The EFF would be more effective if they suggested alternatives to things they do not like, instead of just laying out doom and gloom scenarios that depend on pessimistic (and often unrealistic) readings of bills, rules, and so on and then saying we must defeat the thing.<p>I would like to see how they would suggest addressing the problem that this rule change is meant to address:<p>1. Bad guy, B, is conducting felony F in district D.<p>2. B uses a computer, C, as part of this.<p>3. B is hiding the location of C using technological means. C may or may not be in D.<p>4. Law enforcement has enough evidence to satisfy the 4th Amendment requirements and get a warrant to search C remotely, but since they do not know where C is actually located, they don't know <i>which</i> court is the proper court to issue that warrant.<p>This proposed change makes it so that a judge in D could issue the warrant allowing a remote search of C, regardless of whether or not C is actually in D.