In the Goldman Sachs case I do recall charges being brought in certain states where CFAA laws were more favorable for the prosecution, and those charges being t

In the Goldman Sachs case I do recall charges being brought in certain states where CFAA laws were more favorable for the prosecution, and those charges being thrown out on appeal because they were brought in the wrong jurisdiction. I don't see how this changes that. This is a procedural change the Surpeme Court already voted in favor of. The title is clickbait from what I can tell. I'm much more concerned with recent erosion of the right to remain silent. Hacking powers are not being expanded. A loophole that has stymied investigations had been closed. Now what we do need is reasonable limits on the scope of allowable warrants to prevent dragnets. The more interesting question is whether the FBI should be allowed to use drive-by malware to infect all visitors of a site, and if so under which very well defined circumstances? What TFA missed is the reason we are worried about this rule change is that it could make dragnets easier to get seemingly valid warrants for. E.g. Even if Hidden Services are not being used, investigator claims it's not 'reasonable' to get warrants for each IP accessing a site and so just infects all visitors with malware to scan the hard drive and local network for some evidence. But that needs to be illegal for more than just the reason of not knowing what jurisdiction to get the warrant in.