In the days following the election of Donald Trump, millions of people who believe they may be targeted by the new administration started using encrypted chat, email, and web browsing to protect their privacy.

But a federal rule change (an amendment to Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure) scheduled to go into effect on December 1, just before Donald Trump takes office, would drastically reduce the effectiveness of these surveillance self-defense measures, making people who use them easier targets for intrusive government hacking.

Under the rule change, local and federal law enforcement would get expanded powers to remotely hack into and seize data on computers, phones, and storage devices that belong to anyone who is suspected of being “related” to a crime and who uses encryption, disables location tracking, or has been a victim of a botnet. It would also allow judges to issues warrants for law enforcement to hack into multiple devices anywhere instead of requiring them to get separate warrants for each search target.

Currently, if police or the FBI wants to access your digital files, they have to get a warrant from a magistrate judge located within your federal judicial district. This rule change would allow cops to go to any federal judge located anywhere in the country to get a warrant to hack into your files if you take measures to protect your identity.

The change means that a single law enforcement-friendly judge (or one who doesn’t understand tech) could become a rubber stamp for cops and Feds to hack into any computers or and phones across the country and around the world.

So if you don’t encrypt or block location tracking, law enforcement would still need to make their case before a federal judge in your district. But if you do encrypt, they would get to go forum shopping, or just go straight to a judge anywhere in the U.S. with a reputation for being liberal with their hacking warrants.

Background: In 2015, the FBI intentionally misled a judge in Virginia in order to get a warrant that would let them hack into computers involved in an investigation. On their warrant application, they said they wanted to be able to search computers located in the Eastern District of Virginia. But they used the warrant to hack into more than 1,300 computers across the country.

When other courts looked at the case, they determined that the FBI acted outside the bounds of their warrant in hacking most of these computers. So the FBI asked the Supreme Court to change the underlying rule, and in April of 2016 the Supreme Court agreed.

These rules can be changed by the federal court system; no public debate or legislative activity is required. So, unless Congress acts, starting on December 1 law enforcement will automatically get new powers making it far easier for them to remotely hack into your electronic devices.

Congress needs to hold a full public debate to fully grasp these issues and strike the right balance between privacy and investigating crimes. Is remote mass hacking of computers ever permissible? If so, what kinds of privacy protections should be put in place?

Sign the petition to demand that Congress delay the hacking rule and hold a debate: Pass legislation to delay the amendment to Rule 41 before it takes effect so Congress can hold a debate on the expansion of the government's power to hack into people's computers. This is an issue that should be settled by elected officials in Congress, not the courts.