3 ms·
Yep, as <slapshot> says, the HN headline is in error and should be changed. At the very least the word "automatic" should be deleted. It incorrectly implies la
by declan 12y ago
Yep, as <slapshot> says, the HN headline is in error and should be changed.
At the very least the word "automatic" should be deleted. It incorrectly implies lack of discretion on the part of the magistrate judge.
Now, perhaps many magistrate judges may be too willing to issue warrants, but that's a different discussion. And there have been plenty of examples where they've raised important issues dealing with electronic surveillance; I highlighted Magistrate Judge Orenstein's opinion re: warrantless cell tracking in this 2005 article: http://news.cnet.com/Police-blotter-Cell-phone-tracking-rejected/2100-1030_3-5846037.html http://news.cnet.com/Police-blotter-Cell-phone-tracking-reje...
- dang 12y agoCan anyone please suggest an accurate title? We will change it.
- DEinspanjer 12y agoFBI seeks flexibility for venue of warrants against users of VPN and Tor (p. 338) seems like a reasonable improvement.
- mkempe 12y agoWhere "flexibility" means dropping a constitutional requirement. "... no 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." We'll just invade a computer hiding its location, your honor. No, probably not in your district. Sign here.
- jauer 12y agoOr, it is keeping with it by saying that the logical place to be searched is a acceptable description. That seems appropriate for a logical entity (or at least one where the physicality of it is transient and irrelevant).
- declan 12y agoThis might work: "U.S. judges propose updating warrants for Tor, remote searches: p338 (2014)" It captures that the source of these recommendations is a judicial conference of federal judges, not the FBI, and that it's dated August 2014. And it mentions the more interesting section (to me) on page 340, which is the fact that warrants could authorize "remote access to search electronic storage and seize or copy electronically stored information" via the Internet. Not perfect, but it seems workable...
- dang 12y agoThanks! We'll use that unless someone suggests a better one.
- mkempe 12y agoIf the requirement to issue a warrant is merely that one is using a technological means of hiding one's location, the warrant becomes an automatic consequence of using VPN or Tor. The warrant would be for the FBI to remotely search and grab electronic records. If you use or have used VPN or Tor, then any judge anywhere in the US, could sign a warrant for the FBI to invade your computer.