On 4/28/16, krishna e bera
https://theintercept.com/2016/04/28/supreme-court-gives-fbi-more-hacking-pow... http://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/frcr16_8mad.pdf https://www.justsecurity.org/15018/justice-department-proposal-massive-expan...
Among others commenting on the lists... Rule 41(b)(6) "a magistrate judge with authority in *any* district where activities related to a crime *may* have occurred has authority to issue a warrant..." Note *emphasis*. Perhaps missing from the article is that, similar to FISC / DC situation, this seems to allow LEA / Prosecutors to now cozy all these requests up to the friendliest court they can find (if they speculate, when concealed, that the activities *may* in fact be in that district [1]), rather than forcing distribution of requests randomly across them all (similar to the old principle of local jurisdiction... crimes originate randomly, are dealt with locally). That would be bad... bad precedents, much stuff under seal ex parte en camera rubberstamp etc. [1] Without such speculation, while still concealed, they would probably end up being lodged by location of lead investigative entity (even FBI HQ), or by other elements of the case, such as victim location. https://www.accessnow.org/cms/assets/uploads/archive/docs/Rule41botnettestim... Rule 41(b)(6)(B) 18 USC 1030(a)(5) And remote access of hacked protected computers... that's huge procedural change, and likely to be very sloppy and outright abused for ages. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_judicial_district