Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

×
United States Crime Government Privacy The Courts Your Rights Online

DOJ Pushes to Expand Hacking Abilities Against Cyber-Criminals 49

Posted by samzenpus
from the give-us-an-easy-button-please dept.
Advocatus Diaboli writes with news about the DOJ's push to make it easier to get warrants to hack suspected cyber-criminals. "The U.S. Department of Justice is pushing to make it easier for law enforcement to get warrants to hack into the computers of criminal suspects across the country. The move, which would alter federal court rules governing search warrants, comes amid increases in cases related to computer crimes. Investigators say they need more flexibility to get warrants to allow hacking in such cases, especially when multiple computers are involved or the government doesn't know where the suspect's computer is physically located."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

DOJ Pushes to Expand Hacking Abilities Against Cyber-Criminals

Comments Filter:
  • Re:Well SURE! (Score:5, Informative)

    by CanHasDIY (1672858) on Friday March 28, 2014 @09:27AM (#46601775) Homepage Journal

    These changes seem reasonable to me. They are getting a warrant with judicial oversight. That is the way the system is supposed to work.

    No, this is how it's supposed to work:

    The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

    Mind you, per the Constitution nothing can supersede this rule, outside a legally ratified Constitutional Amendment.

    If they have probable cause, then there is no reason that I can see for the warrant to specifically tie the search to a geographical location, or to require separate warrants for each machine.

    Really? What part of "particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized" is unclear?

    Car analogy: Should a search warrant for a vehicle specify that it can only be searched at the suspect's home, but not at his place of work? Should separate warrants be required for the glove compartment and trunk?

    Separate warrants are required [seattlepi.com] for locked compartments.

    So yes to the second question.

"I've seen it. It's rubbish." -- Marvin the Paranoid Android

Working...