3 ms·
See my post in this thread that quotes the rule change. This is entirely about venue for search warrants. A valid warrant is still required, ALL this rule cha
by tomku 10y ago
See my post in this thread that quotes the rule change. This is entirely about venue for search warrants. A valid warrant is still required, ALL this rule change does is expand which jurisdictions the government can apply for the warrant in.
- nxzero 10y agoYes, read the full ruling and your comment when it was posted. I do not see a conflict with what was said and what my statements. Meaning currently say there are 5000 devices in NYC the FBI is already legally allowed to hack into them and remotely copy all the contents of those files without due process or notice to the owners? ________ EDIT(Re: "General warrants" comment below) Just to be clear, me reading of your comment is that "general warrants" that allow the FBI to download the contents of any computer that's in a botnet within the jurisdiction of the warrant provided is legal and the owner is not required to be notified unless that owner happens to be the defendant in the filing. Further, unless that warrant is later proven illegal, owner is legally accountable for the contents of the computer unless they're able to prove that they are not the party responsible for in illegal activities "discovered" in the process.
- JoshTriplett 10y agoAs ridiculous as I find this particular change, in general, warrants do legally constitute "due process" for a search. EDIT: added a comma after "in general" for clarity.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- nxzero 10y agoMeaning you're saying that all device owners would be notified of that there computer was remotely accessed and all the contents were copied, right? To me, ruling reads that only the defendants, if known, must be notified.