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' "
Re:I demand privacy but not in the private sector! (Score:5, Interesting)
If you take a book in to be rebound, and you have terrorist plans written in the margins, you are going to get reported.
It seems that computers are finally entering more common law... This isn't new territory or a new rule, just a new rule as it applies to computers.
It would be interesting to hear someone try and define "in plain view" as far as the folder structure of a machine goes.
In all honesty- every time I use someone else's box, I search for images. Doesn't everyone? I won't lie, I am hoping that they have some homemade porn on there of their wifey.
What's the old saying? (Score:4, Interesting)
Does the saying, "discretion is the better part of valour" meant anything to anyone these days? If I saw something extremely dangerous on a computer I'm fixing I'd probably say something weather or not there was a law forbidding me to. Likewise, if there's something technically illegal, but not likely to threaten the safety of anyone, I'm not going to go to any lengths to be a snitch. Don't bite the hand that feeds you, and all that.
Be smart (Score:3, Interesting)
Configure temp directories and cache directories to use the second drive.
Better: at least, mount the second drive in a caddy which is removed whenever the system is shipped-out for servicing.
Better yet, remove the caddy and put it in a "safe" place whenever the computer is not being used, so in case of theft, you don't lose the data.
Lastly, if the system is shipped because it won't boot windoze, boot-up with Knoppix and delete all possible temporary files or cache directories.
Hmmmm, this could be something to do: kitbashing a boot Linux distribution that would ferret-out all cache and temporary directories and nuke them.
EFF defends right to keep child porn private (Score:4, Interesting)
While the computer was being serviced, the service technician viewed some of the files on the computer and discovered that some of the files contained child pornography.
EFF appears to be ashamed of this "detail" because they left it out of the report on their website.
How do you balance the right of someone to have his child pornography kept private against the right of children not to be victimized by child pornography? What would your opinion be if it was pictures of your child or if you lived near the defendant?
Re:I demand privacy but not in the private sector! (Score:4, Interesting)
1. Don't shop at (those) stores at all.
2. Don't use dressing rooms and measure the clothing with some other means.
3. Buy clothes, take them home and try them on, then return them if they don't fit.
4. Make your own clothes. (This could even lead to "profit!!!")
5. Hire a tailor to make clothes for you.
Re:I demand privacy but not in the private sector! (Score:2, Interesting)
The question here is: which category is your computer in? The EFF says it's on the house side of the equation. The entire reason cops can search your car is that you agree to it when you are issued a driver's license; driving is considered a voluntary practice, and as such you are required to give up some of your 4th ammendment rights in order to do it. Taking your computer to a repair shop in no way alters your relationship with law enforcement -- you have not agreed to the suspension of your rights. Thus, it requires a warrant. To whit, your terrorism example, the cops would still have to acquire a warrant to search your house and many judges would be hesitant to issue one since writing in the margins of a book is clearly a protected 1st ammendment right. On the other hand, the cops might bring you in and ask you some questions, and they are perfectly entitled to do so.
Re:I demand privacy but not in the private sector! (Score:5, Interesting)
Uhm, they DO have security guards observing you in the dressing rooms.
That's what they claimed in the Winona Ryder shoplifting case. A guard claimed to have seen Noni cutting off security tags from the clothing in the dressing room by peering through observation slats in the dressing room wall.
By the way, I consider the Ryder case to be a blatant incident of railroading, and most of the testimony against her was clearly prosecutor-coached perjury of the most obvious kind. Her lawyer, Garregos, is a spin doctor, not a trial lawyer, and his defense was pathetic.
She was charged for two reasons only:
1) the LA DA was elected on the basis that his predecessor was too soft on celebrities (Robert Downey, et al);
2) he is the son of an FBI agent and Ryder has publicly worn a "Free Pelletier" button to movie industry events (Leonard Pelletier is in Leavenworth for allegedly shooting two FBI agents twenty years ago - I met him when I was there - just about everybody in the world other than the FBI considers him a railroaded political prisoner.)
