100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
| Topic: Rule 41 | |
|---|---|
|
Edited by
SassyEuro2
on
Sun 09/18/16 09:31 AM
|
|
‘Rule 41’ change allows FBI ‘mass surveillance’ if Congress does nothing (VIDEO)
The deadline is December 1. If Congress fails to act, the FBI gains the power to hack and surveil an unlimited number of computers, based on just one warrant from any federal judge. “Rule 41” marks a new line drawn in the cybersecurity-privacy battle. The US court system has a process through which the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure are amended, and because these decisions are not made by elected officials, they are not supposed to deal with changes in the law or enacting policy. Changes to Rule 41, however, will remove the limits on how the FBI can obtain search warrants for computer networks. As of now, a federal judge may authorize the feds to install malware to hack computers suspected to be involved in criminal activity. That judge may only issue the warrant when the device is in his or her jurisdiction, though. That barrier is scheduled to be lifted December 1, unless Congress prevents it. It means it will be legal for the government to “hack anyone,” as Senator Ron Wyden (D-Oregon) puts it in an op-ed article he helped write for Wired magazine Wednesday. “The unintended consequences could be staggering,” the piece reads. “With just six work weeks remaining on the Senate schedule and a long Congressional to-do list, time is running out,” it continues. The article calls for passage of Wyden’s Stop Mass Hacking Act to block the change. Proponents of the automatic change say it will assist law enforcement in tracking cyber criminals, including terrorists and child pornographers. But the federal government’s secrecy surrounding its own cyber tools leaves skeptics doubting the official claims. In an interview with RT, Derrick Broze of Activist Post warns the Rule 41 change represents “one more step in the march toward a total surveillance state.” While that doesn’t ring of much optimism for the average citizen, Broze also points out that the government itself may face unintended consequences as well. READ MORE: Cover your webcams, says FBI chief “It seems obvious that any tool the government puts out there with the intention of trying to catch criminals could easily be reverse-engineered and used against them or other innocent Americans,” Broze says, adding that the government could open itself up to lawsuits as a result. Senator Wyden made similar points in a Senate floor speech on September 8, citing “scores of cybersecurity experts” who have written in opposition of the Rule 41 change. One of their key points, he said, was that rather than helping victims of cybercrimes, the expanded surveillance powers would risk further harm. “You don't punish victims twice in America,” Wyden said. “You wouldn't punish the victims of a tax scam or a Ponzi scheme with a painful audit. That's what can happen here.” While awareness of the Rule 41 change is only now reaching the mainstream, major technology firms have opposed it for some time. In February 2015, Google wrote the change had “constitutional, legal, and geopolitical concerns.” More recently, Google has joined 49 other tech companies in a coalition united under the banner of “No global warrants.” Pleas for congressional hearings on the matter have yet to be answered. In a June letter publicly released Friday, it is revealed that Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont), the top ranking minority member on the Judiciary Committee, and Senator Mike Lee (R-Utah), who also is on the committee, asked that Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) call a hearing on proposed Rule 41 changes. “We recognize that the changing technological landscape and evolving threats require law enforcement to employ new techniques to investigate and prosecute crime,” the letter reads, according to Politico. “But these issues should be debated in a public forum by the American people and their elected representatives.”  http://www.rt.com/usa/359488-rule-41-fbi-surveillance-change-congress/ With Rule 41, Little-Known Committee Proposes to Grant New Hacking Powers to the Government | Electronic Frontier Foundation http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/04/rule-41-little-known-committee-proposes-grant-new-hacking-powers-government/ Rule 41 would make it easier for the government to carry out hacks | Ars Technica http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/04/rule-41-would-make-it-easier-for-the-government-to-carry-out-hacks/ http://rulesoftheinternet.com/ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stasi tactics in the U.S.
Never a good thing. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Dodo_David
on
Sun 09/18/16 11:52 AM
|
 What is with the fear-mongering? Here is the U.S. Department of Justice's report about Rule 41. Congress is currently considering proposed amendments to Rule 41, which are scheduled to take effect on Dec. 1, 2016.
This marks the end of a three-year deliberation process, which included extensive written comments and public testimony. After hearing the public's views, the federal judiciary's Advisory Committee on the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, which includes federal and state judges, law professors, attorneys in private practice and others in the legal community, rejected criticisms of the proposal as misinformed and approved the amendments. The amendments were then considered and unanimously approved by the Standing Committee on Rules and the Judicial Conference, and adopted by the U.S. Supreme Court. The amendments do not change any of the traditional protections and procedures under the Fourth Amendment, such as the requirement that the government establish probable cause. Rather, the amendments would merely ensure that at least one court is available to consider whether a particular warrant application comports with the Fourth Amendment. The amendments would not authorize the government to undertake any search or seizure or use any remote search technique, whether inside or outside the United States, that is not already permitted under current law. The use of remote searches is not new and warrants for remote searches are currently issued under Rule 41. In addition, most courts already permit the search of multiple computers pursuant to a single warrant so long as necessary legal requirements are met. The amendments would apply in two narrow circumstances: First, where a suspect has hidden the location of his or her computer using technological means, the changes to Rule 41 would ensure that federal agents know which judge to go to in order to apply for a warrant. For example, if agents are investigating criminals who are sexually exploiting children and uploading videos of that exploitation for others to see — but concealing their locations through anonymizing technology — agents will be able to apply for a search warrant to discover where they are located. A recent investigation that utilized this type of search warrant identified dozens of children who suffered sexual abuse at the hands of the offenders. While some federal courts hearing cases arising from this investigation have upheld the warrant as lawful, others have ordered the suppression of evidence based solely on the lack of clear venue in the current version of the rule. And second, where the crime involves criminals hacking computers located in five or more different judicial districts, the changes to Rule 41 would ensure that federal agents may identify one judge to review an application for a search warrant rather than be required to submit separate warrant applications in each district — up to 94 — where a computer is affected. For example, agents may seek a search warrant to assist in the investigation of a ransomware scheme facilitated by a botnet that enables criminals abroad to extort thousands of Americans. Absent the amendments, the requirement to obtain up to 94 simultaneous search warrants may prevent investigators from taking needed action to liberate computers infected with malware. This change would not permit indiscriminate surveillance of thousands of victim computers — that is against the law now and it would continue to be prohibited if the amendment goes into effect. These changes would ensure a court-supervised framework through which law enforcement can successfully investigate and prosecute these instances of cybercrime. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
SassyEuro2
on
Sun 09/18/16 01:34 PM
|
|
What is with the fear-mongering? Hummm... has there been any rainbow & unicorn news, since New York time, 8:30pm , last night? I would LOVE to hear it. |
|
|
|
|
