Wednesday, January 4, 2017
Civil Liberties: “What Is Rule 41?”
“What Is Rule 41?”
by Andrew Pontbriand
"Just when you thought the tyranny unleashed on America over the last decade couldn’t get any worse, it just did. With the NSA spying that never stopped, warrantless wiretapping, the Patriot Act, the NDAA which allows for indefinite detention, and the Anti Propaganda and Disinformation Act all already in full anti-freedom mode, the Supreme Court took things further, It’s called Rule 41. This comes under the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure TITLE VIII. SUPPLEMENTARY AND SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS:
"See below Committee Notes on Rules—2016 AmendmentSubdivision:
(b). The revision to the caption is not substantive. Adding the word “venue” makes clear that Rule 41(b) identifies the courts that may consider an application for a warrant, not the constitutional requirements for the issuance of a warrant, which must still be met.
Subdivision (b)(6). The amendment provides that in two specific circumstances a magistrate judge in a 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 seize or copy electronically stored information even when that media or information is or may be located outside of the district. First, subparagraph (b)(6)(A) provides authority to issue a warrant to use remote access within or outside that district when the district in which the media or information is located is not known because of the use of technology such as anonymizing software.
Second, (b)(6)(B) allows a warrant to use remote access within or outside the district in an investigation of a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(5) if the media to be searched are protected computers that have been damaged without authorization, and they are located in many districts. Criminal activity under 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(5) (such as the creation and control of “botnets”) may target multiple computers in several districts. In investigations of this nature, the amendment would eliminate the burden of attempting to secure multiple warrants in numerous districts, and allow a single judge to oversee the investigation. As used in this rule, the terms “protected computer” and “damage” have the meaning provided in 18 U.S.C. § 1030(e)(2) & (8). The amendment does not address constitutional questions, such as the specificity of description that the Fourth Amendment may require in a warrant for remotely searching electronic storage media or seizing or copying electronically stored information, leaving the application of this and other constitutional standards to ongoing case law development.
Subdivision (f)(1)(C). The amendment is intended to ensure that reasonable efforts are made to provide notice of the search, seizure, or copying, as well as a receipt for any information that was seized or copied, to the person whose property was searched or who possessed the in formation that was seized or copied.
Rule 41(f)(3) allows delayed notice only “if the delay is authorized by statute.” See 18 U.S.C. § 3103a (authorizing delayed notice in limited circumstances).”
Rule 41 in layman’s terms, deals with Search and Seizure. The FBI has had jurisdictional limitations, that is, until recently when these amendments were proposed to eradicate any limitations. The Supreme Court recently approved the amendments, which in turn, means there isn’t a computer they cannot touch. That is, with the approval of a District Judge in the form of a warrant (which, if you read the text carefully, may not be required in all cases.)
Rule 41 is the icing on the distasteful cake of unwanted, treasonous invasions of privacy and unconstitutional methods of investigation and prosecution. In every sense of the word, the FBI has basically been given the power to “hack” any computer they wish, just as long as they have that fancy piece of paper their golfing buddy (a judge) issues (a warrant).”