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.
Thus searches that were illegal are now legal.
Otherwise why bother making any change?
When it needed a warrant it had a pretty complicated process, and frequently resorted to gaining cooperation with the local authorities in another country and getting dual local warrant equivalents in another country. A costly redundancy and not always achievable.
The FBI is just getting the US court system to help with the mandate Congress already gave them.
They are clearly lying through indirection unfortunately. :P
The FBI has already been doing this, Congress authorized the FBI to conduct all of the state sponsored hacking. It was just a little complicated.
No US law applies outside the US (or US flagged ships etc).
The USA might like this to apply, but that doesn't make it true.
Is there a source of public information to monitor judges actions in giving out these subpoenas?
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11590421
I'm sure President Trump will be a wise steward of his new security apparatus.
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.
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 § 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.
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.
It's hard to predict what exact conditions would be required to make a difference, but a privacy/security-aware President is not sufficient. We need a more educated population and congressional representatives (and perhaps supreme court) far more than the presidency.
We are headed for something bad with the cavalier way we treat data, the only real question is how terrible the consequences will be when it happens.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Corporation_v._Unite...
Submitters: please don't rewrite an article's title to make a point. That's editorializing and not allowed in post titles here. You're welcome to share what you think is important about a piece by posting a comment in the thread.
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.
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.
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.
