EFF Weighs in on Computer Privacy Case 564
An anonymous reader writes "A case on appeal to the Washington State Court of Appeals, State v. Westbrook, recently drew the attention of the EFF. They argue that: "citizens have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the contents of their computers, and that their Fourth Amendment rights don't disappear when a computer is delivered to a technician for servicing." This ruling could threaten to 'turn your friendly neighborhood computer repair technician into a government informer' "
eff computer privacy case (Score:2, Informative)
Back in the days when photographs had to be sent to a shop for developing and printing there was a push to require the shops to report illegal photos (porn, evidence of a crime etc.) The administration of these laws boggs down because everyone has a different opinion as to what to report.
David Asimov (Score:3, Informative)
Re:EFF defends right to keep child porn private (Score:2, Informative)
You need to realize they are not fighting for the defendents in these cases. They are fighting to ensure due process is followed IN ALL CASES.
If you can't follow the rules when it comes to prosecuting people who are truly guilty of crimes, how much are the authorities willing to bend the rules when the case isn't so cut and dry.
Re:EFF defends right to keep child porn private (Score:4, Informative)
The title is very much misleading. The EFF is *not* defending child porn. FTFA, quote,
"Customers who drop off their computers for servicing reasonably expect that their private data won't be handed over to the police without a warrant."
The EFF is defending the right of the person to not have his hard disk go through an unauthorized search.
Re:I demand privacy but not in the private sector! (Score:3, Informative)
I actually kind of like the solution a lot of clothing stores in our mall seem to have come up with. They simply have a staff member who minds the dressing rooms and not only keeps an eye out for shop lifting, but can grab a different size for you, if the one you have doesn't work. It ends up giving them extra security and me extra convience and once again, they don't have to watch you dress.
Re:I demand privacy but not in the private sector! (Score:3, Informative)
Imagine if I broke into your home and found pot plants growing. While I was even in the commission of a crime, not being a police officer that search is legal and admissible in court.
Sorry.
I've told many people to not take their PC's in for repair because of porn (which in any form can be partially illegal in my county/city/state) and copies of software that no one paid for. Just as if you cut off your O2 sensor and catalytic converter and took your car in to get fixed you can expect the mechanic to report you.
Now, approaching someone might be a better option, but people sometimes would rather go to the police.
Re:I demand privacy but not in the private sector! (Score:4, Informative)
The Bill of Rights lists rights not granted by the government, but lists rights that are inherent and unalienable. Among these is the right to privacy.
Re:I demand privacy but not in the private sector! (Score:3, Informative)
It is deeply disturbing to me that people imagine that starting a business gives them arbitrary powers of surveillance and coercion in that sphere.
Re:I demand privacy but not in the private sector! (Score:3, Informative)
Allows privacy, and also that privacy is assumed in the rights against search and seizure (#3 & 4) and against self-incrimination (#5).
But, it's not specifically mentioned anywhere (which you clearly knew, but it was fun doing the google search anyway).
Re:I demand privacy but not in the private sector! (Score:3, Informative)
Some founders believed that having a bill of rights would make it seem that only the rights listed therein are the only rights one has. Many believed the Bill of Rights would be redundant since the government was one of enumerated powers and had no power to regulate religion, the press, etc.
Rule of thumb: government powers are enumerated, while rights are not. Basically, you have the right to do anything not expressly forbidden.
The right to privacy is not forbidden and is alluded to in the 4th and 9th amendments. Ergo, you have that right. QED
Re:I demand privacy but not in the private sector! (Score:4, Informative)
Can you tell me in which article this "right to privacy" is? I seem to have missed it.
IN THE [findlaw.com]
Supreme Court of the United States
The Fourth Amendment protects "[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures." U.S. Const. amend. IV. The rights protected by the Fourth Amendment are "indispensable to the 'full enjoyment of personal security, personal liberty, and private property'; [and] they are to be regarded as of the very essence of constitutional liberty." Johnson v. United States, 333 U.S. 10, 17 n.8 (1948). And these rights apply with particular force in the home, where the expectation of privacy is historically and legally entitled to the highest protection. A thermal imager scan of a private home at night without a warrant, which gathers information about activities and objects generating heat inside the home, violates those rights.
