Supreme Court Quietly Approves Rule to Give FBI 'Sprawling' Hacking Powers
Absent action by Congress, the rule change will go into effect in December
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."
Urgent. It's never been this bad.
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 from the outset was 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 and doing some of its best and most important work, the threats we face are intensifying. Right now, with just four days to go in our Spring Campaign, we are not even halfway to our goal. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Can you make a gift right now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? There is no backup plan or rainy day fund. There is only you. —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
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."
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."