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' "
I demand privacy but not in the private sector! (Score:2, Insightful)
This is completely agree with. Law enforcement should always have to get a warrant to search a computer unless we're talking about something like blatant kiddie porn as the desktop's background (and no, a picture of your child taking a bath doesn't qualify).
I have a feeling that the Gateway technician shouldn't have been p
Re:I demand privacy but not in the private sector! (Score:5, Funny)
Well, now we know who works as a department store security guard...
Re:I demand privacy but not in the private sector! (Score:5, Insightful)
Do you have a daughter or a wife? Would you like a bunch of random teenage employees at the local Gap watching her everytime she tried on a piece of clothing?
Re:I demand privacy but not in the private sector! (Score:3, Insightful)
I will be married in less than a month. I would expect that their theft prevention team would be staffed by the appropriate sex as to observe that -- and most places that do have cameras note that on a large sign that you can read before you go in.
Remember, any place you shop (including ones w/cameras) is *your* choice. I choose not to give business
Re:I demand privacy but not in the private sector! (Score:2)
Hang on, are you saying that there exist stores with cameras in the dressing rooms? And some of them don't even have notice of this?
Re:I demand privacy but not in the private sector! (Score:2)
Yes. Welcome to 2005.
And some of them don't even have notice of this?
I couldn't possibly speak for all stores that have cameras in their dressing areas so I said "most places".
Re:I demand privacy but not in the private sector! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I demand privacy but not in the private sector! (Score:3, Funny)
Dilbert: I think he means UNIX programmers not eunuchs and I already know UNIX.
Boss: If the company nurse stops by, tell her " never mind "
Re:I demand privacy but not in the private sector! (Score:5, Funny)
"Work at the gap, see a gap!!!"
Re:I demand privacy but not in the private sector! (Score:3, Insightful)
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 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
Re:I demand privacy but not in the private sector! (Score:3, Insightful)
I have a wife, and I don't worry about this. I figure one of three things will happen:
Re:I demand privacy but not in the private sector! (Score:3)
Re:I demand privacy but not in the private sector! (Score:2)
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:3, Funny)
I suppose "???" only applies to underpants?
Re:I demand privacy but not in the private sector! (Score:3, Insightful)
My wife is a quite talented seamstress, and she has sewn a LOT of clothes for herself and our children, but now she only sews items when she is going for a particular look that's not available off the rack, because it's so bloody expensive to get the fabric, fasteners, trim, etc.
Re:I demand privacy but not in the private sector! (Score:5, Insightful)
It should be the case that he can't spy on his customers, either!
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)
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 allud
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
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
Re:I demand privacy but not in the private sector! (Score:3, Insightful)
You could be accused of trespassing if you enter the store with intent to steal or otherwise do something incompatible with the above general invitation.
He wouldn't get much sympathy from the courts if he decided to physically eject you from the store for being black if you had the proper intent when you ente
Re:I demand privacy but not in the private sector! (Score:3, Insightful)
Show me a law (statute, not case law) that explicitly states that we have no expectation of privacy in public restrooms and dressing rooms,
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:2, Insightful)
There's always a choice (Score:2)
Make your own clothes. (Though you can't make them as cheaply someone in China can.)
Know your size before you shop? (Then there's the problem with vanity sizing, mostly with women's clothing. Sweats and T-shirts should still be OK.)
Bring a measuring tape? (But, then you'd have to teach yourself what and how to measure.)
Somehow build a successful grassroots effort that makes dishonesty no long
Re:I demand privacy but not in the private sector! (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:I demand privacy but not in the private sector! (Score:5, Insightful)
It isn't the technician-turned-informant that many of us have an issue with. It si the fact that the Police didn't feel that they needed to go through the steps of actually obtaining a search warrant. Here in the US, these processes are supposed to have judicial oversight, though the trend these days is for the Congress and the Executive to ignore these requirements. THe courts are trying to reign it in (we will see how long before portions of the USAPATRIOT act are struck down in multiple circuits.
No, IANAL.
Re:I demand privacy but not in the private sector! (Score:2)
I don't know the circumstances of this case the EFF is barking about, but if the technician runs across something by doing common tasks, then for God's sake, they should report them.
