The rule would allow a federal judge to issue a warrant for any target using anonymity software like Tor to browse the internet.
(Photo: Ben Watkin/flickr/cc)
Apr 29, 2016
On Thursday, the U.S. Supreme Court quietly approved a rule change allowing a federal magistrate judge to issue a search and seizure warrant for any target using anonymity software like Tor to browse the internet.
Absent action by U.S. Congress, the rule change (pdf) will go into effect in December. The FBI would then be able to search computers remotely--even if the bureau doesn't know where that computer is located--if a user has anonymity software installed on it.
The rule changes, which the FBI said were necessary to combat cybercrime, come amid escalating tensions between the intelligence community and technology and privacy advocates, and just a day after the U.S. House of Representatives advanced a bill that would require the government to obtain a probable cause warrant from a judge before seizing data stored with tech companies such as Facebook, Google, and Dropbox.
"These amendments will have significant consequences for Americans' privacy."
--Sen. Ron Wyden
"Whatever euphemism the FBI uses to describe it--whether they call it a 'remote access search' or a 'network investigative technique'--what we're talking about is government hacking, and this obscure rule change would authorize a lot more of it," said Kevin Bankston, director of the policy advocacy group Open Technology Institute (OTI), which previously testified against the changes. "Congress should stop this power-grab in its tracks and instead demand answers from the FBI, which so far has been ducking Congress' questions on this issue and fighting in court to keep its hacking tactics secret."
As of April, over one million people use Tor just to browse Facebook, the social media platform noted in a blog post.
Chief Justice John Roberts submitted the change to Congress as part of the court's annual collection of amendments to the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, which inform every federal prosecution in the country.
In its current incarnation, Rule 41 stipulates that magistrate judges can only authorize searches within their own jurisdiction. The amendment would allow them to issue warrants to hack into and seize information on a computer if its location has been "concealed through technical means."
Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), one of Congress's more outspoken privacy advocates, slammed the proposal as a "sprawling expansion of government surveillance" and called on Congress to reject it.
"These amendments will have significant consequences for Americans' privacy and the scope of the government's powers to conduct remote surveillance and searches of electronic devices," Wyden said in a statement. "Under the proposed rules, the government would now be able to obtain a single warrant to access and search thousands or millions of computers at once, and the vast majority of the affected computers would belong to the victims, not the perpetrators, of a cybercrime."
"These are complex issues involving privacy, digital security and our Fourth Amendment rights, which require thoughtful debate and public vetting," Wyden said. "Substantive policy changes like these are clearly a job for Congress, the American people and their elected representatives, not an obscure bureaucratic process."
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, The U.S. is on a fast track to authoritarianism like nothing I've ever seen. Meanwhile, corporate news outlets are utterly capitulating to Trump, twisting their coverage to avoid drawing his ire while lining up to stuff cash in his pockets. That's why I believe that Common Dreams is doing the best and most consequential reporting that we've ever done. Our small but mighty team is a progressive reporting powerhouse, covering the news every day that the corporate media never will. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. And to ignite change for the common good. Now here's the key piece that I want all our readers to understand: None of this would be possible without your financial support. That's not just some fundraising cliche. It's the absolute and literal truth. 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. Our Summer Campaign is now underway, and there’s never been a more urgent time for Common Dreams to be as vigilant as possible. Will you donate now to help power the nonprofit, independent reporting of Common Dreams? Thank you for being a vital member of our community. Together, we can keep independent journalism alive when it’s needed most. - 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.
big brothercivil libertiesfbifederal bureau of investigationgovernment surveillancehouse of representativesmass surveillanceprivacytechnologyus congressus supreme court
On Thursday, the U.S. Supreme Court quietly approved a rule change allowing a federal magistrate judge to issue a search and seizure warrant for any target using anonymity software like Tor to browse the internet.
Absent action by U.S. Congress, the rule change (pdf) will go into effect in December. The FBI would then be able to search computers remotely--even if the bureau doesn't know where that computer is located--if a user has anonymity software installed on it.
The rule changes, which the FBI said were necessary to combat cybercrime, come amid escalating tensions between the intelligence community and technology and privacy advocates, and just a day after the U.S. House of Representatives advanced a bill that would require the government to obtain a probable cause warrant from a judge before seizing data stored with tech companies such as Facebook, Google, and Dropbox.