Re:I've said it before... (Score:2, Interesting)
If you waive privacy rights when you bring your computer into a technician, then anything's fair game,
from reporting that child porn in the folder marked "college essays" to giving your email address to spammers to doing a search on your hard drive for anything that looks like a credit card or social security number, username and password, the possibilities are endless.
Re:There's always a choice (Score:2, Interesting)
As soon as the client tampers with one of them, the larger one sends out a signal to set off a silent alarm to warn security to be extra alert. If the client pays up, both ASD's get deactivated and the larger one gets removed. If the client tries to leave the shop without paying and at least one of the ASD's is still functioning, the sirens go off. If both are dead, it is up to security to spot suspicious behaviour.
It's called Probable Cause. (Score:4, Interesting)
If I invite guests over to my house and serve cocaine to my guests then I can't expect privacy either if one of them reports me the cops. In either case the cops can't just bash my door in they must get a warrant. But swore testimony of a witness is usually enough to land said warrant.
Simply put EFF is correct about needing a warrant and most likely they would have easily obtained one with a phone call. Cops screwed up here.
Oh, horseshit. (Score:3, Interesting)
I used to do tech work and while I never searched other people's machines (because I value my proprty rights and I respect other's property rights) I know a lot of techs that did. And they did it for one reaon: to get new stuiff for their collections. They'd copy off all of their porn, MP3s, etc... and add it to their collections. Their searches had nothing to do with fixing the computer and everything to do with data theft.
Re:EFF defends right to keep child porn private (Score:4, Interesting)
You seem to want to make the Consitutional rights of people be conditional on the kind of crimes they are accused of committing. Are you sure you'll want to live in such a society?
Welcome to the modern United States of America, we already do this. Check out DUIBlog's ""The DUI Exception to the Constitution"" [duiblog.com] For examples for just one type of crime. You might also check out examples relating to criminal tax fraud and drug crimes for more cases where the consitution is outright ignored. Don't forget about child protective services, which can hide the identity of your accuser in a court of law, and convict you on their testimony, which is clearly and aggriegiously a violation of one of the most important rights this country was founded over.
Re:EFF defends right to keep child porn private (Score:3, Interesting)
The First Amendment to the Constitution does not say anything about child pornography either, but court ruling show that it is not covered by "Freedom of Speech". The precedents show that where the constitution is not explicit, there is more to be considered than the words of the Constitution. Supreme Court ruling often refer to balancing the rights of one group vs. the other.
I did not say the EFF was right or wrong, I merely asked how the rights of the parties should be balanced.
MOD PARENT UP (Score:1, Interesting)
That last paragraph says it all. Being uspet about this case is not about condoning child pornography; rather, it is about not condoning policemen circumventing due process.
Remember the old saying attributed to Voltaire, "I may not agree with with what you say, but I will defend to death your right to say it?" This is the same principle; I don't agree with a child pornographer doing what he does, but I will defend his right to be secure in his papers absent a search warrant to the death.
Questions of "right and wrong" are easy when you're talking about people doing stuff you agree with. They're harder when you're talking about people doing stuff you DON'T agree with. But if you are truly a moral, principled person, you will defend the principle you say you stand for regardless of whether the person hiding behind it is (in your view) a good guy or a schmuck.
The child pornographer is a schmuck. But the principle is "search warrant first, police seizure after" and so even if they catch a nasty schmuck by going against this principle, I have to stand up for the schmuck...
Because I appreciate the fact that if I'm not doing anything illegal, I'm more or less secure against the police coming in and randomly searching me "just in case." The general principle of "search warrant first" is more valuable to me than the specific case of "catch the schmuck kiddie porn guy." We have to look at the general principle, not the specific case.
