3 ms·

I think you're over-reacting, this change just allows the FBI to pursue investigations on the internet. Having these jurisdictions made sense in the time of hor

I think you're over-reacting, this change just allows the FBI to pursue investigations on the internet. Having these jurisdictions made sense in the time of horse and buggy when people weren't as mobile, but a crime committed on an IP address, forcing the FBI to get a warrant from a SPECIFIC judge where the IP address matches the jurisdiction seems unnecessary and doesn't provide much actual value. The term hacking is overloaded anyway. If a criminal is hiding out in a concrete building with a big steel door, is the FBI committing burglary with burglary tools if they use a pick gun to pick the door lock? I don't think so. Just because a method (hacking, lockpicking, etc) is used, doesn't make it automatically some evil conspiracy to hack into everyone's machines all the time and blackmail you based on your usage habits and personal preferences for things like political affiliation, sexuality, religion, etc.

StanislavPetrov 10y ago
Completely wrong. Among other things it codifies the use of general warrants by the FBI, one of the prime reasons we went to war in 1776.
- tzs 10y ago
  Where, specifically? For your reference, here is Rule 41 with the differences marked: https://www.justsecurity.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/proposed-amendment-rule-41.pdf https://www.justsecurity.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/prop...
  - belovedeagle 10y ago
    In general I think the problems with this change have been slightly overstated. However, GP is correct. The Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution provides in relevant part: > [N]o Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. A general warrant is one which does not "particularly describ[e] the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized". The amended rule provides in relevant part > A magistrate judge [...] has authority to issue a warrant to use remote access to search electronic storage media [of which the location] has been concealed through technological means. Now, one doesn't have to be a constitutional scholar to see that "the place to be searched" hasn't been interpreted recently (if ever) to mean "latitude and longitude". However, there's a valid concern that the inability to even place the "where" to a particular jurisdiction is a massive weakening of the requirement to "particularly describ[e]". It may indeed be so weak that the result can be fairly called a "general warrant". How could the warrant be written otherwise? What information could it contain? I speculate the "description" will amount, in practice, to "unknown hard drive in unknown location, possibly containing X contents". That is a general warrant, because no hard drive fails to meet those criteria.

StanislavPetrov 10y ago

Completely wrong. Among other things it codifies the use of general warrants by the FBI, one of the prime reasons we went to war in 1776.

tzs 10y ago
Where, specifically? For your reference, here is Rule 41 with the differences marked: https://www.justsecurity.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/proposed-amendment-rule-41.pdf https://www.justsecurity.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/prop...
- belovedeagle 10y ago
  In general I think the problems with this change have been slightly overstated. However, GP is correct. The Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution provides in relevant part: > [N]o Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. A general warrant is one which does not "particularly describ[e] the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized". The amended rule provides in relevant part > A magistrate judge [...] has authority to issue a warrant to use remote access to search electronic storage media [of which the location] has been concealed through technological means. Now, one doesn't have to be a constitutional scholar to see that "the place to be searched" hasn't been interpreted recently (if ever) to mean "latitude and longitude". However, there's a valid concern that the inability to even place the "where" to a particular jurisdiction is a massive weakening of the requirement to "particularly describ[e]". It may indeed be so weak that the result can be fairly called a "general warrant". How could the warrant be written otherwise? What information could it contain? I speculate the "description" will amount, in practice, to "unknown hard drive in unknown location, possibly containing X contents". That is a general warrant, because no hard drive fails to meet those criteria.