No Right to Privacy When Your Computer Is Repaired 853
Billosaur writes "ZDNet's Police Blotter bring us the interesting story of a Pennsylvania man who brought his computer into Circuit City to have a DVD burner installed on his computer and wound up being arrested for having child pornography on his hard drive. Circuit City employees discovered the child pornography while perusing Kenneth Sodomsky's hard drive for files to test the burner, then proceeded to call the police, who arrested Sodomsky and confiscated the computer. Sodomsky's lawyer argued in court that the Circuit City techs had no right to go rifling through the hard drive, and the trial court agreed, but prosecutors appealed and the appeals court overturned the lower court's decision, based on the fact that Sodomsky had consented to the installation of the DVD drive."
Fake? (Score:5, Funny)
When the perp has a name like "Sodomsky", I really gotta wonder if this is for real...
Cheers,
Re:Fake? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Fake? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Fake? (Score:4, Informative)
Ultimately.... (Score:5, Insightful)
The answer is routine encryption, but let's face it - if you need help installing a DVD drive, you're unlikely to have any idea what encryption even is....
Re:Ultimately.... (Score:4, Insightful)
If you need a locksmith to open your safe, you can't expect him to overlook the dead body inside.
Re:Ultimately.... (Score:5, Insightful)
If you need a locksmith to open your safe, you can't expect him to overlook the dead body inside.
US Freedom is definitely earned (Score:5, Insightful)
Do you know what the worse part of it is? (Score:3, Insightful)
I would not say that we earned this. We have earned our freedoms. But I will say that due to spineless assholes we are losing them rapidly. I only hope that our children wil
Stand for what you beleive in (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Ultimately.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, but this sounds more like a case of a locksmith who has to open your garage door and then finds a body under your master bed. While we do not know all the facts on this, it sounds like the tech went looking for it. Of course, anohter question is, did he or somebody else at the store plant it?
Re:Ultimately.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Child pornography involves child abuse. Fail to report it and you can be in a world of shit.
Saying "Well the guy was my client so I had to protect his privacy." won't go over well with investigating police, the judge, the jury, or the guy you end up spending time with.
Child abuse is not at issue here (Score:5, Insightful)
What's at issue is that next time a repair guy goes through your files and sees "...whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it..." and is going to report *that* too.
Next thing you know, you'll have your ass hauled from workplace to the county jail. Apologies will be slow in coming, and your work buddies may not be joining you at lunch for a while.
WHat's also at issue is that submitting a computer for repairs does not give the service people a blank check to read my email or browse through my vacation pictures. I fix my own machine, but I don't fix my car myself, and I expect the technician not to rummage through stuff I may have left in the boot, looking for thrills.
Re:Child abuse is not at issue here (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Child abuse is not at issue here (Score:4, Insightful)
And it's your own damn fault if they decide to. I make it a point that whenever I have my vehicle serviced, whether a routine oil change or a more invasive procedure, that I have absolutely nothing of real import left in the vehicle. when I leave the car at the shop, I empty the glove box of all personal records that are otherwise required to be in the vehicle (the title, registration, etc.).
You can EXPECT them not to go through your stuff all you want, but your expectation is going to do little to actually stop them. Blind trust is the first step in getting oneself hurt.
Re:Child abuse is not at issue here (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, it's hard to argue that only producing it should be an offense. At the very least, trafficking in it should be illegal, as making money off of any crime should automatically be a crime, IMHO, whether you committed the crime or someone else did. Of course, for most crimes, that would bring up a ton of free press issues, but in this case, since it clearly falls under the "obscenity" exemption, I think those objections would fall on deaf ears from a legal perspective.
That said, I assume you're asking whether mere possession should be a crime, though. The same question could be asked about possession of illegal drugs, firearms, etc. Indeed, that is probably one of the biggest open questions for debate in our legal system today. I tend to fall on the side of possession of anything being legal unless mere possession poses a significant risk of harm to others (e.g. possession of large quantities of explosives in a residential neighborhood). That said, the law falls on the side of possession being a crime, so short of fixing the laws, those are likely to be open-and-shut cases.