Re:I demand privacy but not in the private sector! (Score:3, Insightful)
While I don't have a wife (what do you expect on /. ?) and therefore don't have hawt wife pr0n, this kind of attitude is exactly why no one uses my boxes, even for one minute, without a new account being created for them. I've learned that people love to read private email and dig through document folders.
And if it goes in for serv
Re:I demand privacy but not in the private sector! (Score:3, Funny)
Re:I demand privacy but not in the private sector! (Score:2, Interesting)
The question here is: which category is your comput
Re:I demand privacy but not in the private sector! (Score:5, Insightful)
The really really scary part of this is where you say "Doesn't everyone?" as though you think this was the norm! Are you not even aware that what you are doing is unethical? It also happens to be bad for business, so you should be careful that no one finds out. I just now noticed the irony that you started that statement with "In all honesty-".
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 pa
I do. (Score:5, Insightful)
What the hell happened to professionalism? I used to do computer repair and I NEVER snooped on peoples machines. I addressed the problem as laid out in the service ticket and left the rest alone.
"But kiddie porn is sick!" some of you will whine. Yes. Yes it is. But your job is not to search for criminal activity. Your job is to fix the computer. Stick to your job. Let the police trace the perverts download patterns on the Net.
Would you search his hard drive for illegal music downloads and call the cops because he has that unreleased Fatboy Slim Cd on it?
And to the parent, you need to grow the hell up and learn about property rights. Someone else's computer is not yours. You don't trespass on their data.
Re:I do. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I demand privacy but not in the private sector! (Score:3, Insightful)
I burglarize your home, turn on your computer, search for files, then put the computer facing the window where an illegal image can be seen plainly from the street, and a cop sees it, you are going down. Sure I may go to jail for burgulary, but you are getting busted for your crime also. You have no 4th ammendment protection from private citizens.To thi
Re:I demand privacy but not in the private sector! (Score:4, Insightful)
When the goverment is granted survelance powers over a population, it inevitabily abuses them. Why would you expect a private company to behave any differently?
More to the point, how is it any different if you are spied upon on private property as oppoesd to public property? You are still being spied on.
Re:I demand privacy but not in the private sector! (Score:2)
My feelings for personal privacy have no weight in a privately owned store that is using video cameras as a theft prevention mechanism.
I cannot possibly control what a private company does with their property (i.e. add cameras for theft prevention). I can choose not to be a patron.
I *can*, however, use my weight as a citizen to push for no cameras in the public space as I have just as much right as anyone else.
I demand private sector privacy (Score:2)
BZZZT! Thankyouforplaying, but you lose!
If you don't like the fact you are being spied upon on private property, you *can* use your weight as a citizen to push for laws against survelance in private space. Because you accept that as the status quo, it will reamin that way.
In the future please try to be less stupid.
Re:I demand private sector privacy (Score:2)
Excuse me? I'm stupid? For standing up for what I believe in? I don't believe that I have a right to infringe on the rights of others to do as they fucking please with their OWN property.
It's really sad when someone thinks that *more* legislation is a good thing.
What you nee
Re:I demand privacy but not in the private sector! (Score:2)
That's ridiculous! Privacy is (or, at least, should be) a fundamental right. Saying it's okay for people to s
Re:I demand privacy but not in the private sector! (Score:3, Insightful)
I think we have to do some distinguishing here.
If you're in MY home, I have a total right to spy on you all I want, because that's an issue with MY security and MY personal property. There is no "right to privacy" in someone's personal space. You can, and certainly should if you want any friends, ALLOW a degree of privacy, but there is no "right" invokable here. The only thing you should expect in someone's personal space is freedom from physical coercion.
If I PERSONALLY own a store, I believe that same sit
You're being paranoid (Score:2)
Oh come on. When you're outside, PEOPLE CAN SEE YOU. Imagine that. You have NO expectation of privacy outside of your property. Pub
Re:I demand privacy but not in the private sector! (Score:2)
I want *REAL TIME* *HUMAN* eye-coverage. That's why. Speeding cameras, red-light cameras, etc are all inappropriate extensions of police states.
If we cannot afford to staff enough people to catch the violaters then tough.
