We need an accurate, neutral title for this. Suggestions?<p>Edit: or if it's a dupe, as some comments suggest, please reply with a link to the earlier thread.
I don't think the contents in the link back up the claim in the title, it seems to say that <i>if you've been suspected of a crime</i> <i></i>and<i></i> you run Tor then the fact that you've used Tor increases the scope of the warrant in limited ways. The warrant is served because of the crime you've been suspected of, not because of the use of Tor.<p>That's it. It's not saying that just using Tor is enough to be served a warrant. There's really nothing that crazy about any of it.
Title seems to bury the lede if I'm not reading this wrong. The rules would seem to provide warrants to remotely break into computers in unknown jurisdictions ("location has been concealed through technological means") in order to seize data. As in US FBI breaking into computers in other countries.<p>And look at (b)(6)(B) -- tell me that doesn't say the warrant would be to break into the <i>victims'</i> computers. 18 U.S.C. 1030 is the CFAA.
This was posted a few days ago. I recall that what it <i>actually</i> says is that you can get a warrant to break into the machine even if it can't be proven that the machine is in the jurisdiction of the court giving the warrant, because it is hard to do so when TOR is in use. You still need a valid warrant, it just can come from a different state then where you reside.
Do these new rules expand the claimed foreign jurisdiction of US federal courts or not?<p>The amended rules provide new authorities for issuing warrants when "the district where the media or information is located has been concealed through technological means". In other words, the new rules seem to expand the authority of federal courts when there is a question of <i>which</i> district court has jurisdiction. But what do these new rules mean for cases in which the location of the information is clearly outside of the jurisdiction of <i>any</i> US federal district court, or when there is a question of whether it might be?<p>Apparently the rules were previously amended to remove the definition of "district court" [0], making this question still more subtle. Note also that the rules explicitly expand the jurisdiction of US federal courts without regard to sovereign geography in cases of terrorism, but not otherwise. (I am reminded why I decided not to pursue a legal career.)<p>0. See the note pertaining to Rule 1(b) of the 2002 amendment, at <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/rule_1" rel="nofollow">https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/rule_1</a>
There was a case centered around the fact that the defendant maintained a TOR router and occasional exit point in the city I live in a few years ago.<p>I didn't follow it obsessively but general gist I walked away with was that the authorities were using TOR as an excuse to go after people who had gotten their attention for other reasons, perhaps so simple as annoying people who are simply friends with people in power. And then subject them to a shockingly large range of intrusive police activity (including extended surveillance, pre-dawn raids using specially trained heavily armed police forces), and drawn out prosecution for a litany of minor or petty violations they happened to discover in the process.<p>At the end of the trial it came out that they never did really try to prosecute any of the TOR related "offenses" and judges were apparently happy to leave TOR usage in some sort of legal grey area.<p>So it's not just the Americans and the FBI that get up disingenuous shenanigans when it comes to TOR.
off topic: Can everyone stop spelling "Tor" with all caps? <a href="https://www.torproject.org/docs/faq#WhyCalledTor" rel="nofollow">https://www.torproject.org/docs/faq#WhyCalledTor</a>