content: Selling drugs online or accessing child porn is tantamount to forfeiting your rights in the eyes of the law because you're in the act of felonious deeds, sometimes federally.   If they have probable cause to believe you are doing so and it generally requires a warrant before search and seizure takes place.  If you don't use excess precautions to maintain your privacy on top of Tor then I honestly don't think you should really expect to be private were the right groups pursuing you.  That's hogwash, and your thinking would set a terrible precedent for stripping away privacy rights much more than they already have been. Using Tor demonstrates way more intention of privacy than just about anything. You should review the SCOTUS case 'Katz v. United States' where Katz used way less effort & technical means to maintain his privacy, and it was considered that he had an "expectation of privacy." Anyways, this case wasn't really about the legal test 'expectation of privacy' it was about rule 41(b), which prevents judges from authorizing searches and seizures outside of their district.  See:   Michaud tried to suppress the evidence against him, arguing that because the server was located in Virginia and he was in Washington, the warrant for the NIT had violated Rule 41(b), which prevents judges from authorizing searches and seizures outside of their district. But US district judge Robert J. Bryan denied the motion, noting that while the warrant technically violated the rule, a higher court's interpretation provides an exception for when the information sought could have been discovered by “other lawful means."  The judge appears to have not demonstrated at all how "other lawful means" would have achieved the same discovery.