The Justice Department is looking to remove restrictions on the
FBI’s ability to hack into and monitor computer systems everywhere by
easing the requirements necessary for it to obtain a search warrant.
Currently, law enforcement agencies can only receive warrants
authorizing computer searches if the physical location of the computer
in question falls within the corresponding jurisdiction of the judge
they are appealing to. If the computer is outside of the judge’s
jurisdiction, a warrant is not usually granted.
Now, however, the Justice Department wants to change this limitation,
which is called Rule 41. It has asked a judicial advisory committee to
allow judges to grant search warrants and permit electronic surveillance
regardless of where a computer is located – within or outside of the
United States,
Here’s why, according to the National Journal, which reported on the story:
“Law-enforcement investigators are seeking the additional powers to better track and investigate criminals who use technology to conceal their identity and location, a practice that has become more common and sophisticated in recent years. Intelligence analysts, when given a warrant, can infiltrate computer networks and covertly install malicious software, or malware, that gives them the ability to control the targeted device and download its contents.''
The proposal has unsurprisingly upset many civil liberties advocates,
who claim changing Rule 41 in this manner would potentially violate the
Fourth Amendment, which protects Americans from unreasonable search and
seizures by the government.
The panel, known as the Advisory Committee on Criminal Rules, held a
hearing on the issue on Wednesday, where opponents of the rule change
expressed their views. Asked what other methods would be preferable for
hunting down increasingly sophisticated cyber criminals, Amie
Stepanovich of the digital freedom group Access said the Justice
Department should go through Congress.
“I empathize that it is very hard to get a legislative change,” she
said. “However, when you have us resorting to Congress to get increased
privacy protections, we would also like to see the government turn to
Congress to get increased surveillance authority.”
That sentiment was echoed by the American Civil Liberties Union the
day before, and the group was also present at Wednesday’s hearing.
“If the proposed amendment is adopted, it will throw the doors wide
open to an industry peddling tools to undermine computer security, and
make the U.S. government an even bigger player in the surveillance
software industry,” ACLU Staff Attorney Nathan Wessler wrote on Tuesday.
In its report, the ACLU noted that changing the rule could also
promote the use of “zero-day” exploits, which are completely unknown to
software manufacturers yet used by governments to get around security
systems and enable surveillance.
“Governments pay big bucks – reportedly into the hundreds of
thousands of dollars – to acquire [zero-day exploits], resulting in a
largely unregulated market for these tools,” Wessler wrote. “Since the
use of a given zero-day exploit depends on the continued existence of
the vulnerability it’s exploiting, governments withhold their existence
from the manufacturer.”
This isn’t the first time law enforcement has expressed a desire to
retain its surveillance capabilities. Following decisions by Apple and
Google to enable data encryption on their new devices, FBI Director
James Comey criticizedthe moves, saying they will ultimately impede police ability to track and capture criminals.
“There will come a day — well it comes every day in this business —
when it will matter a great, great deal to the lives of people of all
kinds that we be able to with judicial authorization gain access to a
kidnapper’s or a terrorist or a criminal’s device,” Comey said in
September. “I just want to make sure we have a good conversation in this
country before that day comes.”
Source:
Global Research
No comments:
Post a Comment