Supreme Court Approves Rule Change That Expands FBI's Hacking Abilities

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
Yesterday the US Supreme Court approved a rule change that makes it easier for the Department of Justice to obtain warrants for computers and electronic devices. Congress has until December 1st to reject or change the rule. If no action is taken by then, the rule immediately goes into effect.

The Supreme Court on Thursday approved a rule change that would let U.S. judges issue search warrants for access to computers located in any jurisdiction despite opposition from civil liberties groups who say it will greatly expand the FBI's hacking authority. U.S. Chief Justice John Roberts transmitted the rules to Congress, which will have until Dec. 1 to reject or modify the changes to the federal rules of criminal procedure. If Congress does not act, the rules would take effect automatically.
 
As long as the burden of proof is comparable to physical searches then why not?

The follow up question is what type of notification is required once a warrant is executed? If notification is not required, is there different burden of proof, like I believe a no knock warrant requires?
 
From what was in the report the only change is that essentially the court's jurisdiction limitations is lifted. I didn't read anything about any other changes.
 
lcpiper said:
From what was in the report the only change is that essentially the court's jurisdiction limitations is lifted. I didn't read anything about any other changes.
Click to expand...

Yep, the issue with that is if Judge X in jurisdiction X doesn't give you the warrant that you want, go to Judge Y in jurisdiction Y that will give it to you, or if not Judge Y, any one of the ~700 judges at that level can now give you a warrant that is valid anywhere in the nation..

It basically removes the requirement to go "up" the judicial chain to get around a Judge that thinks your warrant is overreaching..

So it is a bit worrying, at least from a privacy standpoint.
 
Was there an actual case, or did justice ask for a change and Roberts said, "Okay"? If it was a case, I wonder what the split was (if any).
 
LazN said:
Yep, the issue with that is if Judge X in jurisdiction X doesn't give you the warrant that you want, go to Judge Y in jurisdiction Y that will give it to you, or if not Judge Y, any one of the ~700 judges at that level can now give you a warrant that is valid anywhere in the nation..

It basically removes the requirement to go "up" the judicial chain to get around a Judge that thinks your warrant is overreaching..

So it is a bit worrying, at least from a privacy standpoint.
Click to expand...

I can't say about that one way or the other because I do not know what the requirements are for requesting a warrant. It is entirely possible that although the Judge's jurisdiction has been greatly expanded that it doesn't change a requirement to go see that Judge.

ie ... I am an FBI Agent in the Phoenix, AZ. Station and I am running an investigation of a software piracy outfit running a server in Tucson. I do not know if I am restricted to only seeing the Judge for the Pheonix District even though that Judge now has expanded jurisdiction in case related to electronic communications, internet, etc. Just because all the Judges have expanded Jurisdiction it might not mean I can put all their phone numbers in my Rolodex.

I just can't say for sure.

Typically, Federal Judges have very limited Jurisdictions from my understanding surrounding that last case where the Judge pitched out evidence seized under a warrant that the Judge ruled had exceeded the jurisdiction of the warrant.

That case came immediately to mind and the first question was, if this had come up before would it have changed the Judge's ruling?
 
Last edited:
lcpiper said:
I can't say about that one way or the other because I do not know what the requirements are for requesting a warrant. It is entirely possible that although the Judge's jurisdiction has been greatly expanded that it doesn't change a requirement to go see that Judge.

ie ... I am an FBI Agent in the Phoenix, AZ. Station and I am running an investigation of a software piracy outfit running a server in Tucson. I do not know if I am restricted to only seeing the Judge for the Pheonix District even though that Judge now has expanded jurisdiction in case related to electronic communications, internet, etc. Just because all the Judges have expanded Jurisdiction it might not mean I can put all their phone numbers in my Rolodex.

I just can't say for sure.

Typically, Federal Judges have very limited Jurisdictions from my understanding surrounding that last case where the Judge pitched out evidence seized under a warrant that the Judge ruled had exceeded the jurisdiction of the warrant.

That case came immediately to mind and the first question was, if this had come up before would it have changed the Judge's ruling?
Click to expand...

That same case came to mind for me as well, almost like: We got bit by this once, let's get a rule change to prevent it from happening again.

As the famous Slashdot lingo goes: I Am Not A Lawyer, but I did read several articles suggesting that the shopping around for sympathetic judges will soon commence.
 
I have an ex-cop here who says;

If the crime is a local law or ordinance;
Local LE goes to their local Court/Judge for warrants.

Sheriffs typically enforce Federal, State, and County law;
Your Sheriff goes to the County Court/Judge

State Crimes go to the State Court/Judge.
State LE looks to the State Court/Judge for their State District.

