FBI Can Obtain A Warrant If You Run Tor Come December

Megalith

Megalith

24-bit/48kHz
Staff member
Joined
Aug 20, 2006
Messages
13,000
While there are many legitimate Tor users out there, some in the government would prefer to view all of them as criminals. Thanks to CreatedTheMultiverse for the link.

…the US Supreme Court has approved a rule change that will shake things up like never before. By granting every federal magistrate judge the right to issue a warrant for anyone using Tor, anonymity on the Internet may become a serious offense. Moreover, if the US Congress does not undertake action to fight this ruling, it will go into effect as soon as December 2016. As a result, the FBI can then legally search computers running Tor remotely, even if they have no idea where the machine is located or what it is being used for. Simply having anonymity software installed on a computer would be reason enough for the FBI to investigate that user to “combat cyber crime.”
 
hah, i was just reading this exact same article (posted at a bitcoin place) and was going to make a thread, but i thought I would do a quick search.
 
Last edited:
Well, the important part here is that the supreme court said it was ok. Anonymity has no place in this country. And my favorite saying is "Only a terrorist would want anonymity".

Seems highly coincidental that a network developed and paid for the by the government would have a backdoor the government can use. Some people might describe this a honey pot, but I don't think that's what's going on.
 
Should go one further, everyone using the internet is a criminal.

Air too, all known criminals in the past have been proven to partake in breathing on a regular basis. It's obvious people using air are all criminals.
 
Twisted Kidney said:
Should go one further, everyone using the internet is a criminal.

Air too, all known criminals in the past have been proven to partake in breathing on a regular basis. It's obvious people using air are all criminals.
Click to expand...

Come one man, politicians are known to breathe air. Are you saying that politicians are criminals?
 
Is there really any privacy anymore, anywhere? It's just going to get worse, so don't break the law.
 
A person could run JonDo instead but that has a backdoor for the German government. Tor was created by USA government and now they don't want anyone using their tool? Wow, talk about over reach. Douchebags.
 
Yeah, I posted something about it the other day somewhere.

Monitoring is just being expanded more through backdoor legislation these days.
 
Just for running Tor? Even if you don't do anything illegal while running it? I guess everyone using that had better stop, then...

That seems excessive. I don't like this Supreme Court. They seem to be legislating from the bench. It really bothers me that Congress didn't even have to approve this. It demonstrates that our system of checks and balances isn't really working.
 
athenian200 said:
Just for running Tor? Even if you don't do anything illegal while running it? I guess everyone using that had better stop, then...

That seems excessive. I don't like this Supreme Court. They seem to be legislating from the bench. It really bothers me that Congress didn't even have to approve this. It demonstrates that our system of checks and balances isn't really working.
Click to expand...

I like how you claim the SCOTUS is legislating from the bench....


Yet the only references to this decision I can find do not link to any actual opinions from the SCOTUS. The links in the OP article are all 404 insofar as actual SCOTUS opinions/decisions. Only concrete decision I can find on anything is a blog piece from an Oregon congressman:

Wyden: Congress Must Reject Sprawling Expansion of Government Surveillance | Senator Ron Wyden
 
Skripka said:
I like how you claim the SCOTUS is legislating from the bench....


Yet the only references to this decision I can find do not link to any actual opinions from the SCOTUS. The links in the OP article are all 404 insofar as actual SCOTUS opinions/decisions. Only concrete decision I can find on anything is a blog piece from an Oregon congressman:

Wyden: Congress Must Reject Sprawling Expansion of Government Surveillance | Senator Ron Wyden
Click to expand...

I assumed the guy posting this article was doing good research. I'm not able to find anything on this other than the post on the front page and the page they linked to when I search for this. Also, the article isn't from any reputable news source I've ever heard of. You now have me wondering if this is even real.

Tor becoming illegal would definitely cause more outrage because it's very widely used... so either they've gotten a scoop ahead of everyone else, or there's some misinformation. Perhaps a very pointed interpretation of something that's more like reductio ad absurdum than what they actually intend to do.
 
westrock2000 said:
Come one man, politicians are known to breathe air. Are you saying that politicians are criminals?
Click to expand...

Is this a trick question?

Yakk said:
Guilty until proven innocent.
Click to expand...

It's been like that for a while.

Skripka said:
I like how you claim the SCOTUS is legislating from the bench....


Yet the only references to this decision I can find do not link to any actual opinions from the SCOTUS. The links in the OP article are all 404 insofar as actual SCOTUS opinions/decisions. Only concrete decision I can find on anything is a blog piece from an Oregon congressman:

Wyden: Congress Must Reject Sprawling Expansion of Government Surveillance | Senator Ron Wyden
Click to expand...

