Proposal For Massively Expand FBI Extraterritorial Surveillance

Quote:

---

A Department of Justice proposal to amend Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure would make it easier for domestic law enforcement to hack into computers of people attempting to protect their anonymity on the Internet. The DOJ has explicitly stated that the amendment is not meant to give courts the power to issue warrants that authorize searches in foreign countries—but the practical reality of the underlying technology means doing so is almost unavoidable.

The result? Possibly the broadest expansion of extraterritorial surveillance power since the FBI’s inception.

This post highlights key issues raised by the international aspect of the DOJ proposal, in the attempt to encourage wider public debate before the FBI is granted such expansive powers.

(...)

The proposed amendment addresses a jurisdictional limitation in the current version of Rule 41(b)(1) that prevents a judge from issuing a warrant unless the target is known to be located within her district.

Under this proposed amendment, law enforcement could seek a warrant either where the electronic media to be searched are within the United States or where the location of the electronic media is unknown. In the latter case, should the media searched prove to be outside the United States, the warrant would have no extraterritorial effect, but the existence of the warrant would support the reasonableness of the search. AUSA Mythili Raman, Letter to Committee (emphasis added).

The latter standard seems to be a significant loophole in the DOJ’s own formulation of the approach, particularly given the global nature of the Internet. For instance, over 85% of computers directly connecting to the Tor network are located outside the United States. And since (according to the DOJ) each computer’s “unknown location” is virtually indistinguishable from the next, any law enforcement target pursued under this provision of the amendment may be located overseas.

---

Justice Department Proposal Would Massively Expand FBI Extraterritorial Surveillance | Just Security

Very simply put. A global police-state. Expansion of coercive surveillance powers. Such tactics don't make anyone safer but place freedoms, constitutions, bills of rights, liberties, at continuing risks, placements, and actual erosion as they've already been for the last number of decades. Politicians, police, special interst groups such as corporations, forfiet duties while, in the name of duties smooth paths to imperium and hyper-survelience. Rather than espionage being on the chop, democracy (real democracy) is. Security fanatists place thier own country and others in a newly dangerous age. This is nothing short of a mandate to target the internet with an engorged power of surveillance.The USA is not alone in this. Australia is already on this same path with the USA on extra-survelience of the internet. All this is basically a spigot on turning off information. The unfortunate thing in this is it allows for indiscrimate activities to be shrouded. Such laws and regulations are poisonous. Not helpful or security-promoting at all. The only security it provides is keeping those who want the status quo on the 'war on terror' to continue from an international scene to a domestic scene (which fundamentally it already is), albiet on a more enhanced level. This also leads to militarization of security responses to percieved, yet probably harmless, 'threats'. Such movements and actions allow for repressive controls of populations. This leads to governments to lead activities based on arbitrary motions and catalyzes further erosions of liberties, rights, etc. Eventually, you have next to nothing left of any country's constitution. Ever heard of East Germany? Perfect example of a police-survelience state. The Kim family in North Korea is a more modern example of what a survelience-police state can do (and does) to it's population.

ever since 9/11 "safety reasons" became a popular reason for curtailing civil rights in many ways. usa pretty much disabled their always belauded constitution with the introduction of the so called patriot act.
and other countries followed happily; politicians spotted a great opportunity to fuel their never satisfied hunger for control and power all in the name of national security. a well known method from the handbook of dictatorship used many times throughout the history of mankind. a quote from star trek:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jean-Luc Picard

With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jean-Luc Picard

With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably.

---

as troublesome as dictatorial chains may be, the heaviest of chains is still the chain of own ignorance

censorship of speech is normal, everyone does it depending on the situation they are in (aka self-censorship) - those with no self-censorship will keep saying whatever comes to their mind regardless of what that does to the situation at hand or the people around them - censorship is necessary for having a decent or manageable or meaningful conversation or relationship (with others or the environment), censorship is therefore a necessity, otherwise people would degrade to wild animals, doing/saying whatever comes to their mind with no restraints or self-control - in fact, self-control means you're not that easily pushed around by the impulses appearing from interacting with your surroundings

censorship of thought is impossible (temporary periods of thoughtlessness or sleeping excluded)

freedom is misunderstood - even the most free of persons is still firmly bound to his own essence, no person can be free from that which they truly are - once you truly understand who/what you are, no chains other than the essential ones remain (and those chains you need in order to exist in the first place!)

chains us irrevocably? just as chains can be put on or used, they can be removed as well - if it has a beginning, it also has an end

anything problematic about censorship? if it becomes excessive, extreme, if it is not moderate, if it is not adequate (out of bounds)... if it is not moderately chained! (which is also what's problematic about picard's quote)

besides, chains can be viewed as binding, but also as guiding (literally & metaphorically, the latter guiding towards understanding of what they represent, whats their significance, usage, meaning,... - no chains? no way of understanding them!)

also, picard is not a particularly good example of a freedom-fighter, since he is a starfleet officer, following & giving orders, forcing/dictating a starfleet view (or his own interpretation of it per captain's privileges) of freedom onto his subordinates (and other aliens when applicable) and limiting their own freedoms according to the starfleet 'manual', all of them, incl. the captain, irrevocably chained to their rules as long they serve as starfleet personnel - a related quote from the series: 'permission to speak freely, captain? granted!'