In the ultimate "Big Brother" move, federal officials are considering a change in the rules regarding criminal investigations so that they could "remotely hack into personal computers and mobile devices, implant malicious software on computers, and rummage through the personal contents of those computers, even if their owners are not suspected of criminal activity."
The warning is coming from officials with the Rutherford Institute, which fights for civil liberties and constitutional rights.
The organization has written a letter to U.S. Sen. Ron Wyden, who is opposing the rule change, offering its assistance.
At issue is a proposed change to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41, which addresses search warrants.
TRENDING: St. Patrick's role on the 'external hard drive'
If the change is adopted, Rutherford warned, it would "erode individual privacy" by granting vast new authority to investigators.
The organization explained, "The DOJ's proposed changes to the Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41 have been justified as a way to fight cybercrime and make it easier for law enforcement to track down cyber criminals who use tools such as Tor, botnets or malware to mask their true location."
It noted the U.S. Supreme Court already has "rubberstamped" the idea, and Congress has until December to block or change it.
Wyden, a Democrat from Oregon, says he plans to introduce a plan to block the change.
"Once again, the government is insisting that it needs greater powers to combat cybercrime, even if it means cutting through the very foundations of freedom in order to fight these modern devils," said constitutional attorney John W. Whitehead, president of the institute.
"Of course, it's a devil’s bargain – much like the Patriot Act was – that attempts to sell us on the idea that safety, security and material comforts are preferable to freedom. The problem with these devil's bargains, however, is that there is always a catch, always a price to pay for whatever it is we valued so highly as to barter away our most precious possessions. In the end, as we saw with the Patriot Act, such bargains always turn sour."
Whitehead explained the change would let any judge in a district where there is criminal activity "to issue a warrant to search electronic storage media and seize and copy stored information if the location of the electronic storage media has been concealed through technological means. Additionally, for an investigation of computer crimes such as the distribution of computer viruses or malware involving more than five computers, the proposed amendments allow a single magistrate to issue a warrant to search numerous computers, including computers that have been infected by the virus or malware regardless of whether the computer’s owner is suspected of involvement in any criminal activity."
But the institute told Wyden the very idea threatens privacy.
For one, it would subject innocent people to hacking and indiscriminate searches.
"Investigators would be allowed to hack into computers and other devices which they suspect have been infected by a virus or malware … [and] allow investigators to conduct remote surveillance of the infected computer or device even if the owner is not suspected of criminal activity."
The letter also said there would be problems because the change does not impose a time limit "on how long the software may remain on the target computer or requires the government to remove or delete the software once any investigation is complete."
Finally, the government could hack into computers without ever letting the owner know.
Explained the institute, "These amendments would greatly expand federal investigators’ ability to engage in remote surveillance, which involves the secret installation of data extraction software on a computer. Once installed, the software allows government agents to remotely search a computer's hard drive and other data storage, transmit data back to the agents, and to even remotely activate and control attached cameras and microphones."
Â