Further down in that document:
This constitutional right of privacy in the home does not depend on notions of trespass. See Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 353 (1967) (the existence of a violation "cannot turn upon the presence or absence of a physical intrusion into any given enclosure"); United States v. United States Dist. Ct., 407 U.S. 297, 313 (1972) (government interception of telephone conversations as violative of right of privacy as physical entry into the home). As this Court recognized over a hundred years ago: "It is not the breaking of his doors, and the rummaging of his drawers, that constitutes the essence of the offense; but it is the invasion of his indefeasible right of personal security, personal liberty, and private property. . . which underlies and constitutes the essence of"a Fourth Amendment violation. Boyd, 116 U.S. at 630.
The First Amendment Protects Privacy of Association [findlaw.com]
The "close nexus" between the First Amendment freedoms of speech and assembly assures a freedom to engage in association for the advancement of beliefs and ideas. See NAACP, 357 U.S. 449, 460 (1958). Effective advocacy of both public and private viewpoints--central to the First Amendment--is "undeniably enhanced by group association." Id. Freedom of association is a fundamental right protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Id., citing De Jonge v. Oregon, 299 U.S. 353, 364; Thomas v. Collins, 323 U.S. 516, 530 (1992). The freedom of association encompasses the right to privacy of that association, and therefore prevents compelled disclosure of membership in an organization. NAACP, 357 U.S. at 459. Such a right is necessary to the freedom of expression, which depends upon the unrestricted flow of ideas, because the "inviolability of privacy in group association may in many circumstances be indispensable to preservation of freedom of association, particularly where a group espouses dissident beliefs." Id. at 462.
The Court Only Seventeen Years Ago: Deeply Torn Over Anti-Gay Sex Criminal Laws [findlaw.com]
In 1986, the Supreme Court took up the famous -- indeed, notorious -- case of Bowers v. Hardwick. The case arose when Michael Hardwick was arrested for violating Georgia's criminal ban on sodomy after police entered his home and found him in bed with another man.
In defending himself against the criminal charge, Hardwick challenged the constitutionality of Georgia's ban on sodomy. Specifically, he argued that his constitutional right to privacy included a right to engage in homosexual sex and, thus, meant that Georgia's sodomy law should be struck down.
As a legal matter, Hardwick's case involved one of the most difficult areas of constitutional law. The Constitution doe
CSI: The Matrix (Score:2, Informative)
IANAL, however
I did RTFA and from what was presented there, the police blew it on this one. Gateway's privacy policy and the tech's morals/ethics may have required them/him to notify the police. Police procedures and legal guidelines SHOULD have mandated a warrant, once the "probable cause" evidence was shown them by the tech and before they so much as touched the machine to adjust the viewing angle. That's the way it's SUPPOSED to work (in most U.S. jurisdictions, YMMV).
Computer forensics 'sperts come in like the CSIs from the TV shows, with all sorts of techie gizmos and gimmicks. They can, and do, create a bitwise, forensic clone of the hard drive, take photos, make notes, and maintain a chain of evidence. For them, it's routine. Some of the toys they have are enough to make you drool with envy. It doesn't sound like any of that happend here - instead the locals came in like the guy in the Swiffer commercial.
Computer forensics cuts both ways. A good defense expert CAN show that the bomb-making instructions ended up on the computer without your consent or knowledge, just as a good prosecution expert can demonstrate that you really did keep two sets of Quicken books for your money-laundering home business.
But as has been noted here before, when it comes to drugs, taxes, terrorism, or kiddie porn, it's guilty until proven innocent. A computer forensics consultant I know had to obtain "Get Out of Jail Free" cards from the State DAs in two states to carry evidence back and forth across a state line for one case he was involved with. Had he been stopped, and his evidence bag examined, without them, he could have ended up incarderated for "possession" of kiddie porn. Talk about mindless, knee-jerk situations.
Oh, well, if you want to experience a wild life of techno-crime, consider a career in computer criminal forensics. The pay is great, you get to play with neat toys, and if you are really unlucky you'll get to meet a lot of VERY interesting people.
Its implicit in Amendments IV, V, IX, and XIV (Score:3, Informative)
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
coupled with IV,
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
V,
No person shall
and XIV,
add up to a Right To Privacy. Between them, what the Framers were saying was that if the state wants to invade your personal space, they had better be able to show a pretty compelling reason.
Oh, and when the Feds institute that system of internal passports [bostonphoenix.com] that some folks are worried about in connection with the new driver's license law [epic.org], remember that the Constitution guarantees no explicit Right To Travel either.