The Justice Department is trying to assuage concerns about new rules governing law enforcement's powers to hack computers set to take effect Dec. 1.

In a blog post Monday, Assistant Attorney General Leslie Caldwell said she welcomed the "robust debate" but questioned critics' arguments against the changes to the controversial Rule 41.

ADVERTISEMENT

“[W]e embrace the robust debate regarding the reasonable measures available to fight crime in a democratic society. But that debate, of course, is only helpful to the extent it relies on accurate information,” she wrote.

The updates to Rule 41 would make it easier for law enforcement to obtain warrants to hack computers.

Currently, courts are at an impasse when considering a warrant against computers that disguise their physical location. Without knowing the physical location, officers are unable to determine which court has jurisdiction to issue a warrant to hack the computer. But law enforcement is unable to determine the location of a computer without hacking.

The new rules would allow any court to issue a warrant against a system using technology to conceal its physical location.

A second provision would allow law enforcement to get a single warrant to hack five or more computer systems, useful in the fight against networks of hacked computers known as botnets.

The Supreme Court approved the changes to Rule 41. The updated rules will go into effect unless Congress takes action to block them.

Digital liberties groups have argued against the changes for a variety of reasons, including that the new rules would permit the government to hack — and possibly damage — computers owned by innocent victims of hacking whose systems are being misused.

Caldwell said those arguments represent a fundamental misunderstanding of the issue.

She said courts had already made clear the changes only address jurisdictional issues, citing one such ruling: “The proposal addresses venue; it does not itself create authority for electronic searches or alter applicable statutory or constitutional requirements.”

Many of the activities described in the Rule 41 changes — from searching the property of innocent victims to accidentally damaging property during a search — are already permitted or accounted for by current investigative procedures.

Law enforcement hacking is already permitted, she writes. The only difference from the rule's changes are which courts can hear the warrant applications.

Other concerns, she writes, are already addressed by the Fourth Amendment, which limits law enforcement from using hacking indiscriminately and without a warrant, as some have feared.

In July, a bipartisan group of legislators from both chambers of Congress introduced legislation to delay changes to Rule 41 until July to give them more time to ponder the consequences.

“We cannot give the federal government a blank check to infringe on Americans’ civil liberties,” said Sen. Steve Daines (R-Mont.), who co-introduced the bill, in a press release.

“We look forward to demonstrating to Congress and the public why these venue changes are essential to protecting Americans, and especially American children, from online criminals,” Caldwell concluded.

“We look forward to continued collaboration with the private sector on best practices in the struggle against botnets and other cybercrime. And, as always, we look forward to continued engagement with those who advocate in favor of privacy protections, whether privacy from the government or privacy from mass criminal hackers.”