People being told that they have no ex
How about encrypting your important files... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:How about encrypting your important files... (Score:2)
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.
What would the EFF want the technician to do? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:What would the EFF want the technician to do? (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Uh, if you were able to do all that... (Score:2)
The last thing I want... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The last thing I want... (Score:3, Insightful)
Kiddie porn/child molestation is a modern witch hunt. One accusation, even if it's completely baseless, will label you for the rest of your life.
I disagree with this (Score:2)
Well where do you draw the line? (Score:5, Insightful)
Etc.
The fact of the matter is, people doing service work should be going through your shit. When I hire someone to perform matenence on my house, I am not giving them permission to come in my bedroom and start going through my personal belongings. They are allowed in my house only to fix whatever it is that is broken.
That's the problem is that it seems that the techs finding this is evidence that they were poking around and looking for stuff, which they shouldn't be doing. There is nothing ending in
A real worry is that if this is decided to be ok, the police will start putting pressure on techs to go through people's files looking for things they might want to know about. They get a quiet little agreement going with Best Buy and CompUSA that if a computer is brought in for service they'll scan the drives for child porn, warez, any documents that might indicate disagreement with the government, etc.
People tend to get all knee-jerk because the test case is a child porn case and there's a real "kill them all" mentality but you have to think in more general terms. Any time you hear "Don't worry, we won't abuse this law" you know you are being told a lie. The DMCA is a wonderful example. We were told it wouldn't ever be used to suppress academic research and it already has been.
So sure, maybe you think it's great that every computer that comes in for service should be scanned for child porn but then where does it end? I mean with all the terrorist paranoia these days I'm sure they'd want to scan it for "subversive literature" as well. The media insudtry would be right on board wanting scans for MP3s and MPEGs, and probably just assume they were illegal rips and make you prove your innocence.
It is a path we do not want to walk down.
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:EFF defends right to keep child porn private (Score:5, Insightful)
There are so many scenarios to consider here that you can't just cry "pedophile" when you find something like that on someone's hard drive. I mean, I hate letting pedos walk free just as much as every other concerned citizen, but not at the expense of my privacy, and possibly my clean legal status if we're going to witch hunt about it.
It's no secret that even an accusation of a sexual crime can possibly ruin someone for life, and it's definitely not to be taken lightly. This is where we need to strictly interpret one's right to privacy and use common sense before "exposing pedophiles".
Re:Bad analogies (Score:3, Funny)
Re:EFF defends right to keep child porn private (Score:2)
Besides, the point is that the police didn't get a warrant before searching the PC. If they had wanted to search his house they would have required a warrant and the principle is the same.
Re: (Score:2)
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 no
Just a pet peave (Score:2)
"Whoah! You know, I never thought about it that way! I was perfectly okay with child porn until I thought , 'hey what if it was MY child?'"
Anyways, I agree with you about this. Technicians shouldn't be required by law to cover up for people DUMB ENOUGH to leave files on their computer when it's being repaired. I have been a tech working both corporate support and custom
Re:EFF defends right to keep child porn private (Score:5, Insightful)
I am sorry, does the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution say something about child pornography? Like that it does not apply in case of?
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?
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
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:EFF defends right to keep child porn private (Score:3, Insightful)
How does it alter the case? Our rights don't mean anything if you waive them for child porn. How about we get rid of innocent until proven guilty for child porn cases too?
Get over it. (Score:3, Insightful)
All of these people jumping on the bandwagon are a little late. Whitebreads who are suddenly shocked into the situation because their precious little princess can't get on the airplane because the two year old is on a terror no-fly list or perverts who are shocked when someone turns them in for something on their computer or soccer moms who are upset when the cable guy reports to the TIA that there is "something weird about that person" are like firemen showing up to a pile of smoldering ashes.
Face it - people see the EFF, ACLU, NCAA and other organizations that have anything to do with free speech, privacy or freedom as "communist hippies" at best and "terrorists/sympathizers" at worst. Am I the only one who hasn't missed all the polls and commentaries from joe-random on the street who clearly states that the necessary cost of safety is freedom and that we have to be willing to give some of our freedom up in the modern world of "terror"?
