United States News
See other United States News Articles
Title: Scalia’s Dead, Now Supreme Court Grants FBI Remote Access to Any Computer in the US
Source:
Daily Sheeple
URL Source: http://www.thedailysheeple.com/scal ... -any-computer-in-the-us_052016
Published: May 2, 2016
Author: Melissa Dykes
Post Date: 2016-05-02 10:47:15 by Deckard
Keywords: None
Views: 1341
Comments: 20
Justice Scalia, love him or hate him, was perhaps the most staunchly Constitutional Supreme Court justice we had. Now he’s dead and not even two months later, the Supreme Court has approved new rules that would allow the FBI to not only hack any computer in the U.S., but around the globe. Legally. In an April 28th letter to Congress, a change to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41 was approved: “A magistrate judge with authority in any district where activities related to a crime may have occurred has authority to issue a warrant to use remote access to search electronic storage media and to seize or copy electronically stored information located within or outside that district if: (A) the district where the media or information is located has been concealed through technological means; or (B) in an investigation of a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(5), the media are protected computers that have been damaged without authorization and are located in five or more districts.” Warrants to gain remote access — in other words, government hacking — to include computers that have been “concealed through technological means” such as TOR technology. And it isn’t just relegated to crime suspects who they get a warrant against (via RT): Currently, magistrate judges cannot issue warrants for “remote searches” to the FBI if law enforcement doesn’t know where a computer in question is physically located, since its location could potentially be outside of the court’s jurisdiction. Not only does the new rule change that, it also could allow the FBI to gain access to computers that have been already hacked by malicious software, meaning that victims of cyberattacks could see their computers searched by the government. If a computer is suspected to be part of compromised network, that network could also be searched. If a computer is ultimately located overseas but hidden via Tor, then authorities may potentially be able to hack into it as well. Warrants for “remote government searches” of any computer… “Legally”. You know who might’ve had a problem with that? Justice Scalia. Wonder how long it’ll be until we get to Minority Report - style pre-crime? Congress has until December to stop this, but they can also tweak it or approve it… considering they have a nine percent approval rating, I’m not holding my breath. But hey, at least one whole Senator is bothering to pretend to care: However, not everyone is buying the Justice Department’s argument. Senator Ron Wyden (D-Oregon) questioned the wisdom of the changes to Rule 41, adding that he will ask the government to detail its hacking process. He also said he will propose legislation to reverse the amendments. “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,” he said Thursday 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.” Delivered by The Daily Sheeple
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 18.
#3. To: Deckard (#0)
(Edited)
First of all, a US Magistrate Judge has no plenary power in final decision making. The only duties they actually have is to that of reports and recommendations in pre-trial proceedings. It is the U.S. District Judge who has plenary power decision making in de novo judgments. Also, see here concerning The Judicial Conference of the United States unders section "Duty Station" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_judge Also, you have a right to remain silent and to invoke the fruit of poisoned tree doctrine. I'd be curious to know what Article (Article I, III or IV) this Judicial Conference actually falls under and who created it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_tribunals_in_the_United_States Could not the case of Expo Facto law be addressed as question of original intent or brought into Federal Judicial Review?
The rule change says nothing of worldwide hacking. It refers to warrant application outside the judicial district. The last underlined portion indicates that refers to judicial districts outside the district of the court.
