Edit: or if it's a dupe, as some comments suggest, please reply with a link to the earlier thread.
That's a dupe by HN's standards: it's a major discussion of the same story.
Ohh, good to know.
US judges can now issue warrants for computers located in any jurisdiction
I can't help but be a bit cynical and suspect that headline would never get so many upvotes because it doesn't fit the HN narrative as well.
> FBI can obtain a warrant to search computers of unknown location.
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.
"I could smell weed, so I arrested this driver's personal belongings including several thousand dollars in cash".
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.
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.
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" , 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
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.