SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
FBI Plan to Expand Hacking Powers Moves Forward
Justice Department dismisses concerns over privacy and other rights
Mar 17, 2015
A judiciary panel on Monday quietly approved a rule change that would increase the Federal Bureau of Investigation's surveillance powers, despite concerns over privacy and constitutional rights.
The Judicial Conference Advisory Committee on Criminal Rules voted 11-1 to modify a rule that gives federal judges more flexibility in approving search warrants for electronic data. If passed, it will allow judges to approve warrants for computers that are outside their judicial district, or when the location of the computer is unknown.
Opponents of the rule--which include tech giants alongside privacy advocates--have previously warned of the risks of expanding the FBI's hacking powers. The Department of Justice first requested the modification last October.
The proposed new policy "substantively expands the government's current authority," and "raises a number of monumental and highly complex constitutional, legal and geopolitical concerns," according to Google, which filed comment with the committee last month.
The Justice Department has previously argued that expanding those judicial powers is necessary to target address changes in technology, such as in cases where a single computer network spans multiple jurisdictions, which could stall criminal investigations.
However, as Google points out in its comments, the change risks violating the Fourth Amendment, as it could authorize searches on thousands of internet users whose traffic is routed through a targeted server.
Privacy advocates have been fighting the rule change since it was introduced in November. At the time, the ACLU warned, "The government seeks to conduct its searches using techniques that pose a serious risk to cybersecurity, and that may fail" the constitution's protection against unreasonable search and seizure.
"The government does not describe the almost incomprehensibly large storage capacity of many cloud-based services, the vast amount of personal information now stored on the cloud, or the dizzying array of cloud storage services to which a computer may be connected," ACLU added in its comments to the committee.
Although the committee approved the rule on Monday, it still has to pass a review by the Standing Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure, which generally makes decisions on proposals during its annual meeting in June. If approved by that committee, the rule would next go to the Judicial Conference in September.
From there, it would have to go through the U.S Supreme Court and Congress.
In an unusual move, the Justice Department responded to Google's concerns on Tuesday, claiming that the rule would not result in any searches not currently permitted under law.
Opponents begged to differ.
"Although presented as a minor procedural update, the proposal threatens to expand the government's ability to use malware and so-called 'zero-day exploits' without imposing necessary protections," ACLU attorney Nathan Freed Wessler said in a statement. "The current proposal fails to strike the right balance between safeguarding privacy and internet security and allowing the government to investigate crimes."
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
Nadia Prupis
Nadia Prupis is a former Common Dreams staff writer. She wrote on media policy for Truthout.org and has been published in New America Media and AlterNet. She graduated from UC Santa Barbara with a BA in English in 2008.
A judiciary panel on Monday quietly approved a rule change that would increase the Federal Bureau of Investigation's surveillance powers, despite concerns over privacy and constitutional rights.
The Judicial Conference Advisory Committee on Criminal Rules voted 11-1 to modify a rule that gives federal judges more flexibility in approving search warrants for electronic data. If passed, it will allow judges to approve warrants for computers that are outside their judicial district, or when the location of the computer is unknown.
Opponents of the rule--which include tech giants alongside privacy advocates--have previously warned of the risks of expanding the FBI's hacking powers. The Department of Justice first requested the modification last October.
The proposed new policy "substantively expands the government's current authority," and "raises a number of monumental and highly complex constitutional, legal and geopolitical concerns," according to Google, which filed comment with the committee last month.
The Justice Department has previously argued that expanding those judicial powers is necessary to target address changes in technology, such as in cases where a single computer network spans multiple jurisdictions, which could stall criminal investigations.
However, as Google points out in its comments, the change risks violating the Fourth Amendment, as it could authorize searches on thousands of internet users whose traffic is routed through a targeted server.
Privacy advocates have been fighting the rule change since it was introduced in November. At the time, the ACLU warned, "The government seeks to conduct its searches using techniques that pose a serious risk to cybersecurity, and that may fail" the constitution's protection against unreasonable search and seizure.
"The government does not describe the almost incomprehensibly large storage capacity of many cloud-based services, the vast amount of personal information now stored on the cloud, or the dizzying array of cloud storage services to which a computer may be connected," ACLU added in its comments to the committee.
Although the committee approved the rule on Monday, it still has to pass a review by the Standing Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure, which generally makes decisions on proposals during its annual meeting in June. If approved by that committee, the rule would next go to the Judicial Conference in September.
From there, it would have to go through the U.S Supreme Court and Congress.
In an unusual move, the Justice Department responded to Google's concerns on Tuesday, claiming that the rule would not result in any searches not currently permitted under law.
Opponents begged to differ.
"Although presented as a minor procedural update, the proposal threatens to expand the government's ability to use malware and so-called 'zero-day exploits' without imposing necessary protections," ACLU attorney Nathan Freed Wessler said in a statement. "The current proposal fails to strike the right balance between safeguarding privacy and internet security and allowing the government to investigate crimes."
Nadia Prupis
Nadia Prupis is a former Common Dreams staff writer. She wrote on media policy for Truthout.org and has been published in New America Media and AlterNet. She graduated from UC Santa Barbara with a BA in English in 2008.
A judiciary panel on Monday quietly approved a rule change that would increase the Federal Bureau of Investigation's surveillance powers, despite concerns over privacy and constitutional rights.
The Judicial Conference Advisory Committee on Criminal Rules voted 11-1 to modify a rule that gives federal judges more flexibility in approving search warrants for electronic data. If passed, it will allow judges to approve warrants for computers that are outside their judicial district, or when the location of the computer is unknown.
Opponents of the rule--which include tech giants alongside privacy advocates--have previously warned of the risks of expanding the FBI's hacking powers. The Department of Justice first requested the modification last October.
The proposed new policy "substantively expands the government's current authority," and "raises a number of monumental and highly complex constitutional, legal and geopolitical concerns," according to Google, which filed comment with the committee last month.
The Justice Department has previously argued that expanding those judicial powers is necessary to target address changes in technology, such as in cases where a single computer network spans multiple jurisdictions, which could stall criminal investigations.
However, as Google points out in its comments, the change risks violating the Fourth Amendment, as it could authorize searches on thousands of internet users whose traffic is routed through a targeted server.
Privacy advocates have been fighting the rule change since it was introduced in November. At the time, the ACLU warned, "The government seeks to conduct its searches using techniques that pose a serious risk to cybersecurity, and that may fail" the constitution's protection against unreasonable search and seizure.
"The government does not describe the almost incomprehensibly large storage capacity of many cloud-based services, the vast amount of personal information now stored on the cloud, or the dizzying array of cloud storage services to which a computer may be connected," ACLU added in its comments to the committee.
Although the committee approved the rule on Monday, it still has to pass a review by the Standing Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure, which generally makes decisions on proposals during its annual meeting in June. If approved by that committee, the rule would next go to the Judicial Conference in September.
From there, it would have to go through the U.S Supreme Court and Congress.
In an unusual move, the Justice Department responded to Google's concerns on Tuesday, claiming that the rule would not result in any searches not currently permitted under law.
Opponents begged to differ.
"Although presented as a minor procedural update, the proposal threatens to expand the government's ability to use malware and so-called 'zero-day exploits' without imposing necessary protections," ACLU attorney Nathan Freed Wessler said in a statement. "The current proposal fails to strike the right balance between safeguarding privacy and internet security and allowing the government to investigate crimes."
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.