I am rather disturbed about this particular case, however. I completely agree with you that this case isn't at all about child porn. It's about whether someone has a right to privacy in one's own computer, and it is about whether evidence collected through illegal actions should be admissible in court. Neither of those issues should be set aside merely under the "think of the children" propaganda simply because this happens to be a child porn case. It shouldn't matter if this is a case about child porn or money laundering or even pot smoking. In the end, the legality---or even the heinousness---of the initial act isn't the relevant legal question here.
I have always been of the opinion that the exclusionary rule should apply even if evidence was collected by private citizens. While the courts do not interpret it this way, I think they are wrong. Why? Because this giant loophole effectively sanctions all sorts of possible indiscretions by the police. I'm not saying that such indiscretions have occurred, but the potential for abuse is pretty obvious. In effect the loophole says that unless you can prove the police were aware of and supported the unlawful search and seizure, the evidence is not tainted. This, of course, is almost impossible to prove except in egregious cases of police abuse, and thus, we really can't say how often this occurs. The only safe rule that prevents any possibility of abuse of the system is for the exclusionary rule to apply to all evidence regardless of whether it was gathered by the police or a private party. At most, it should be only be allowed as probable cause for obtaining a search warrant to collect further evidence that would then be admissible. On the other hand, maybe that's all that happened here. The summary isn't clear on that point.
This also brings up questions about whether a person's computer is or is not an extension of his/her "castle", protected by the same rights as one's home. In a growingly technological society, this question is a critical question to address, as the repercussions of an incorrect decision on that question could be seriously detrimental to the functioning of society, IMHO, and I think this decision falls on the wrong side of that issue.
Oh, yeah, and one last thing. Because the repair people committed a crime of computer trespass, the burden of proof is on the state to show that the material was obtained by the defendant and was not placed there by the repair people. Good luck on that one. The fact of the matter is that unless they have proof from, for example, a backup drive at this guy's house, their entire set of evidence should be considered hopelessly tainted by the very nature of the way in which it was obtained. If this guy's lawyer is even halfway competent, he's likely to get off even if he actually committed a crime... all because the police acted in an inappropriate manner.
The cor
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Some things you can't unhear and you can't unsee.
Re:Ultimately.... (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I hate child predators as much as the next guy, but you have to separate your emotion on that from the real issue here. Besides, like ISPs, if it becom
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Second, there is nothing stopping one tech from putting it on there to have another see it and call the cops. I have friends who have found kiddy porn on clients computers before. And yes, they have notified the
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That is a good way of putting it. I think we are both saying essentially the same thing. After all, freedom has, however, been earned many times in the past because it was not granted. Freedom is, however, a natural right as you say.
Re:Ultimately.... (Score:5, Funny)
And this is why, when you have a locksmith open a safe with a dead body stashed in it, you kill the locksmith and put his body in the safe as well--and then you damn well better remember the combination, or someone is going to eventually wonder where all the locksmiths went!
Re:Ultimately.... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Ultimately.... (Score:5, Informative)
Windows EFS is decent crypto (I think it's 3DES on workstation, AES on server versions) but once you've authenticated your session, you're in to all the files automatically, it's only good for preventing offline reads. That's it. Privacy -- in general, not just for these situations where someone was doing something illegal -- would be greatly served (and Geek Squad wouldn't find people's private videos of themselves on vacation or whatever) if they'd just add in the feature everyone wants.
Local file access security exists only in a domain or with third-party tools like TrueCrypt.
Re:Ultimately.... (Score:5, Insightful)
So this is why repairs take so long. (Score:3, Funny)
Circuit City is not the government. (Score:5, Insightful)
The constitutional Right To Privacy, to the extent that it exists at all, applies only to govenment agencies.
The defendant might try bringing a civil action.
But no matter hiw you frame the issues, there is only a snowball's chance in hell that a jury will punish Circuit City for reporting a crime it discovered in the ordinary course of business.
Re:Ultimately.... (Score:5, Funny)
He looked like a Catholic priest?
