Does this seem like someone reading too much into the opinion? Maybe it could be used this way, but it could just as easy fail judicial review. There is some precedent of course (simply carrying lockpicks can be a crime), but I wouldn't be surprised if a LEO attempting to interpret this ruling this way would be slapped down by the courts.
>Does this seem like someone reading too much into the opinion?
Not at all. In fact, its one of the more straightforward opinions as far as court decisions go:
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."
>I wouldn't be surprised if a LEO attempting to interpret this ruling this way would be slapped down by the courts.
In what other way would you suggest this rule change can be interpreted? It seems clear that the reason for this rule change was exactly as stated - to allow for any computer, anywhere using anonymity software to be remotely searched by the FBI. How exactly would the FBI be slapped down by the courts? The onus would be on you, the victim of the search, to challenge the legality of the search. Considering the Orwellian way in which the courts have treated other victims of government surveillance (such as claiming they have no standing because they cannot prove that the government spied on them), I'd wager that your odds of finding legal remedy for these FBI searches are extremely remote.
3 comments
[ 3.3 ms ] story [ 20.2 ms ] threadAlthough Tor is specifically called out, it would seem as though this would apply to usage of any and all proxy or VPN services.
Can anyone else confirm this to be the case?
Not at all. In fact, its one of the more straightforward opinions as far as court decisions go:
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."
>I wouldn't be surprised if a LEO attempting to interpret this ruling this way would be slapped down by the courts.
In what other way would you suggest this rule change can be interpreted? It seems clear that the reason for this rule change was exactly as stated - to allow for any computer, anywhere using anonymity software to be remotely searched by the FBI. How exactly would the FBI be slapped down by the courts? The onus would be on you, the victim of the search, to challenge the legality of the search. Considering the Orwellian way in which the courts have treated other victims of government surveillance (such as claiming they have no standing because they cannot prove that the government spied on them), I'd wager that your odds of finding legal remedy for these FBI searches are extremely remote.