WASHINGTON ¨C The Supreme Court on Thursday approved a rule change that would allow U.S. judges to issue search warrants for access to computers located in any jurisdiction when their location is unknown, despite opposition from civil liberties groups who say it will greatly expand the FBI¡¯s hacking authority.

U.S. Chief Justice John Roberts transmitted the rules to Congress, which will have until Dec. 1 to reject or modify the changes to the federal rules of criminal procedure. If Congress does not act, the rules would take effect automatically.

U.S. officials have portrayed the change as a common-sense administrative revision that is needed because criminals increasingly use technology to hide their true locations.

The U.S. Justice Department, which has pushed the rule change since 2013, has described it as a minor modification needed to modernize the criminal code for the digital age, and has said it would not permit searches or seizures that are not already legal.

¡°The use of remote searches is often the only mechanism available to law enforcement to identify and apprehend¡± criminals, Justice Department spokesman Peter Carr said. Remote access refers to accessing computers over the Internet.

Google and civil liberties groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union and Access Now contend the change would vastly expand the Federal Bureau of Investigation¡¯s ability to conduct mass hacks on computer networks.

They say it also could run afoul of the U.S. Constitution¡¯s protections against unreasonable searches and seizures.

Sen. Ron Wyden, an Oregon Democrat, has vowed to introduce legislation to reverse the new computer search rule.

It ¡°will have significant consequences for Americans¡¯ privacy and the scope of the government¡¯s powers to conduct remote surveillance and searches of electronic devices,¡± Wyden said in a statement.

¡°The government would now be able to obtain a single warrant to access and search thousands or millions of computers at once; and the vast majority of the affected computers would belong to the victims, not the perpetrators, of a cybercrime,¡± Wyden said.