A federal judge for the Eastern District of Virginia has ruled that the user of any computer that connects to the Internet should not have an expectation of privacy because computer security is ineffectual at stopping hackers.
"(...) the court FINDS that any such subjective expectation of privacy—if one even existed in this case—is not objectively reasonable."
But the problem is that most home computers connected to the Internet are in fact not private. Sure, the defendant in this case was using Tor. But the fact that NIT pwned him tells me that he was working in Windows. Probably with just Tor browser. And obviously not with any protection against non-Tor Internet connectivity. The Tor Project ought to warn users about these issues.
From an OPSec perspective, yeah, you shouldn't expect that your location couldn't be compromised somehow, even with countermeasures. So in some sense they're right, in a legal sense is where its a bit scary.
More generally, the ruling seems inconsistent with CFFA. So websites could freely compromise users, even more than they already do. And perhaps vice versa. Although there's arguably a distinction between home computers and commercial ones.
"(...) the court FINDS that any such subjective expectation of privacy—if one even existed in this case—is not objectively reasonable."
Some days are more dystopian than others.
Also, see the EFF statement: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/06/federal-court-fourth-a...