You are, of course, referring to https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/636 Might want to read this carefully under "Review by an Article III tribunal" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_magistrate_judge
No, I made no reference to that at all. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote of the draft materials submitted to the Court for its consideration pursuant to Section 331 of Title 28, United States Code. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_magistrate_judge I don't know what point you are trying to make. The sole topic of the article is a revision of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, and discussion has largely focused on revision of Rule 41(b), which pertains to search and seizure, authority to issue a warrant, and what the warrant may cover. Rule 41, in relevant part, previously read: https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/rule_41 (a) Scope and Definitions. (1) Scope. This rule does not modify any statute regulating search or seizure, or the issuance and execution of a search warrant in special circumstances. [...] (b) Authority to Issue a Warrant. At the request of a federal law enforcement officer or an attorney for the government: (1) a magistrate judge with authority in the district—or if none is reasonably available, a judge of a state court of record in the district—has authority to issue a warrant to search for and seize a person or property located within the district; (2) a magistrate judge with authority in the district has authority to issue a warrant for a person or property outside the district if the person or property is located within the district when the warrant is issued but might move or be moved outside the district before the warrant is executed; (3) a magistrate judge—in an investigation of domestic terrorism or international terrorism—with authority in any district in which activities related to the terrorism may have occurred has authority to issue a warrant for a person or property within or outside that district; (4) a magistrate judge with authority in the district has authority to issue a warrant to install within the district a tracking device; the warrant may authorize use of the device to track the movement of a person or property located within the district, outside the district, or both; and (5) a magistrate judge having authority in any district where activities related to the crime may have occurred, or in the District of Columbia, may issue a warrant for property that is located outside the jurisdiction of any state or district, but within any of the following: (A) a United States territory, possession, or commonwealth; (B) the premises—no matter who owns them—of a United States diplomatic or consular mission in a foreign state, including any appurtenant building, part of a building, or land used for the mission's purposes; or (C) a residence and any appurtenant land owned or leased by the United States and used by United States personnel assigned to a United States diplomatic or consular mission in a foreign state.
The point I was making about about this "Might want to read this carefully under "Review by an Article III tribunal" and this "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_magistrate_judge" is that the Magistrate Judge can be legally and lawfully challenged because they really do not have those plenary powers to decide your case. Jurisdiction is key in both the subject matter but mostly over you and it all simplifies down to what Article this Magistrate is conducting themselves under which most courts would agree that you can challenge.
The opinion of every court short of the U.S. Supreme Court may be challenged. It is called an appeal. I still do not understand your point. The point on thread applies only to the granting of a search warrant. A warrant can be challenged. What has this to do with the revision of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure?
No, it is more than just the appeal process that may be applied. There is a big difference between Article I, III, and IV court proceedings. And these U.S. Magistrate Judges know this because they wear many hats when entertaining cases. That is the point I was trying to address. Even Congress knows that Magistrate Judges are limited with regards to their duties and functions. But it really bottles down to what Article of the Court you are be being summoned into. First, since the Judiciary Act of 1789,19 it has been evident that not all of the categories of judicial power enumerated in Article III, section 2 must be decided by Article III judges. (pg. 6 of 69) "Yale Law School Legal Scholarship Repository Faculty Scholarship 1-1-1985 The Mythic Meaning of Article III Courts"
The article is about a change to the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. Those rules apply only to Article III courts within the Judicial branch. Judicial courts are Article III courts. Magistrate judges are not Article III judges as they do not have a lifetime appointment. Article I courts are uniquely creatures of the Executive Branch, for example courts-martial. The rules for Executive Branch proceedings are not made by the Judicial Branch. For courts-martial, see Manual for Courts-Martial. The Manual is issued by the President under an Executive Order. There are no magistrate judges in an Article I court. http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/codification/executive-order/12473.html Source: The provisions of Executive Order 12473 of Apr. 13, 1984, appear at 49 FR 17152, 3 CFR, 1984 Comp., p. 201, unless otherwise noted. By virtue of the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution of the United States and by Chapter 47 of Title 10 of the United States Code (Uniform Code of Military Justice), I hereby prescribe the following Manual for Courts-Martial to be designated as "Manual for Courts-Martial, United States, 1984." Executive Order -- 2014 Amendments to the Manual for Courts-Martial, United States 2014 AMENDMENTS TO THE MANUAL FOR COURTS-MARTIAL, UNITED STATES By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including chapter 47 of title 10, United States Code (Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. 