Re:Ultimately.... (Score:5, Insightful)
So you didn't know if it was or wasn't illegal, but thought the guy should be reported anyway? Congratulations, you're a Good German now, wear your badge with pride.
Really, your post is a WTF moment of the day, at least.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No, he recognised that it wasn't his call to make. In this instance, it's not like they'd been actively searching for it.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Yes, badge: Ich meine Abzeichen tragen mit Stolz (excuse my german, it's rusty)
As rich_r said, we (the pimply faced teens) realised it wasn't our call to make and passed it on to the someone else to deal with. Many others have said that if you see something that you think is illegal you should report it.
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?
Re:Ultimately.... (Score:4, Interesting)
I personally have such a file on my computer and there is nothing illegal on it. I certainly encourage other people to do the same, so that encryption is *not* even the slightest proof you're hiding something.
Idiot... (Score:5, Insightful)
You wanna break the law and not get caught? Use some brain cells. Sorry, if I take my computer to get it repaired (and I have), I yank the hard drives. ALWAYS. I have no expectation of privacy when I drop my computer off with a tech. I do it largely because I have client data on my computer and I would be liable if I took it in for repairs and someone stole the data. It's just common sense, and if a criminal can't amass enough common sense to do the same, well, they deserve to be arrested, tried, and convicted.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Idiot... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Finish that sentence?
Re:Idiot... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If he knew how to yank the hard drives (and put them back in), would he need to pay someone to install his DVD drive? I suppose he could always go to Circuit City and get them to remove them and reinstall them... oh, oh, yeah.
Re:Idiot... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Idiot... (Score:5, Insightful)
The guy is an idiot
There seems to be a belief on slashdot that if you're an idiot, you deserve whatever fate has befallen you. I have a basic problem with this attitude. The guy may not have been too bright about this, and he's definitely a criminal. But being dumb doesn't make you any more guilty, or any more deserving of punishment.
I have no expectation of privacy when I drop my computer off with a tech.
While I know that a tech can look at any file on the computer he/she wishes, this doesn't mean there's no expectation of privacy. If I let someone into my house to fix the drain, that doesn't mean it's OK for them to go searching through my house, read my private journals and look through my medical records.
In you scenario, would it be legally OK for a tech to reveal your client details to a 3rd party? What if I have medical test results on my computer, would it be legal for a tech to reveal my medical records on his/her blog? I'd say both those things should have some expectation of privacy.
Don't assume that just because someone committed a crime, or "is an idiot" that they have no expectation of privacy. The "I needed to burn some files" excuse is pretty lame. The tech was probably looking through the files for his own purposes, not to burn something.
Planted-evidence defense (Score:5, Insightful)
If I had been the guy's lawyer, the first thing I would have argued is that since the evidence was not uncovered by a sworn police officer, it could have been planted. What if this guy was a rude on the clerk, who was a vindictive bastard and decided to frame him? Or maybe a jolly clerk may have decided to pull a prank that went out of control when someone in the shop contacted the police ("hey Jimbo! this guy's name is Sodomsky, guess what I found on his drive!").
Yes, the courts could have checked the last-modified filestat, but that can be tampered too.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Your biggest assumption was that if he was getting the CP from the Internet then he would have a) known about encryption and b) used encryption. Even if "a" were true, that doesn't mean that "b" is true. One thing about encryption is that it can be a hassle. If you believe that your life or freedom
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Since when does the legality of one's possessions alter one's rights?
If that porn had been "legal porn," then those Circuit City techs could easily have lost their jobs just for rifling thru the person's filesystem. There have been such cases receiving /. attention recently.
When the foil and saran wrapped bricks in the trunk of my car turn out t
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Since when are being either of these wrong? Remember, just about everyone who has been in the US for more than a week is a criminal. Some people might argue the former as well.
Pedophiles are the Modern Witches (Score:3, Informative)
Yet when someone takes their computer into a best buy, circuit city, etc, that person then becomes a client of said store, and has different rights?
The point is that they looked through his files without his express permission.
Was he dumb? Yes.
Were they wrong in going through his files, even for a test burn? Yes.