We already lost. Your rights couldn't be any more flatlined.
Re:Get over it. (Score:3, Funny)
While college basketball is pointless and boring, I don't think I've ever heard anyone refer to the NCAA as a terrorist group before...
reasonable vs legal (Score:2)
I think most people would agree that we have a reasonable expectation of privacy when a system is brought to a technician for repair. That does not mean that the technician is legally required to respect that. In fact, the technician may be legally required to report certain things, like kiddie-porn.
Obviously a technician should not browse around your computer, and a good tech won't do that. But at the same time, it's not a good idea to leave files around that could get you in trouble.
Look, let's take a
Hmmmm... (Score:3, Insightful)
However, the person who found these purportedly objectionable files was NOT a cop. It was not his responsibility to call the police, nor was it Gateway's. Also, the fact that the police officers searched his entire hard disk based on heresay likely will be a big issue too. The files in question were clearly not in plain view of the police, and likely not even in the plain view of the technician (although that's moot anyway). I wonder if the technician was just looking for some good pr0n or maybe warez that he could copy.
This is yet another reason why I prefer to build and support my own systems... fewer prying eyes.
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.
Fight for it... (Score:3, Insightful)
Informing vs. Investigating (Score:2, Insightful)
In handing the computer over to the technician, the owner left himself open to the fact that the technician was likely to examine the contents, and he might be expected to inform the police on finding illegal material. There's no confidentiality expectation.
The police then had a right to investigate, but should have obtained a warrant to examine the computer. It does not cease being private property because it's in the care of a 3rd party.
By the
OK my turn. (Score:2, Insightful)
The EFF argues the police need a warrant. This repair tech gave them all they need for a warrant. Did they get one? No. Throw it out. Doesn't matter what the files were. (PATRIOT not withstanding). Due process is the LAW. (IANAL) But the trial judges threw it out & that's good enough for me. Sloppy police work sends crimnals home everyday, this is just another one.
As for expectaion of privacy, hmm. If I give you a folder full of sensitive document
Technician Did The Right Thing, Police Erred. (Score:5, Insightful)
When Westbrook dropped off his personal computer at a Gateway Computer store for servicing, a technician saw private files on the computer that he thought might be illegal. Gateway called the police, who searched through personal files on Westbrook's hard drive looking for more evidence -- before ever getting a warrant. The trial court found, and EFF argues in its brief to the appeals court, that this violated Westbrook's Fourth Amendment rights.
If I drop off my car and hand the keys to a mechanic I've basically surrendered my right to privacy concerning anything he finds in the car while going about the repairs so if he finds anything illegal it is perfectly right for him to report it to the police if he feels that is his duty. The same applies to the technician.
The police, on the other hand, were obviously wrong in not obtaining a warrent to search the drive.
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.
Re:It's called Probable Cause. (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm going to have to disagree with you there. There are laws against people standing on the pavement outside my house staring in through my windows. There are laws against people wandering in to my house through my open front door and going through my things. You have the right to expect that workers you invite into your home (eg plumbers, electricians, builders, etc) won't be going through your drawers and cupboards except where it is necessary to access areas relating to or assess the work for which you have commisioned their services.
Why is it any different for a PC technician? If I drop my PC off to have the graphics card replaced, what right does the tech have to go looking through my documents?
Plenty of immoral reasons but nothing illegal about it.
I don't know about the US, but here in the UK I suspect you could argue a case that this is in violation of the Computer Misuse Act, in that you did not explicitly grant the right to access the files in question, and that such access was not necessary for the completion of the work. I'd be surprised if a similar law doesn't exist in the US.
No, the 4th Amendment doesn't apply, but that doesn't mean that *no* law applies.
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 inva
Not This Tech Support Guy! (Score:2)
You could have files on your system showing you to be the first direct lieutenant under Osama bin Laden, and files showing his exact location, and I wouldn't turn you in.
Well, unless I remembered the $25 million reward...
But, then, I'd have to trust Dick Cheney to pay me.
What are the odds?
