The rules for how the Department of Justice tracks down criminals in the digital age are woefully arcane, but the DoJ's recent proposed changes to update those rules go way too far, using vague terms to grant sweeping remote search powers that would take a torrential horse piss on the Fourth Amendment. <\/p>\n
Under the auspices of probable cause, it'd give FBI agents the power to install tracking malware on computers all over the world, without telling people they've started surveillance. Even though it looks like a minor rule change, the proposal would make it much easier for FBI agents to get warrants on computers without first figuring out their exact location. It gives judges much more flexibility on handing out remote search warrants outside of their jurisdictions. And that would give federal agents way more power to search computers. <\/p>\n
This proposal isn't just the DOJ being Big Brothery for no reason. Remote computer searches are difficult to execute right now and that's an obstacle for combating digital crime and hunting criminals who use anonymizing software. This is a real problem, and something that needs to be addressed. But not this way. This is like using a nuke instead of a sniper rifle, and it's going to blow up our privacy rights. <\/p>\n
I'm not going to lie, I didn't think I'd ever write an article about a DOJ procedural change because frankly, that sounds like comically dull policy housekeeping. And comically dull is what they were going for: It's a lot easier to slip in a major expansion of power if no one cares enough to pay attention. <\/p>\n
But this proposal is way too big not to notice, no matter how boring-sounding and rote the DOJ tries to make it. <\/p>\n
\"Basically, we think this is a substantive legal change masquerading as a mere procedural rule change,\" Electronic Frontier Foundation staff counsel Hanni Fakhoury told me via email. \"The government is essentially pushing for approval of the idea that it should have the power to deploy malware and execute remote searches. To us, it seems like that's a decision Congress should make.\" <\/p>\n
The vague language of these rules could galvanize an avalanche of covert government surveillance by making it totally OK in certain situations to search peoples' computers without ever letting them know. And that's a violation of the Bill of Rights hidden inside a wonky-sounding procedural adjustment. <\/p>\n
Right now, law enforcement officials can get a warrant to search computers remotely, as long as they have probable cause. But, apart from rare, limited circumstances, they need to find the right jurisdiction to petition for a warrant, and they need to give notice of their searches to whoever they're investigating. Notice is an important part of our Fourth Amendment privacy right. It's generally not legal for FBI agents to search you and never tell you. Except this change would make it so. <\/p>\n
\"The rule itself would be an acknowledgement that remote access searches are valid without notice, without special justification,\" Electronic Privacy Information Center general counsel Alan Butler told me. \"Notice is one of the essential procedural protections of the Fourth Amendment. Validating a rule that implies that notice will never happen does not comport with the Fourth Amendment.\" <\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
See original here: The rules for how the Department of Justice tracks down criminals in the digital age are woefully arcane, but the DoJ's recent proposed changes to update those rules go way too far, using vague terms to grant sweeping remote search powers that would take a torrential horse piss on the Fourth Amendment. Under the auspices of probable cause, it'd give FBI agents the power to install tracking malware on computers all over the world, without telling people they've started surveillance. Even though it looks like a minor rule change, the proposal would make it much easier for FBI agents to get warrants on computers without first figuring out their exact location Continue reading
\nThe DOJ Is Sneaking in a Policy That'd Crap All Over the 4th Amendment<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"