And if a crime is a Federal Crime, no matter who you are, you go to the Federal Court/Judge for your Federal District.

And if for some off reason a Federal Officer is operating outside of their District or they have no special District, they go to the Judge for the District where the crime was committed.

So I think the idea of having a shopping list for Judges is easier said than done.

Now if for instance you are an FBI agent working out of Phoenix like I said above, and your case grows to involve a pedo from Miami, Florida, I suppose you could either get a warrant from Phoenix under the new jurisdiction rule, or go to Florida and see the Judge there for your warrant. Under the old rule, I think they were stuck with the Florida Judge as the only option.

I suppose this technically doubles an Agent's options.

EDIT:
Also, I am fairly certain that many Federal and State Districts have more then one Judge so I figure that must play in somehow.
 
Cool! Increased snooping power for government agencies just in time for either HRC or Trump to take office.

/Trump fans should rest assured in the knowledge that HRC may soon inherit the DOJ, and HRC fans should rest assured in the knowledge that Trump may soon inherit the DOJ. That shouldn't scare either interest................
 
The government supports giving itself more power. Wow. What a shocker.
 
I guess the future depends on many things. The FBI has leaked that they have enough evidence for multiple indictments. The GOP has stated that the information the GOP already has in their own possession is enough to prosecute. If the DOJ fails to follow through, people within the FBI have stated that they intend to leak a sample indictment. GOP leaders have stated they will release the incriminating information they already have, and try HRC in the court of public opinion. So the DNC has that going for it.

And, the rumor mill says that Trump has obtained one of HRC's transcripts, and intends to broadside her with it during the general. Fun times ahead for the anointed one?
 
Lith1um said:
I guess the future depends on many things. The FBI has leaked that they have enough evidence for multiple indictments. The GOP has stated that the information the GOP already has in their own possession is enough to prosecute. If the DOJ fails to follow through, people within the FBI have stated that they intend to leak a sample indictment. GOP leaders have stated they will release the incriminating information they already have, and try HRC in the court of public opinion. So the DNC has that going for it.

And, the rumor mill says that Trump has obtained one of HRC's transcripts, and intends to broadside her with it during the general. Fun times ahead for the anointed one?
Click to expand...

And you'd think all of that would lead the democratic party to maybe not push Hillary quite so hard...but it doesn't seem to be slowing them down at all. Maybe they really are just that confident that they can push Hillary through to the presidency, I don't know.

As for the transcripts, I honestly don't think that will make any difference because I can't think of anything Hillary could have said in them that would cause Hillary supporters to change their minds. I don't know if the GOP has many options anymore re: Trump. I know there was talk previously of...adjusting the rules to make the convention more difficult for him, but he's won a simple majority at this point hasn't he? Maybe they'll still try and force him out, who knows, but I think if they do it will basically guarantee a democrat win because Trump's supporters will be furious and refuse to vote for whoever the nominee ends up being if it's not Trump...and could you really hold that against them?

I'm not as invested in the race and the facts surrounding it as I would be if I were an American, but from up here it looks like a mess.
 
Spewn said:
Hey, even Fox News polls show he would if he were the nominee. He won't be though, so it's irrelevant.
Click to expand...
Polls this early are generally unreliable, but if you give any weight to them, then everyone will beat Trump (or Cruz) in the fall and Kasich will beat Clinton (not sure about Bernie). I think it the Dem's election to lose, but the left wing of the party, much like the right wing of the Reps, knows how to lose, so you never know.
 
Lith1um said:
I guess the future depends on many things. The FBI has leaked that they have enough evidence for multiple indictments. The GOP has stated that the information the GOP already has in their own possession is enough to prosecute. If the DOJ fails to follow through, people within the FBI have stated that they intend to leak a sample indictment. GOP leaders have stated they will release the incriminating information they already have, and try HRC in the court of public opinion. So the DNC has that going for it.

And, the rumor mill says that Trump has obtained one of HRC's transcripts, and intends to broadside her with it during the general. Fun times ahead for the anointed one?
Click to expand...

What could they get her on? She was the Secretary of State. AFAIK, the SoS has the authority classify or declassify documents as needed. The Republicans have nothing. Anyone who watched the hearing saw exactly what they wanted to see. The left saw a bunch of nothing from republicans, and the right saw Hillary lying.

As far as the democrats pushing Hillary, the people are voting for her. That's why she's winning. Bernie has done great, but this race was over before a vote was cast in SC. All you had to do was look at the polling data for Super Tuesday and the Saturday after that to know that Clinton was going to all but lock it up then.