801-946), and in order to prescribe amendments to the Manual for Courts-Martial, United States, prescribed by Executive Order 12473 of April 13, 1984, as amended, it is hereby ordered as follows: [...] Military Tribunals are also creatures of the Executive Branch under Article I. They make up their own rules before the proceeding is held. https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2011-title28/pdf/USCODE-2011-title28-partV-chap131-sec2071.pdf CHAPTER 131—RULES OF COURTS 28 U.S.C. § 2071 (a) The Supreme Court and all courts established by Act of Congress may from time to time prescribe rules for the conduct of their business. Such rules shall be consistent with Acts of Congress and rules of practice and procedure prescribed under section 2072 of this title. Congress established the Article III courts, but not the Article I courts. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Rules_of_Criminal_Procedure There is no such thing as Article IV court. The article does authorize the creation of any court. Section 1. Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof. Section 2. The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states. A person charged in any state with treason, felony, or other crime, who shall flee from justice, and be found in another state, shall on demand of the executive authority of the state from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the state having jurisdiction of the crime. No person held to service or labor in one state, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due. Section 3. New states may be admitted by the Congress into this union; but no new states shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other state; nor any state be formed by the junction of two or more states, or parts of states, without the consent of the legislatures of the states concerned as well as of the Congress. The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to prejudice any claims of the United States, or of any particular state. Section 4. The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence.
Not all Judicial Courts are Article III. Mag Judges may not have a lifetime appointment but it sure appears they have been conducting court business under Article III. And since you reference this "Executive Order -- 2014 Amendments to the Manual for Courts-Martial, United States ", it appears that when a private citizen is being summoned under this Executive Order that actually it is a military court venue.
What do you have in mind? Article 1, Section 3: http://www.fjc.gov/history/home.nsf/page/judges_magistrate.html Federal judicial Center Magistrate Judgeships Magistrate judges serve in the U.S. District Courts which are, most definitely, Article III courts. Their jurisdiction is delegated by the District Judges. Of course they conduct court business in Article III courts, the Federal District Courts.
There are no replies to Comment # 18. End Trace Mode for Comment # 18.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#4. To: goldilucky, goodnessmarlok, Deckard (#3)
“A magistrate judge with authority in any district where activities related to a crime may have occurred has authority to issue a warrant to use remote access to search electronic storage media and to seize or copy electronically stored information located within or outside that district if: (A) the district where the media or information is located has been concealed through technological means; or (B) in an investigation of a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(5), the media are protected computers that have been damaged without authorization and are located in five or more districts.”
#5. To: nolu chan (#4)
(Edited)
#7. To: goldilucky (#5)
You are, of course, referring to
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/636 Might want to read this carefully under "Review by an Article III tribunal"
Rule 41. Search and Seizure
#10. To: nolu chan (#7)
#12. To: goldilucky (#10)
the Magistrate Judge can be legally and lawfully challenged
#13. To: nolu chan (#12)
(Edited)
#14. To: goldilucky (#13)
No, it is more than just the appeal process that may be applied. There is a big difference between Article I, III, and IV court proceedings.
Executive Order 12473--Manual for Courts-Martial, United States, 1984
The White House
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release
June 13, 2014 § 2071. Rule-making power generally
The Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure are the procedural rules that govern how federal criminal prosecutions are conducted in United States district courts and the general trial courts of the U.S. government. As such, they are the companion to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Article IV
#15. To: nolu chan (#14)
Judicial courts are Article III courts. Magistrate judges are not Article III judges as they do not have a lifetime appointment.
#18. To: goldilucky (#15)
Not all Judicial Courts are Article III.
The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.
Magistrate judges serve as judicial officers of the U.S. district courts and exercise the jurisdiction delegated to them by law and assigned by the district judges. Magistrate judges may be authorized to preside in almost every type of federal trial proceeding except for felony cases.
Mag Judges may not have a lifetime appointment but it sure appears they have been conducting court business under Article III.
Replies to Comment # 18.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]