Baseless fearmongering at its finest (Score 5, Interesting)

Articles like this often get written because the author doesn't really understand the law, and rather than really trying to understand what's going on they just guess. The claims made in this article are so wildly off-base, however, that it makes me question whether the author is just trolling people.

Contrary to what the article suggests, Federal Criminal Rule 41(b) does not have a thing to do with what evidence law enforcement agencies are required to show to get a warrant, nor does it authorize the FBI (or anyone else) to get any particular type of warrant. Rule 41(b) is about VENUE; e.g., if you've already got enough evidence to get a search warrant, what judge (in what federal District) is the judge that you are supposed to present that evidence to?

You can read Rule 41(b) here: http://www.law.cornell.edu/rul...

The basic rule it sets out is that, when you want a warrant, you ask a judge located within the District where the person/property you want to search is located. There are exceptions to that basic rule, much like any other rule, because it's not always a simple matter of "X is located here." Sometimes things are located across several different Districts, sometimes they're mobile and can be easily moved to another District, etc. This is why there are currently 5 subsections to 41(b), each dealing with slightly different semi-unusual factual scenarios. At the end of the day, each exception is there for a very simple reason: to clearly and unambiguously tell federal law enforcement agencies how to identify the judge they are supposed to go to if they want to get a search warrant.

The proposal for changing Rule 41(b) is located here: http://justsecurity.org/wp-con...

What the DOJ is asking for is a scenario not currently covered by Rule 41(b). That being...what happens if you are dealing with someone you know to have committed a crime, you have enough evidence to get a search warrant, but the perpetrator of the crime is using some sort of technological means (like encryption, IP masking, etc.) to prevent you from finding the exact physical location of whatever you want to search? As of right now, it is not clear who the right judge would be to issue that warrant. The only thing the proposal would do is say that, if you can't identify the physical location of the computer to be searched (and therefore do not know which federal District it's located in), then you can go get your warrant from a judge in the District where the target of the crime was located.

Example: I'm an evil h@xx3r, and I hack some computers at the GooglePlex. I have masked my IP address, so the FBI does not know exactly where I'm at. Under current Rule 41(b), it's not clear who the right judge would be to try to get a warrant from. Under "new" Rule 41(b), they can go to a judge in California since that's where the GooglePlex is located.

That's literally the only thing this proposal would change. It says nothing about VPNs or TOR networks. It does not give the FBI (or any other law enforcement agency) the authority to hack your computer or your phone whenever they want. It doesn't even grant them the authority to do that with a warrant, because they already have the ability to do that with a warrant. It also doesn't say anything about how much evidence they have to present to get the warrant, because Rule 41(b) has nothing to do with that. The standards for search warrants are exactly the same as they have been for years; this proposal would only clarify who the right judge is to issue the warrant.

I don't know a whole heck of a lot about the "FEE" is, but if this article is representative of their work and/or legal abilities then color me unimpressed.