Bernie's biggest issue is he didn't connect with black and brown voters over 40 (you know, the age group that votes). He drew huge crowds, but they were almost as white as a Republican rally and you can't win on the democratic side if you don't connect with minorities. If he was younger, I think he'd have a real shot in 4 or 8 years.

Spewn said:
As for the transcripts, I honestly don't think that will make any difference because I can't think of anything Hillary could have said in them that would cause Hillary supporters to change their minds. I don't know if the GOP has many options anymore re: Trump. I know there was talk previously of...adjusting the rules to make the convention more difficult for him, but he's won a simple majority at this point hasn't he? Maybe they'll still try and force him out, who knows, but I think if they do it will basically guarantee a democrat win because Trump's supporters will be furious and refuse to vote for whoever the nominee ends up being if it's not Trump...and could you really hold that against them?

I'm not as invested in the race and the facts surrounding it as I would be if I were an American, but from up here it looks like a mess.
Click to expand...

He doesn't have a majority yet, but it looks like he's going to get there. By most accounts, if he wins Indiana, he'll get there, especially since it looks like PA's uncommitted delegates are mostly going to vote for Trump.
 
They will just get your data if they need it. The idea that they would not do that is naive.
 
nilepez said:
What could they get her on? She was the Secretary of State. AFAIK, the SoS has the authority classify or declassify documents as needed. The Republicans have nothing. Anyone who watched the hearing saw exactly what they wanted to see. The left saw a bunch of nothing from republicans, and the right saw Hillary lying.
Click to expand...

It's clear that HRC and others broke the law in multiple ways. It's clear that people in the state dept lied under oath. The only question is whether the DOJ will subvert justice for a member of the political elite.

It's even abundantly clear why she used a private server, there is even a leaked video where it comes out of her own mouth.




But Judge Andrew Napolitano has the best perspective on what laws were broken.

 
they will expend, new world order is here and the "supreme" court is at the forth front of making sure they get what they want, which in essence is violation of every right the gooberment is mandated to protect by the constitution
 
Last edited:
nilepez said:
What could they get her on? She was the Secretary of State. AFAIK, the SoS has the authority classify or declassify documents as needed.
.
Click to expand...

Nope, this is totally false. Trust someone who has worked with classified material almost all his adult life. "Individuals" do not inherently possess the capability to classify or declassify material just because of their duty position. Materials are classified based on where the information comes from and it is not some arbitrary power of granted someone. If the information comes from a source that is classified, (for the protection of the source), then the material is classified because it came from that source, not because someone just decides I'll make this secret.


And although the Secretary of State has the authority to divulge classified material to others as she sees fit, this doesn't in any way effect the classification of the material. It's doesn't mean it was declassified, it means it was deemed worth the risks to the source to give that information to someone who normally should not have it.

Just sos you knows.
 
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," Wyden said in a statement.
Click to expand...
Sounds like a blank check to me.
 
lcpiper said:
Nope, this is totally false. Trust someone who has worked with classified material almost all his adult life. "Individuals" do not inherently possess the capability to classify or declassify material just because of their duty position. Materials are classified based on where the information comes from and it is not some arbitrary power of granted someone. If the information comes from a source that is classified, (for the protection of the source), then the material is classified because it came from that source, not because someone just decides I'll make this secret.


And although the Secretary of State has the authority to divulge classified material to others as she sees fit, this doesn't in any way effect the classification of the material. It's doesn't mean it was declassified, it means it was deemed worth the risks to the source to give that information to someone who normally should not have it.

Just sos you knows.
Click to expand...
Executive Order 13526- Classified National Security Information

The authority to classify information originally may be exercised only by:
(1) the President and the Vice President;
(2) agency heads and officials designated by the President; and
(3) United States Government officials delegated this authority pursuant to paragraph (c) of this section.

Then there's the issue that (AFAIK) not a single email was classified when she got and they were only classified since this investigation started...but if it was, it appears that she'd have a legal out.
 
nilepez said:
Executive Order 13526- Classified National Security Information

The authority to classify information originally may be exercised only by:
(1) the President and the Vice President;
(2) agency heads and officials designated by the President; and
(3) United States Government officials delegated this authority pursuant to paragraph (c) of this section.

Then there's the issue that (AFAIK) not a single email was classified when she got and they were only classified since this investigation started...but if it was, it appears that she'd have a legal out.
Click to expand...