Wyden seems to know what's up and does what's best for the consumer for the most part. He's pro privacy and against the wire tapping stuff. He has been getting my vote in Oregon, and will continue as long as he keeps up that work.

If this were true, it wouldn't fly. The EFF would have a shit ton of stories and they'd be making a ton of noise about it. They aren't. I am not convinced this is actually a thing yet. Hopefully, more information can come out and we can see if it's true or not. Not panicking now....

The more that the government tries to limit encryption and fear anonymous activity on the internet, the more I want to see those technologies spread and succeed.
 
Nukester said:
Is there really any privacy anymore, anywhere? It's just going to get worse, so don't break the law.
Click to expand...

This has nothing to do with breaking the law...why don't you take down all the curtains and blinds in your house as well as doors...., since you seem to not care that everyone can see everything you do all the time...
 
Seriously, this isn't just tor. If you use a VPN or proxy service this would apply as well...
 
A former secretary of state can employ a private email server to subvert FOIA requests and escape any form of scrutiny while in office, and there are high ranking DOJ officials and politicians that don't want to prosecute.

/Meanwhile, every little thing done by a normal citizen to preserve annonymity is met with the full weight of the law. Sounds like America 2016.
 
MrGuvernment said:
This has nothing to do with breaking the law...why don't you take down all the curtains and blinds in your house as well as doors...., since you seem to not care that everyone can see everything you do all the time...
Click to expand...

I never said it doesn't bother me. It's just a fact.
 
Lith1um said:
A former secretary of state can employ a private email server to subvert FOIA requests and escape any form of scrutiny while in office, and there are high ranking DOJ officials and politicians that don't want to prosecute.

/Meanwhile, every little thing done by a normal citizen to preserve annonymity is met with the full weight of the law. Sounds like America 2016.
Click to expand...

Were you this hot and bothered over an email server when POTUS Bush had a private email domain and server and "lost" 22 million emails related to firing attys general?
 
Skripka said:
Were you this hot and bothered over an email server when POTUS Bush had a private email domain and server and "lost" 22 million emails related to firing attys general?
Click to expand...

Shit. You're right. Nevermind about Clinton, guys. This invalidates everything. /s

This is an argument my kids tried as toddlers. No, I don't care what your friends do. We're focusing on the here and now, that issue in the past is irrelevant.
 
Surely this can be challenged rather easily, on a 1st amendment basis?
 
First amendment is gone. If an fbi agent said Tor hurts their feels, good night that amendment.
 
I can't tell if this is real or not. There was definitely a change that allows judges to issue warrants that are not necessarily within their jurisdiction, but I don't know if would mean that they can get a warrant for any machine running Tor, even if the only thing they know is it's running tor.

I'm not a lawyer, so I don't know if the implications are that broad.
 
Ur_Mom said:
Shit. You're right. Nevermind about Clinton, guys. This invalidates everything. /s

This is an argument my kids tried as toddlers. No, I don't care what your friends do. We're focusing on the here and now, that issue in the past is irrelevant.
Click to expand...

It is an argument people have as toddlers. My people did it, but that is somehow different because I said so.

The Clinton email thing boils down to a witch hunt fishing expedition almost as wasteful as Denis Hastert egging on the Whitewater investigation that after $100 million USD resulted in basically nothing. Which coming from a party championing fiscal responsibility makes it more cringe worthy.
 
nilepez said:
I can't tell if this is real or not. There was definitely a change that allows judges to issue warrants that are not necessarily within their jurisdiction, but I don't know if would mean that they can get a warrant for any machine running Tor, even if the only thing they know is it's running tor.

I'm not a lawyer, so I don't know if the implications are that broad.
Click to expand...

Oh, I heard about that. I'm wondering if this is just an assumed implication someone perceives, or a different rule change altogether?

Really wish we had better information on this.
 
Ur_Mom said:
Shit. You're right. Nevermind about Clinton, guys. This invalidates everything. /s
This is an argument my kids tried as toddlers. No, I don't care what your friends do. We're focusing on the here and now, that issue in the past is irrelevant.
Click to expand...
Given that this article has NOTHING to do with Clinton, I think we can bring in anything if we're going to expand this into the "Clinton is the devil" like discussion.

