To me, this seems a reasonable change--mostly. The primary purpose of the existing rule 41 under discussion is to prevent venue shopping for warrants, not to prevent warrants entirely when the FBI has no idea where someone resides.
Where it falls down is "particularity"; with respect to the Fourth Amendment clause, "...particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
As I see it, the problem isn't that a warrant was used to access a computer at an unknown location, the problem was that a single warrant was used to access every computer at every location.
Warrants under a new rule 41 should serve only for technical identification of a computer. Once a computer has been identified particularly, the FBI should have to obtain a specific warrant to search that computer particularly.
Suppose the government gained control of a drug distribution point, and decided to continue to ship drugs...along with a free tracker in every bag. A single NIT-equivalent warrant should be good for that, even though the government has no idea where the bags are going (could be going to another state).
But once a particular bag has been delivered to a particular warehouse, for example, the government should have to obtain a warrant particular to that warehouse.
Rule 41 did fall down, I just disagree as to the extent of the breakdown and the flaws of the proposed correction.
If there were even a tiny bit of accountability within the Minooka Police Department--if the officers of the department only violated procedure a tiny bit of the time--maybe there would have been fewer people asking for body camera footage.
It's the same thing the insurance companies do now. They take premiums, take 15% off the top for profit, pay another 35% to an administrative services company, then pay the rest to an underwriter for services. The underwriter takes 50% off the top (underwriters aren't regulated by the insurance board) and then pays the rest to a secondary underwriter. The secondary underwriter takes 50% off the top...
50%*50%*50%*50% leaves 6% or so for claims...is it any surprise the insurance company files bankruptcy at the drop of a hurricane rumor? All perfectly legal; you can audit the daylights out of them and no one is "taking more than they're legally entitled to take."
The state of Florida offered to underwrite the insurance companies for free, and the insurance companies snubbed it because it would mean less profit for the stockholders.
They gave value (support for TPP) in exchange for value (right to compete). The right to compete was supposed to be unconditional (even though winning was conditional) and one party was official, so that's a bribe.
Okay, the first thing that comes to mind is: who were these idiots who consented to this surveillance? The FISC is saying that on the one hand we have the citizens who consented and, oh, let's talk about those who didn't consent...which is like, all the citizens. The amazing thing is that FISC even bothered to distinguish, not that it has any effect on the remainder of their argument.
Then the FISC goes completely off the deep end: we've got to let law enforcement keep the data, because FISA says so; and we've got to let them search it because they get to keep it; also because it's just like any ordinary database, and databases are all searchable, so this one should be as well; and the government shouldn't have to go to all the trouble of justifying a search as important, or legal; and the government shouldn't even have to go to all the trouble to write down that they searched it.
Because, you know, all those unconsenting citizens don't need any Fourth Amendment protections.
I've never seen a clearer indication that the FISC is a wholly-owned lackey of the intelligence and law enforcement agencies; a sham defender of our Constitutional rights.
Make it didn't happen--paraphrased in this case as:
The problem isn't that one of our paid jack-boot thugs pepper-sprayed a bunch of unruly students, the problem is that it makes us look bad. A little public relations whitewash and we can make it didn't happen.
This is the standard response of organizations today. Why be good citizens when it's so much more profitable to commit fraud, crush opposition, and/or sell dangerous products that kill people? All you need is a little reputation management to make people forget it happened, and you can right on being a bad citizen again and again and again.
This is the worst part of the "right to forget" laws. They aren't about individuals, not really: they're about organizations wiping out the memory of their wrongdoings; making them didn't happen.
"The Government has informed the Court that there was no intent to leave the FISC with a misimpression or misunderstanding, and it has acknowledged that its prior representations could have been clearer..."
But hey, no intent to create a misimpression or misunderstanding though. Maybe an intent to outright bamboozle, dupe, gull or hoodwink the FISC; but what's a little perjury before a rubber-stamp court?