I would encourage anyone interested to actually read the proposed rule change. "(b) Venue for a Warrant Application. At the request of a federal law enforcemen

I would encourage anyone interested to actually read the proposed rule change. "(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.