The FBI wants greater authority to hack overseas computers, according to a law professor.
A Department of Justice proposal to amend Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure would make it easier for domestic law enforcement to hack into the computers of people attempting to protect their anonymity on the internet.
The change in search and seizure rules would mean the FBI could seize targets whose location is “concealed through technological means”, as per the draft rule (key extract below). Concealed through technological means is legal speak for hosted somewhere on the darknet, using Tor or proxies or making use of VPN technology.
Authority to Issue a Warrant. At the request of a federal law enforcement officer or an attorney for the government: (6) a magistrate judge with authority in any district where activities related to a crime may have occurred has authority to issue a warrant to use remote access to search electronic storage media and to seize or copy electronically stored information located within or outside that district if: (A) the district where the media or information is located has been concealed through technological means; or (B) in an investigation of a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(5), the media are protected computers that have been damaged without authorization and are located in five or more districts.
The DoJ has said that the amendment is not meant to give courts the power to issue warrants that authorise searches in foreign countries. Continue reading
This is a MUST WATCH re privacy, NSA and government snooping. H/T Karl Denninger @ The Market Ticker
Of course they have to paint these brave folks as tofu-brained, big brother deluded wackos:
Non-compliance will be punished comrades… Heil Das Amerika.
Seriously though, think about this: You are coerced into a monopolistic, sole-sourced relationship with your electricity provider. You have no real recourse regarding the physical plant that serves your buildings (although you do have a shell-game of selections of primary electricity sources in some areas). Thus, should not the state extend additional protections from ALL predatory / dictatorial actions by these state mandated sole source suppliers that you are tied to?
These brave women carrying the ball forward for you and I:
A mother of three who buys organic food and worries about the dangers of “dirty electricity” has become the face of resistance in Naperville, Ill.
Led away in handcuffs after trying to prevent the installation of a “smart meter” on her home, Jennifer Stahl vows to continue the protest movement that has made this suburban community ground zero in a battle over privacy rights versus modern technology.
“This is unreasonable search and seizure,” said Stahl, 40, who believes the devices designed to monitor power usage are intrusive and pose a health risk. “It definitely is not OK for my utility … to know when I’m home and not home.” Continue reading
“… He asked me would I mind if he searched my vehicle, and I said, ‘Well, yes, I would mind if you searched my vehicle.’ ”
But thanks to the U.S. Supreme Court, the deputy did not have to take no for an answer. In the 2005 case Illinois v. Caballes, the Court declared that “the use of a well-trained narcotics-detection dog…during a lawful traffic stop generally does not implicate legitimate privacy interests.” So the deputy was free to walk his dog around Burns’ truck. “He got out with this dog and went around the car, two or three times,” Burns says. “He came back and said the dog had ‘passively alerted’ on my vehicle.” via This Dog Can Send You to Jail – Reason.com.