For the record, it's relevant, because (assuming Bush had a server...didn't know that one) that would make our last president guilty of this and AFAIK he's never been investigated by the FBI on this issue and I'm pretty sure Powell (who had a classified things on AOL) and Rice weren't charged with anything. Maybe this will be the one where Republicans managed to stumble onto something (which if we go by Petraeus, and others, will be no more than a misdemeanor), but after Whitewater, Travelgate, Hillary Shot Vince Foster gate and probably many others I've forgotten, I'm going to agree with Stripka, it's a witch hunt. Buy WTH, those witch hunts found a lot of witches.
 
So whatever you do on Tor, make sure you're good at it and hopefully the fed offers a job?
 
Is that like them getting a warrant to search my home because I own a VCR which can be used to illegally copy movies?
 
Yes, and it's also like they can search you because you have a gun registered... after all you could be a vicious killer.

Or because you buy detergent, since you can build a bomb out of those, you know?
 
There has never been an expectation of privacy on the Internet, not even in the very beginning. Only an idiot thinks there is one or that there ever was one.
 
evilsofa said:
There has never been an expectation of privacy on the Internet, not even in the very beginning. Only an idiot thinks there is one or that there ever was one.
Click to expand...
It has nothing to do with an expectation of privacy, this is a matter of the feds getting a rubber stamped search warrant for any computer that is in any way trying to be "secret", as that in and of itself is probable cause.

To put a real world example on this, it's like getting pulled over and if a cop asks if he can see in your trunk and you refuse, that alone is probable cause for him to search since it's obvious suspicious behave to be hiding anything out of plain sight.
 
evilsofa said:
There has never been an expectation of privacy on the Internet, not even in the very beginning. Only an idiot thinks there is one or that there ever was one.
Click to expand...
Guess we should ban all encryption too then.
 

"This article is wrong. The rule change just means that a magistrate judge in the jurisdiction where the crime occurred can grant a warrant; it doesn't change the standard used to evaluate the warrant application. The police still have to show probable cause, this rule changes only which judge can grant it.

Previously, the uncertainty of location meant that no judge in the country could definitively grant the warrant."
 
Ski said:

"This article is wrong. The rule change just means that a magistrate judge in the jurisdiction where the crime occurred can grant a warrant; it doesn't change the standard used to evaluate the warrant application. The police still have to show probable cause, this rule changes only which judge can grant it.

Previously, the uncertainty of location meant that no judge in the country could definitively grant the warrant."
Click to expand...

I actually had no idea that the article was even talking about the same rule change as the one that affected which judges could grant warrants. The conclusion and headline are so far off from the rule that was actually changed that I didn't even recognize it. I didn't think it could possibly be linked in any way, couldn't even extrapolate it back to that as a jumping off point for exaggeration.
 
sfsuphysics said:
It has nothing to do with an expectation of privacy, this is a matter of the feds getting a rubber stamped search warrant for any computer that is in any way trying to be "secret", as that in and of itself is probable cause.

To put a real world example on this, it's like getting pulled over and if a cop asks if he can see in your trunk and you refuse, that alone is probable cause for him to search since it's obvious suspicious behave to be hiding anything out of plain sight.
Click to expand...

If a person is walking down the street wearing full body armor, helmet with tinted visor, carrying a large heavy duffel bag, and are not participating in a Star Wars parade, are the police justified in approaching and asking questions?
 
evilsofa said:
If a person is walking down the street wearing full body armor, helmet with tinted visor, carrying a large heavy duffel bag, and are not participating in a Star Wars parade, are the police justified in approaching and asking questions?
Click to expand...

An interesting scenario.... at this time, I'd say no, unless someone reported him for suspicious behavior. Then, his presence is alarming others, which the police can investigate.
 
Skripka said:
It is an argument people have as toddlers. My people did it, but that is somehow different because I said so.

The Clinton email thing boils down to a witch hunt fishing expedition almost as wasteful as Denis Hastert egging on the Whitewater investigation that after $100 million USD resulted in basically nothing. Which coming from a party championing fiscal responsibility makes it more cringe worthy.
Click to expand...
Or, my guy should get off because your guy did too. And we wonder why they're all corrupt.
 
Skripka said:
Were you this hot and bothered over an email server when POTUS Bush had a private email domain and server and "lost" 22 million emails related to firing attys general?
Click to expand...

I wasn't as politically active then, less aware. But I would have been just as pissed.

The inescapable truth is that HRC's use of a private server in her home equates to running a shadow government from her home. Immune from government back ups, immune from FOIA, free to use the Clinton Foundation to further her own interests, free to conceal information, free to delete the official records of events and write her own version of history.


 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top