A controversial proposed judicial rule change allowing judges to issue warrants to conduct “remote access” against a target computer regardless of its location has been approved by a United States Courts committee, according to the Department of Justice.

Federal agents have been known to use such tactics in past and ongoing cases: a Colorado federal magistrate judge approved sending malware to a suspect’s known e-mail address in 2012. But similar techniques have been rejected by other judges on Fourth Amendment grounds. If this rule revision were to be approved, it would standardize and expand federal agents’ ability to surveil a suspect and to exfiltrate data from a target computer regardless of where it is. (Both the United States Army and the Drug Enforcement Administration are known to have purchased such exploits, most likely zero-days.)

In the United States, federal warrants are issued by judges who serve one of the 94 federal judicial districts and are typically only valid for that particular jurisdiction. Typically those warrants are limited to the district in which they are issued.

Peter Carr, a DOJ spokesperson, told Ars: "I am not aware of any data on the number of times this has been previously authorized."

In February 2015, Richard Salgado, one of Google’s top lawyers, wrote a blog post articulating the company’s opposition to the move: “The implications of this expansion of warrant power are significant, and are better addressed by Congress.”

More importantly, though, he argued that:

Second, the proposed change threatens to undermine the privacy rights and computer security of Internet users. For example, the change would excuse territorial limits on the use of warrants to conduct “remote access” searches where the physical location of the media is “concealed through technological means.” The proposed change does not define what a “remote search” is or under what circumstances and conditions a remote search can be undertaken; it merely assumes such searches, whatever they may be, are constitutional and otherwise legal. It carries with it the specter of government hacking without any Congressional debate or democratic policymaking process.

The rule change has a long way to go before becoming standard practice. It has to be approved later this year by the Judicial Conference, then be approved by the Supreme Court. If Congress does not intervene at that stage, it will take effect as of December 1, 2016.