
U.S. high court approves rule change to expand FBI hacking power - lucasjans
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-cyber-warrants-highcourt-idUSKCN0XP2XU
======
rayiner
The actual proposed edits are here:
[http://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/frcr16_8mad.p...](http://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/frcr16_8mad.pdf)
(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 § 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.

~~~
Pyxl101
Your facts and legal insights are always appreciated.

------
ptx
> 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.

~~~
cloudjacker
Congress gave the FBI the role to hack any computer anywhere in the world, no
matter who those computers were suspected to belong to.

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.

~~~
Intermernet
Or, rephrased, Congress gave the FBI a mandate they couldn't legally fulfil.

~~~
tptacek
Can you be more specific here? Normally, when Congress tasks an agency with
something, that tasking defines the contours of what is and isn't legal.
Defining "legal" is Congress's job.

------
benevol
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.

~~~
cgearhart
> somebody like Snowden gets elected President

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.

------
lucasjans
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?

~~~
talmand
Doesn't law enforcement already cherry pick judges for the different warrants
that they want?

~~~
nxzero
No, they've got to deal with the jurisdiction that is able to issue a warrant;
until December 1st, 2016.

~~~
talmand
I was meaning in a general sense of the jurisdiction they are in; this new
thing only adds to that ability.

------
disposition2
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.

~~~
CaptSpify
The problem I see is the "it won't happen to me!" attitude. That's how these
bills get passed in the first place, and Congress think they are so high up
the food chain that it won't affect them.

~~~
charonn0
Remind them of NSA spying on the Senate Intelligence Committee.

------
matt_wulfeck
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.

~~~
TACIXAT
What if someone is routing through Tor and they don't have an address but they
do know they are visiting a certain webpage?

------
us0r
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...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Corporation_v._United_States_of_America)

~~~
cloudjacker
It is related to the Silk Road case as well as Playpen users

------
Zelphyr
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.

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

~~~
dang
We changed the title to that of the article, as the HN guidelines request when
the article title is neither misleading nor linkbait. The submitted title was
'US judges can now issue warrants for computers located in any jurisdiction'.

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.

------
dmix
_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.

------
phkahler
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.

~~~
pessimizer
_Suspect jailed indefinitely for refusing to decrypt hard drives_

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11590421](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11590421)

I'm sure President Trump will be a wise steward of his new security apparatus.

~~~
trvz
[https://xkcd.com/538/](https://xkcd.com/538/)

~~~
pessimizer
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rubberhose_%28file_system%29](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rubberhose_%28file_system%29)

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

~~~
cloudjacker
This applies to computers outside of the US.

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.

~~~
rmc
> _This applies to computers outside of the US._

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.

~~~
cloudjacker
Its okay, everyone believes what you do. That doesn't limit the US in any way
from creating court orders against non-US persons located outside of the US,
it doesn't limit them from extraditing them, raiding their property, hacking
and altering their property, and convicting them in US courts and jailing
them, and winning appeals.

Typically regarding raids and property seizures they collaborate with local
authorities in foreign countries, with one FBI agent present to make sure the
raid is compliant with US laws.

Sometimes such compliance violates the local laws, and merely delays
extradition proceedings. But the US typically gets the result it wants by
freezing the property and preventing the person from continuing their
behavior, and if they get the person to the US for jail and trial that is just
icing on the cake.

------
Spooky23
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.

~~~
jessaustin
Whether the latter scenario motivated this change or not, it will be the
dominant result of this change. FBI are nationwide; few of their targets are.
The fact that any particular suspect has the means to challenge a warrant on
the other side of the country will be used as proof that suspect is sitting on
a pile of ill-gotten gains that ought to be frozen. The fact that any other
particular suspect doesn't have such means will be used as proof that the
warrant is valid.

------
drawkbox
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.

------
nxzero
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](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kangaroo_court)

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

~~~
anseljh
Yes, federal magistrate judges.

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

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

------
known
May not work in NK/China