I might turn your ass in if you're a serial killer, but that's about it. Kiddie porn? Nope, not my problem. Drugs? Gimme a break. Did you break in and steal my stuff? I'll hose you myself, not turn you in. Are you robbing
David Asimov (Score:3, Informative)
Not really news (Score:2)
Otoh, according to Law and Order and H
touch but don't look (Score:2)
One hour photo labs have dealt with this already. (Score:2)
Photo labs develop porn-reporting policies [ljworld.com]
How it should work (Score:5, Insightful)
1. Computer Repair Technician finds something he believes is illegal on your computer.
2. Tech calls the cops
3. Based on the claims of the tech the cops apply for and get a warrant
4. Cops search your computer
5. You go to jail, cops profit
What the EFF is upset about is that they skipped step #3. What is so hard about getting the warrant and then searching the computer?
No *searching* without cause. (Score:3, Insightful)
If the technician was unreasonably searching through the computer for files he might find interesting, then there's a definite privacy problem. In other words, Gateway should not be allowed to run tasks on your computer that have no relevance to the repair, just as a plumber has no right to search your underwear drawer if he's just fixing a leaky faucet.
It really looks like the EFF is ensuring that proper procedure was used in this search. If the technician cannot reasonably explain why he was looking at the files (and that the files were relevant to the task of repairing the computer) then the search should most definitely be declared illegal. As the case stands now, there's nothing preventing technicians from acting as agents of the police and performing unnecessary searches of your computer.
Re:I've said it before... (Score:2)
Innocent until proven guilty still applies in this country? Whatever happened to always presuming a man's innocence?
Re:I've said it before... (Score:2)
Re:I've said it before... (Score:2, Insightful)
The whole "We have nothing to fear" argument is dumb. We always have something to fear.
Re:Analogy (Score:3, Insightful)
>
> What happens when the car gets dropped off for an oil change? If the mechanic sees blood dripping out from under the car, would he be allowed to call the cops?
Nail. Head. Hit.
Your mechanic is under no obligation to call the cops. He's also under no obligation not to call the cops.
If I hand off a hard drive full of goat pr0n to a techie, I should expect, at a minimum to ge
Re:Analogy (Score:2)
Re:Analogy (Score:3, Insightful)
This isn't about whether the tech was "allowed" to call the cops, but the fact that the cops didn't see fit to get a search warrant before searching the drive. The tech has a legitimate reason to be delving into files. The cops don't.
Re:Analogy (Score:4, Insightful)
What happens when the car gets dropped off for an oil change? If the mechanic sees blood dripping out from under the car, would he be allowed to call the cops?
Sure he would, but they' should still need a search warrant to open the trunk. This case is actually quite a bit beyond that. We're not talking about bodies in a trunk, we're talking about files on a computer. "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated..." Are you telling me computer files are not a persons papers and government agents should not have to get a warrant to browse through them all?
It's hard to stick to principals in this case because the defendant was doing the wrong thing. At the same time that does not excuse the police from also doing the wrong thing. What if a Gateway employee called the police because he saw a picture of a young looking porn star and the police then seized your computer without a warrant and searched through it all? They could then determine that the picture was not illegal, but still bust you for tax evasion based upon your receipts and tax records stored on your computer.
The police need warrants, signed by a judge to look at your personal papers, even if they are on a computer instead of in a file cabinet and even if that computer or file cabinet is not in your home. The warrant must specify the reason the police think you have something illegal and what specifically they are looking for.
In this particular case the police could easily have obtained a warrant. If a child pornographer goes free it is their fault. And we should not all sacrifice our civil liberties and legal protections against an unreasonable or oppressive government and set a legal precedent just so one person can be convicted.
Bad alternators don't put bodies in the trunk. (Score:5, Insightful)
An example: What happens when evil kiddie porn hacker roots your box and uses it as an FTP server for all his kiddie porn hacker friends? Your machine becomes kiddie porn central, slows to a crawl because of bandwidth saturation, and your directories are stuffed with illegal files. You, not being a 1337 HAX0R DUD3 unhook it, take it to the computer repair guy, and the computer repair guy finds illegal files you were unaware of. Instead of fixing the problem, he instead turns you in to the cops as a kiddie porn wanker. Your life is ruined. You loose your job, your wife leaves you, and you aren't allowed to see your own kids without a social worker present.
Thanks Gateway!
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 t