
FBI can obtain a warrant if you run Tor [pdf] - dineshp2
http://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/frcr16_mj80.pdf
======
dang
We need an accurate, neutral title for this. Suggestions?

Edit: or if it's a dupe, as some comments suggest, please reply with a link to
the earlier thread.

~~~
sndean
Maybe this thread (not really a dupe):
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11594597](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11594597)

~~~
dang
Ah, that must be the thread people have in mind. Thanks!

That's a dupe by HN's standards: it's a major discussion of the same story.

~~~
sndean
> That's a dupe by HN's standards: it's a major discussion of the same story.

Ohh, good to know.

------
mevile
I don't think the contents in the link back up the claim in the title, it
seems to say that _if you 've been suspected of a crime_ __and __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.

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.

~~~
manicdee
What are the criteria required to satisfy suspicion?

"I could smell weed, so I arrested this driver's personal belongings including
several thousand dollars in cash".

~~~
justinlardinois
That's a well established area of American criminal law that's not confined to
this matter and way too big to discuss in a Hacker News comment.

------
AnthonyMouse
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.

And look at (b)(6)(B) -- tell me that doesn't say the warrant would be to
break into the _victims '_ computers. 18 U.S.C. 1030 is the CFAA.

------
Gaelan
This was posted a few days ago. I recall that what it _actually_ 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.

~~~
doodles526
Yeah I remember that post. One thing I didn't ask that I meant to. Does anyone
know what kind of implications this would have if a warrant is granted for a
machine that turns out to reside outside of the USA?

Extreme over the top example scenaria: An employee of a foreign government
installs Tor on their work machine, does some things meriting an FBI warrant
under this decision. The FBI finds a way to access this machine, and in the
process accidentally discovers classified information belonging to the foreign
government and that government finds the data breach came from the FBI.

I may be mistaking, but the decision sounds like an awful lot of trouble
preparing to happen with regards to foreign relations.

~~~
Gaelan
IANAL, but I would think that if you are hiding your identity you lose any
rights that come with that.

------
pash
Do these new rules expand the claimed foreign jurisdiction of US federal
courts or not?

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 _which_ 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 _any_ US
federal district court, or when there is a question of whether it might be?

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.)

0\. See the note pertaining to Rule 1(b) of the 2002 amendment, at
[https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/rule_1](https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/rule_1)

------
Quequau
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.

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.

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.

So it's not just the Americans and the FBI that get up disingenuous
shenanigans when it comes to TOR.

------
nfd
Looks like it mostly targets onion sites/eepsites to me, but it's really
broadly worded. Damn.

------
justinlardinois
Can someone give context for this document? Why is the Supreme Court proposing
amendments to the federal criminal code?

------
saint_abroad
I wish they'd go after the users of shell companies just as aggressively as
Tor. But this 1% has super PACs.

------
gruez
off topic: Can everyone stop spelling "Tor" with all caps?
[https://www.torproject.org/docs/faq#WhyCalledTor](https://www.torproject.org/docs/faq#WhyCalledTor)

~~~
saint_abroad
Whoops, thanks, edited. I guess they're like Nato but not yet awol.
[http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/51924/proper-
capi...](http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/51924/proper-
capitalization-of-commonly-used-acronyms)

------
bunkydoo
Well this is it folks, to be honest I don't really blame em'

