Here is the actual text: https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/rule_41 https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/rule_41 There's nothing wrong with being aga

Here is the actual text: https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/rule_41 https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/rule_41 There's nothing wrong with being against this, but this seems like a huge stretch of the words "new" and "hacking" to the point of absurdity. They are already allowed to remotely access this information based on the case that fired this off - the issue wasn't with their methodology but who issued the warrant. The entirety of what this rule changes is it defines special circumstances where it is appropriate for the judges in a district of a victim instead of the perpetrator to issue a warrant to do things that are already allowed. > Under the proposed amendment, however, investigators could not obtain a search warrant merely because a user's location is concealed through technological means. > The proposed amendment does not alter that rule, but instead provides an alternative means of satisfying Rule 41's venue provisions. The rule clearly does not change anything about what is required to get a warrant, and concealment does not lower the bar for getting a warrant. The only thing that changes under this rule is it lays out scenarios where you would not be able to suppress evidence due to improper venue just because the warrant wasn't issued in the district you performed the crime from but instead where the crime actually occurred. I'm not dismissing the concerns of all of those writing about this - just based on the comments and scenarios being laid out in them I think technically knowledgeable people are assuming the words "new" and "hacking" are being used correctly here without even looking into what has actually changed. This also means people are completely unaware of what the government is already allowed to do apparently. If everyone here got their way and this was magically blocked right now, absolutely nothing would change about what the FBI is allowed to do - only what evidence could be challenged if they ask judge A when they should have asked judge B (and can show they couldn't figure out that they were supposed to ask judge B (that's where the technological concealment comes in)).