If you use Tor, the FBI just labelled you a criminal

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11594597

"(b) Venue for a Warrant Application. At the request of a federal law enforcement officer or an attorney for the government:

(6) a magistrate judge with authority in any district where activities related to a crime may have occurred has authority to issue a warrant to use remote access to search electronic storage media and to seize or copy electronically stored information located within or outside that district if:

(A) the district where the media or information is located has been concealed through technological means; or (B) in an investigation of a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(5), the media are protected computers that have been damaged without authorization and are located in five or more districts."

This is not "labeling you a criminal" or authorizing anyone to get a warrant to search your computer (remotely or otherwise) simply because you have a copy of the Tor Browser Bundle installed. The claims in the linked blog post are flat-out wrong.

What it's actually saying is that during the investigation of a crime, if either of those two criteria are met, the government can apply for a warrant in "any district where activities related to [the] crime may have occurred". That's it.

If you think about this for a second, it makes sense. It's not possible to file a search warrant in a jurisdiction that you can't determine until after the warrant is executed. This rule change allows the government to apply for that warrant in a known jurisdiction, that of one of the victims. It does not make anything illegal that was not already illegal. It does not "label" anyone anything. It's a simple recognition of the fact that you can't ask for a search warrant when you don't know physically where you'll be searching.

Now, whether the whole "remote search" thing is a good idea is a different question. I happen to think it's not. However, those remote searches are already a reality and spreading FUD about this fairly innocuous rule change won't change that.

Edit: My quote was FUBAR, sorry.

It's very similar to having marijuana in the car - the police need 2 signs to get a warrant (usually red eyes and odor) in this case you'd have to give them 2 signs you were conducting some sort of illegal activity using something like TOR and they'd have a warrant. But what they would be able to do with that warrant is largely subject to each individual case - encryption making it increasingly difficult for them to do their job in some.

"The amendment would allow them (FBI) to issue warrants to hack into and seize information on a computer if its location has been “concealed through technical means."

In other words, if you're using Tor or similar, a judge out of jurisdiction (the critical change - since the jurisdiction of a Tor user is necessarily unknown) can now sign a warrant to have your data/stuff seized.

Problematic, but kind of a far cry from pre-declaring criminality.

If anyone feels I'm wrong, please explicitly state the line of logic used.

If true, given the scope of exploited devices in the wild - anyone may randomly get there computer searched and unless they're able to prove the search was illegal anything on the device is fair game.

Worst case, they hack machines to create "probable cause" using shell companies or contractors; no idea how this would be legal, but no idea how this ruling is legal either.