4 ms·

Snooper's Charter US version. I wonder if their new found hacking powers will survive a court challenge, or will it only be used in parallel prosecutions so no

Snooper's Charter US version. I wonder if their new found hacking powers will survive a court challenge, or will it only be used in parallel prosecutions so no court ever sees it. Guessing the latter.

TazeTSchnitzel 10y ago
Making it difficult to prove standing is a brilliant workaround to unconstitutionality.
- 0xcde4c3db 10y ago
  For those who only started following these issues recently, standing arguments have been used for years to dismiss lawsuits against warrantless domestic surveillance. Basically, the court says that you can't sue a government agency for illegally wiretapping you unless you had evidence that they were actually wiretapping you. Which you obviously didn't, because such programs are classified and the wiretapper isn't going to volunteer that information. But since you can't prove that your rights are being violated, you don't get to bring a lawsuit.
  - rhizome 10y ago
    And even if you do know they were wiretapping you: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Haramain_Foundation#Al-Haramain_suit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Haramain_Foundation#Al-Hara...
tzs 10y ago
> Snooper's Charter US version. That's complete and utter nonsense. The Snooper's Charter grants the UK government many new powers, and places obligations and restrictions on ISPs. It makes substantial substantive changes to the requirements for law enforcement to justify snooping and spying in the UK. The Rule 41 change only applies to warrants seeking to access electronic documents, and makes no changes to what evidence must be presented to justify a warrant. It just changes, in two specific situations, where that evidence can be presented. These situations are: 1. If it cannot be determined where the computer containing the documents is located, and the location has been hidden by technological means, then the warrant can be issued by a judge in any district in which the crime being investigated may have taken place. Under the old rule, the warrant had to be issued by a judge in the district where the computer was located, and so if that location could not be determined then investigators were out of luck. 2. If the crime being investigated is a violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, and the damaged computer are in five or more districts, then the warrant can be issued in any district where the crime may have occurred. Under the old rule, it had to be issued in the district where the computer was located. This is not even remotely like the Snooper's Charter.
- shostack 10y ago
  Which means they can now shop around for judges until they get the answer they want. Right up there with the UK in terms of severity since this means they can keep up doing what they have been doing.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]

TazeTSchnitzel 10y ago

Making it difficult to prove standing is a brilliant workaround to unconstitutionality.

0xcde4c3db 10y ago
For those who only started following these issues recently, standing arguments have been used for years to dismiss lawsuits against warrantless domestic surveillance. Basically, the court says that you can't sue a government agency for illegally wiretapping you unless you had evidence that they were actually wiretapping you. Which you obviously didn't, because such programs are classified and the wiretapper isn't going to volunteer that information. But since you can't prove that your rights are being violated, you don't get to bring a lawsuit.
- rhizome 10y ago
  And even if you do know they were wiretapping you: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Haramain_Foundation#Al-Haramain_suit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Haramain_Foundation#Al-Hara...

tzs 10y ago

> Snooper's Charter US version. That's complete and utter nonsense. The Snooper's Charter grants the UK government many new powers, and places obligations and restrictions on ISPs. It makes substantial substantive changes to the requirements for law enforcement to justify snooping and spying in the UK. The Rule 41 change only applies to warrants seeking to access electronic documents, and makes no changes to what evidence must be presented to justify a warrant. It just changes, in two specific situations, where that evidence can be presented. These situations are: 1. If it cannot be determined where the computer containing the documents is located, and the location has been hidden by technological means, then the warrant can be issued by a judge in any district in which the crime being investigated may have taken place. Under the old rule, the warrant had to be issued by a judge in the district where the computer was located, and so if that location could not be determined then investigators were out of luck. 2. If the crime being investigated is a violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, and the damaged computer are in five or more districts, then the warrant can be issued in any district where the crime may have occurred. Under the old rule, it had to be issued in the district where the computer was located. This is not even remotely like the Snooper's Charter.

shostack 10y ago
Which means they can now shop around for judges until they get the answer they want. Right up there with the UK in terms of severity since this means they can keep up doing what they have been doing.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]