Businesses and individuals subject to white-collar investigations don’t just have to worry about the FBI knocking on their office door. The proposed amendment to the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 41 took effect December 1, 2016, and gives judges authority to grant the government a warrant to hack a computer located anywhere.
Proposed Amendments to Rule 41
Under changes to Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, a magistrate judge with authority in any district where activities related to a crime may have occurred is now authorized to “issue a warrant to use remote access to search electronic storage media and to seize or copy electronically stored information” in two situations: 1) when “the district where the media or information is located has been concealed through technological means”; or 2) when the media are on protected computers that have been “damaged without authorization and are located in five or more districts.”
Implications for Businesses
The amendments aim to make it easier for federal agencies to investigate and prosecute cybercrime. “For example, if agents are investigating criminals who are sexually exploiting children and uploading videos of that exploitation for others to see—but concealing their locations through anonymizing technology—agents will be able to apply for a search warrant to discover where they are located,” the Department of Justice recent wrote in an agency blog post regarding Rule 41.
Nonetheless, the proposed rule is generating criticism among government watchdog groups. The primary concern is that the new warrants are ripe for abuse, particularly considering the technological incompetence of many judges. If unchecked, the new authority could be used liberally to access individual and business computers without having to tell their owners. This is especially true considering that government investigations into botnets could potentially include millions of computers and unsuspecting users.
Critics specifically note that there are many legitimate reasons that electronic device users may want to protect their digital privacy. The Electronic Frontier Foundation cites journalists communicating with sources and victims of domestic violence seeking information on legal services, noting: “Millions of people who have nothing in particular to hide may also choose to use privacy tools just because they’re concerned about government surveillance of the Internet, or because they don’t like leaving a data trail around haphazardly.”
Opponents of the proposed amendments also maintain that the changes subject victims of malware attacks to further intrusion. In addition, allowing the government to hack or otherwise infiltrate computers that have been compromised by a botnet does not guarantee that it will make the situation better, particularly given the government’s own vulnerability to cyberattacks.
The U.S. Supreme Court recently signed off on the rule change, and since Congress failed to act, the amendments took effect on December 1, 2016.
Understanding the Importance of a Non-Contingent Offer
Making a non-contingent offer can dramatically increase your chances of securing a real estate transaction, particularly in competitive markets like New York City. However, buyers should understand that waiving contingencies, including those related to financing, or appraisals, also comes with significant risks. Determining your best strategy requires careful analysis of the property, the market, and […]
Fred D. Zemel Appointed Chair of Strategic Planning at Scarinci & Hollenbeck, LLC
Business Transactional Attorney Zemel to Spearhead Strategic Initiatives for Continued Growth and Innovation Little Falls, NJ – February 21, 2025 – Scarinci & Hollenbeck, LLC is pleased to announce that Partner Fred D. Zemel has been named Chair of the firm’s Strategic Planning Committee. In this role, Mr. Zemel will lead the committee in identifying, […]
Novation Agreement Process: Step-by-Step Guide for Businesses
Big changes sometimes occur during the life cycle of a contract. Cancelling a contract outright can be bad for your reputation and your bottom line. Businesses need to know how to best address a change in circumstances, while also protecting their legal rights. One option is to transfer the “benefits and the burdens” of a […]
What Is a Trade Secret? Key Elements and Legal Protections Explained
What is a trade secret and why you you protect them? Technology has made trade secret theft even easier and more prevalent. In fact, businesses lose billions of dollars every year due to trade secret theft committed by employees, competitors, and even foreign governments. But what is a trade secret? And how do you protect […]
What Is Title Insurance? Safeguarding Against Title Defects
If you are considering the purchase of a property, you may wonder — what is title insurance, do I need it, and why do I need it? Even seasoned property owners may question if the added expense and extra paperwork is really necessary, especially considering that people and entities insured by title insurance make fewer […]
Commercial Zoning: What Every Business Owner Needs to Know
If you operate a business, you need to understand how commercial zoning rules may impact you. For instance, zoning regulations can determine how you can develop a property and what type of activities your business can conduct. To ensure that you aren’t taken by surprise, it is always a good idea to consult with experienced […]
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Sign up to get the latest from our attorneys!
Explore What Matters Most to You.
Consider subscribing to our Firm Insights mailing list by clicking the button below so you can keep up to date with the firm`s latest articles covering various legal topics.
Stay informed and inspired with the latest updates, insights, and events from Scarinci Hollenbeck. Our resource library provides valuable content across a range of categories to keep you connected and ahead of the curve.
Will New Criminal Procedure Rule Condone Government Hacking?
Author: Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC
Businesses and individuals subject to white-collar investigations don’t just have to worry about the FBI knocking on their office door. The proposed amendment to the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 41 took effect December 1, 2016, and gives judges authority to grant the government a warrant to hack a computer located anywhere.
Proposed Amendments to Rule 41
Under changes to Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, a magistrate judge with authority in any district where activities related to a crime may have occurred is now authorized to “issue a warrant to use remote access to search electronic storage media and to seize or copy electronically stored information” in two situations: 1) when “the district where the media or information is located has been concealed through technological means”; or 2) when the media are on protected computers that have been “damaged without authorization and are located in five or more districts.”
Implications for Businesses
The amendments aim to make it easier for federal agencies to investigate and prosecute cybercrime. “For example, if agents are investigating criminals who are sexually exploiting children and uploading videos of that exploitation for others to see—but concealing their locations through anonymizing technology—agents will be able to apply for a search warrant to discover where they are located,” the Department of Justice recent wrote in an agency blog post regarding Rule 41.
Nonetheless, the proposed rule is generating criticism among government watchdog groups. The primary concern is that the new warrants are ripe for abuse, particularly considering the technological incompetence of many judges. If unchecked, the new authority could be used liberally to access individual and business computers without having to tell their owners. This is especially true considering that government investigations into botnets could potentially include millions of computers and unsuspecting users.
Critics specifically note that there are many legitimate reasons that electronic device users may want to protect their digital privacy. The Electronic Frontier Foundation cites journalists communicating with sources and victims of domestic violence seeking information on legal services, noting: “Millions of people who have nothing in particular to hide may also choose to use privacy tools just because they’re concerned about government surveillance of the Internet, or because they don’t like leaving a data trail around haphazardly.”
Opponents of the proposed amendments also maintain that the changes subject victims of malware attacks to further intrusion. In addition, allowing the government to hack or otherwise infiltrate computers that have been compromised by a botnet does not guarantee that it will make the situation better, particularly given the government’s own vulnerability to cyberattacks.
The U.S. Supreme Court recently signed off on the rule change, and since Congress failed to act, the amendments took effect on December 1, 2016.
Let`s get in touch!
Sign up to get the latest from the Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC attorneys!
