Reply To: 19 Nov 16 – In two weeks, it will be easier for Uncle Sam to search your compute
Home › Forums › The Poll Discussion › 19 Nov 16 – In two weeks, it will be easier for Uncle Sam to search your compute › Reply To: 19 Nov 16 – In two weeks, it will be easier for Uncle Sam to search your compute
I see this in the post:
changes to Rule 41 would ensure that federal agents may identify one judge to review an application for a search warrant rather than be required to submit separate warrant applications in each district—up to 94—where a computer is affected.
So it sounds like they’re just lazy and do not want to go to each of the jurisdictions and follow existing law and procedures. Hey, I’m all for better law enforcement, but not at the expense of protection of rights. You’re talking about subverting jurisdictions. For example, we have States. If we’re all going to treat them as if they were the same, why bother having states at all? Why bother having an Amendment X? The posting makes it sound like it’s all great, all on the level.
I think I need only point to civil asset forfeiture to explain how the law has gone from a seemingly good purpose to being abused for whatever reasons. I don’t believe there is malfeasance intended by the vast majority of the law enforcement people who do it. They’re trying to do a difficult job and they think they’re doing wonderful things to tamp down crime. See this Daily Caller story for 7 examples of this abuse. Another I heard about was a dairy who really grew, and started making large cash deposits to the bank they were using. Remember? There’s that law where transactions of $10,000 or more have special reporting requirements, which is supposedly a way to curb crime like drug dealing. I do not remember what this dairy was alleged to have been doing, but because they started to bank a lot of money, it was assumed they were up to no good. Their money was seized and it was difficult to get it back. Similar situations have been reported on where the bank payments were made with smaller amounts (in order to get under the $10,000 extra scrutiny point) but were automatically “suspicious” for trying to get around that >= $10,000 policy.
I would also suggest two videos by CGP Grey, this one (talking about the iPhone unlocking controversy) but even more apropos to this proposed change, this footnote one, which talks about how law is similar to a brick wall where later laws are predicated on earlier laws and court decisions, so they must be written extremely carefully. So although these changes might seem all the better for crime fighting, there is no guarantee it will help or indeed never be abused.