Re:Technician Did The Right Thing, Police Erred. (Score:3, Interesting)
"The initial invasions of respondents' package were occasioned by private action. Those invasions revealed that the package contained only one significant item, a suspicious looking tape tube. Cutting the end of the tube and extracting its contents revealed a suspicious looking plastic bag of white powder. Whether those invasions were accidental or deliberate, 10 and whether they were reasonable or unreasonable, they did not violate the Fourth Amendment because of their private character."
So, it appears that if a private party finds illegal material all expectation of privacy is out the window as far as the found items are concerned. As for the mechanics, or computer techs, there are any number of reasons why they may be looking in areas not directly related to the repair in question. Jacks are located in trunks, software that runs hardware is located on computer hard drives.
Re:Bad alternators don't put bodies in the trunk. (Score:3, Interesting)
Compare the number of those events to the number of Windows exploits in a year. Furthermore, if I'm having a problem locking my trunk, I'm probably going to notice the body and call the police myself.
What you are describing is a legal defense argument. It doesn't change the fact that illegal material was found on the computer.
It also doesn't change the fact that simply being an accused child pornographer is enough to thoroughly ruin your life in this country.
What if he does fix the problem, but the person actually was a criminal, continues to download, is caught. After poking around the cops find that the tech had infact serviced the computer and seen the illegal material. They accuse him of covering up the crime, and his life is ruined, etc. etc. Would you risk going to jail over somebody who couldn't properly maintain their computer?
If the files were not related to the problem, then the technician had no excuse looking at them in the first place. The technician was hired to fix a problem, not snoop. If the files WERE related to the problem, then we're back to square one of my assertion.
If you don't agree, then don't make a peep when the next Window's virus of the week drowns the internet in a crapflood. You can't expect users to fix their problem if doing so results in them being framed up on child porn charges. Also expect a lot more child porn websites, child porn spam, and innocent people in prison as users are reluctant to fix zombied boxes serving up child porn for the real traffickers.
You can't have it both ways. In the long run, your way will result in a lot MORE child porn on the internet. Happy now?
Re:You sound like... (Score:2, Interesting)
btw, I have been falsely accused before, although usually not in a legal situation.
The most socially pointed was when I passed a girl with a group of her girl friends on a busy DC street corner one (September I believe) weekend in Georgetown (SW corner of M and Wisconsin if I recall right). I'm one and a half steps passed the group, and the girl closest near the back turns around and goes utterly ballistic. I turn to see what the ruckus is about, I'm met with one really PO'd person, who apparently thinks I did something to her; I was taken back at getting screamed at for no apparent reason so I suspect she believed I had felt her up. I did nothing of the sort. I had simply weaved my way through her group getting past a crowd. There were also at least 1 other guy that walked around her on the other side at the same time, and I didn't see him (although I wasn't paying attention) do anything either, and I think there was another small group north of her as well.
Nonetheless, I got screamed at for half a block and got accusing stares from the other folks on the street the entire time. My suspicion afterwards was that she was a freshman or sophomore college new in town, vaguely pretty (hard to tell when you're trying to figure out what's going on in the first place in that mill of people) shopping with friends who had been getting hit on or felt up that entire afternoon and just thought someone had groped her or run into her on purpose, and she directed her verbal assault on the nearest person.
I gave up shortly trying to figure out what was up and eventually just walked away. Staying was just making things volatile and escalating something bad was going to get directed to me, and she and her friends were of no mind to really figure out what happened much less actually saw or knew themselves. All I knew was that I hadn't done anything.
Re:two points (Score:1, Interesting)
1) in realaity, when the police got there warrant and looked at the pictures, it would end there. At worse, the DA would put a stop to it.
Sorry. I knew someone who took photos of his kids playing with some other kids at the beach. All under 5, and wearing swimsuits. The guy at the photos processing place called the cops. After 3 years of going through the courts, he was convicted of producing and posessing child porn. He appealed, the appeal judge asked to see the original photos, and threw out the charges.
I'm not giving details, because the guy doesn't want anyone talking about those 3 years of hell, ever again.