Still doesn't change the fact that HRC and others at the state depth dodged multiple FOIA requests with the private server. Doesn't change the fact that 35k or so emails were deleted before handing the server over to the FBI.
 
nilepez said:
Executive Order 13526- Classified National Security Information

The authority to classify information originally may be exercised only by:
(1) the President and the Vice President;
(2) agency heads and officials designated by the President; and
(3) United States Government officials delegated this authority pursuant to paragraph (c) of this section.

Then there's the issue that (AFAIK) not a single email was classified when she got and they were only classified since this investigation started...but if it was, it appears that she'd have a legal out.
Click to expand...


The problem here nilepez is you don't understand what this means.


The authority to classify information originally may be exercised only by:

These two words are very important and do not mean what you may think they mean on the surface.

Authority means these people hold the "responsible" Authority, it doesn't mean they are the ones putting little red ink stamps on papers setting their classifications. It's more like, others do these things under their authority as an extension of their power. I'll bet you real money neither Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton has ever once actually classified any document themselves personally.

You want to know why? It's because there is always someone else who is actually handling or producing these documents first and that is when they get marked, the moment they are created, not after they have sat in someone's inbox. If it's intelligence info it is classified the moment it is created, the same if it's an operational document, etc etc, ad infinitum.

The other think I think you have wrong is an understanding of originally, as in "Originating Classification Authority". This is the Originating Authority which empowers or is responsible for the classification of the document. When this is written on a document, it doesn't ever say "Classified by Authority of Hillary Rodham Clinton" if you get my meaning.

So what I am saying is that in practice, it's always (3) United States Government officials delegated this authority pursuant to paragraph (c) of this section.
And it will never be drafted using someone's actual name, only an Office perhaps with a Title attached, never a name.



OH, and don't try to slant this in some way like I am defending any of them, I don't like any of them at all. I am just saying that what this sounds like, and how you are interpreting it, are not correct.
 
My interpretation is that she had the authority to classify/declassify documents. Even if that's not how it works in practice, I think that they'd use that if it every went to court. I'm also saying that AFAIK, none of these documents were classified at that time.
Anyway, until there's an indictment, I will continue to believe that this is a tale told by an idiots (in DC), full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.


Lith1um said:
Still doesn't change the fact that HRC and others at the state depth dodged multiple FOIA requests with the private server. Doesn't change the fact that 35k or so emails were deleted before handing the server over to the FBI.
Click to expand...
We'll see what happens here. I'm not unsympathetic to the FOIA issues. We'll see what happens.
 
nilepez, In real life, with no ifs ands or buts. If that server had classified documents on it, then without any doubt someone should be in great trouble over it. Then again, in real life, I have seen Officers get away with things that Enlisted soldiers were punished for. We're humans, fair just never is fair is it?

When I was in the Army we would go to the field and we would set up out there, and we would have things that were classified out there, and when we returned our classified got put back in the safes and then, the vehicles were searched to make sure we didn't miss something. If anything classified was found during that search it was a security violation and we would be placed on lock down for as many days as it took for the investigation to run it's course. We couldn't leave for anything. They would bring us food, we slept on the floors, etc, I think you get the picture. To imagine that classified documents were on that server, it's just criminal.

Not I have been specific, I did say classified documents, and I meant documents which are actually properly marked as classified. If there were documents that they found that had classified information but they weren't marked, this is in a way, a different animal. Now you have to look into why information that should be classified and controlled got onto documents that were never marked as classified. Let me give you an example.

Let's say that we know that Putin uses Crest toothpaste and that it is classified as top secret. Well this sort of sounds silly but not when you take into consideration what I said previously, that what makes something classified is less about what the information is and more about how we found out, it's about the source.

So the classified report stating that Putin's favorite toothpaste is Crest is protected info. That document has to be protected. Now Hilary is Head of State and winds up meeting and talking with Putin and during the discussion he mentions that he uses Crest toothpaste. Hilary confides this in an email to an aide. Later, during a search of the email server the security people see this information and say it's classified. Well, it is, but it isn't. Perhaps Hilary typed up a contact report about her meeting with Putin and the toothpaste info is in that report detailing that in this case, the source was actually Putin himself. It doesn't really matter much. In the end, this because an example of how information can be very mundane and not of any great value but still be protected is if it is a great state secret. There are volumes of classified information out in the wild but sometimes, the secret part isn't what you would think. Sometimes it's just that we don't want our enemies to know what we accept as factual. Jane's book of ships might list the maximum effective range of a naval weapon as 5 miles. That information could be closely protected information. It doesn't matter that it's out there in a book that anyone can buy. It does matter that our enemies don't know that 5 miles is the official factual range that the US Navy says that weapon system has.

Make sense?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top