"These amendments will have significant consequences for Americans' privacy."
--Sen. Ron Wyden
"Whatever euphemism the FBI uses to describe it--whether they call it a 'remote access search' or a 'network investigative technique'--what we're talking about is government hacking, and this obscure rule change would authorize a lot more of it," said Kevin Bankston, director of the policy advocacy group Open Technology Institute (OTI), which previously testified against the changes. "Congress should stop this power-grab in its tracks and instead demand answers from the FBI, which so far has been ducking Congress' questions on this issue and fighting in court to keep its hacking tactics secret."
As of April, over one million people use Tor just to browse Facebook, the social media platform noted in a blog post.
Chief Justice John Roberts submitted the change to Congress as part of the court's annual collection of amendments to the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, which inform every federal prosecution in the country.
In its current incarnation, Rule 41 stipulates that magistrate judges can only authorize searches within their own jurisdiction. The amendment would allow them to issue warrants to hack into and seize information on a computer if its location has been "concealed through technical means."
Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), one of Congress's more outspoken privacy advocates, slammed the proposal as a "sprawling expansion of government surveillance" and called on Congress to reject it.
"These amendments will have significant consequences for Americans' privacy and the scope of the government's powers to conduct remote surveillance and searches of electronic devices," Wyden said in a statement. "Under the proposed rules, the government would now be able to obtain a single warrant to access and search thousands or millions of computers at once, and the vast majority of the affected computers would belong to the victims, not the perpetrators, of a cybercrime."
"These are complex issues involving privacy, digital security and our Fourth Amendment rights, which require thoughtful debate and public vetting," Wyden said. "Substantive policy changes like these are clearly a job for Congress, the American people and their elected representatives, not an obscure bureaucratic process."
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.
On Thursday, the U.S. Supreme Court quietly approved a rule change allowing a federal magistrate judge to issue a search and seizure warrant for any target using anonymity software like Tor to browse the internet.
Absent action by U.S. Congress, the rule change (pdf) will go into effect in December. The FBI would then be able to search computers remotely--even if the bureau doesn't know where that computer is located--if a user has anonymity software installed on it.
The rule changes, which the FBI said were necessary to combat cybercrime, come amid escalating tensions between the intelligence community and technology and privacy advocates, and just a day after the U.S. House of Representatives advanced a bill that would require the government to obtain a probable cause warrant from a judge before seizing data stored with tech companies such as Facebook, Google, and Dropbox.
"These amendments will have significant consequences for Americans' privacy."
--Sen. Ron Wyden
"Whatever euphemism the FBI uses to describe it--whether they call it a 'remote access search' or a 'network investigative technique'--what we're talking about is government hacking, and this obscure rule change would authorize a lot more of it," said Kevin Bankston, director of the policy advocacy group Open Technology Institute (OTI), which previously testified against the changes. "Congress should stop this power-grab in its tracks and instead demand answers from the FBI, which so far has been ducking Congress' questions on this issue and fighting in court to keep its hacking tactics secret."
As of April, over one million people use Tor just to browse Facebook, the social media platform noted in a blog post.
Chief Justice John Roberts submitted the change to Congress as part of the court's annual collection of amendments to the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, which inform every federal prosecution in the country.
In its current incarnation, Rule 41 stipulates that magistrate judges can only authorize searches within their own jurisdiction. The amendment would allow them to issue warrants to hack into and seize information on a computer if its location has been "concealed through technical means."
Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), one of Congress's more outspoken privacy advocates, slammed the proposal as a "sprawling expansion of government surveillance" and called on Congress to reject it.
"These amendments will have significant consequences for Americans' privacy and the scope of the government's powers to conduct remote surveillance and searches of electronic devices," Wyden said in a statement. "Under the proposed rules, the government would now be able to obtain a single warrant to access and search thousands or millions of computers at once, and the vast majority of the affected computers would belong to the victims, not the perpetrators, of a cybercrime."
"These are complex issues involving privacy, digital security and our Fourth Amendment rights, which require thoughtful debate and public vetting," Wyden said. "Substantive policy changes like these are clearly a job for Congress, the American people and their elected representatives, not an obscure bureaucratic process."
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.