pretty scary, but highly preferable to gag warrants.

  • by known on 4/29/16, 3:58 PM

    May not work in NK/China