If they do a routine test burn, they should also do a routine disc read.
Why not have a test dvd that they copy, and burn back
Re:Idiot... (Score:5, Insightful)
Responsible, my ass. If what those technicians did wasn't criminal, it should be and it was at best unprofessional.
It is possible to be a criminal and a victim simultaneously. Actually, if you knew anything about the American Justice System, you'd know that merely being accused of a crime makes you a victim, because the results of an accusation are punitive, regardless of whether you committed any wrongdoing. You don't want to be in the system, you really don't: it's a surreal alternate universe where the normal rules simply do not apply. I've never been there myself, but I have enough lawyers in my family to have a pretty good idea what goes on. It's terrifying to an ordinary citizen, disruptive and costly.
Regarding TFA, I'll accept that the techs needed to test his burner, that's only what a good technician should do. However, they didn't need to use his personal picture files, didn't have to view them, and could have just used some files from the \Windows folder and verified the burn. There was also no reason to search his drive for anything! Period! End-of-the-goddamn-statement.
Regardless of what criminal acts this man may have performed, the fact is that the techs were unethical and untrustworthy, and I'd sure never take my computer there. I mean, at what point did they become part of law enforcement? Hell, they should have been fired, and be up on charges too (but they won't be, because government likes technical types that snoop around and snitch on people.) Over the years, my job has required access to confidential information from a number of multi-billion-dollar corporations, as well as private citizens. Never once did I go snooping around just to see what I could find, because it's not my goddamn business. Furthermore, if you want people to trust you, you just don't do things like that. What those techs is highly unprofessional, and once word of this gets out I have no doubt that shop will be out of business in a hurry: "Oh, you mean your technicians will search my computer for any sign of illicit activities? Yeah, right." What a bunch of dumb fucks. If there was every a reason for Joe Sixpack to learn how to fix his own machine, this is it.
Plus which, having worked as a service tech, I can tell you this: you're right, they weren't randomly looking through his pictures. They were systematically searching his drive looking for anything entertaining. Just his bad luck that they found kiddie porn, and the only reason it got reported was probably because their supervisor was looking over their shoulder enjoying the show right along with them! Otherwise they'd just have made copies for their own consumption and nobody would have been the wiser.
This happened to me... (Score:4, Interesting)
how far reaching is privacy? (Score:5, Interesting)
Its like crying privacy rights if I ask a plumber to come fix my kitchen sink, I take off to run errands, and when I get back I am arrested for having murdered victims in my bedroom. Did the plumber violate my privacy and thus charges be thrown out?
Someone with legal knowledge please clear this up.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The right to privacy has been inferred from the 4th Amendment (and also the due process clause of the 5th and 14th amendments) by the Supreme Court.
It is also considered a fundamental right by most; thus the Ninth Amendment applies:
"The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construe
idiot (Score:3, Funny)
Legal computer repair? (Score:5, Interesting)
So, could you offer a bonded "secure" computer repair service through attorneys?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Legal computer repair? (Score:4, Informative)
So it only matter when you're requesting their services for an opinion on law, legal services, or help in a legal proceeding. It'd be a bit of a stretch to claim any of those three if you had them install a DVD burner for you - hence, AC Privilege wouldn't apply.
There's a difference (Score:4, Insightful)
Without reading the article, what I'm guessing they're saying is that the evidence is not inadmissible in criminal court, because the person installing the hardware (and software, i.e. drivers) had blanket permission to boot up the computer and use it for the purpose of doing the installation. If, in the course of performing the installs, the person stumbles upon evidence that a crime has been committed, you can't retroactively claim that they didn't have permission to use the computer.
What they're probably not saying is that you have no recourse if that person posts the embarassing (but legal) video you made for your spouse folder to YouTube, or even gossips about it.
Just from reading the summary, I have no reason to believe that there's been anything new happening here. The police are held to the same standard all the time.
Did the police get a warrant ? (Score:5, Insightful)
Might have a right to privacy (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah right... (Score:5, Informative)
That's right your Honor, we were just looking for some jpegs and avis to test the burner with.
The ones that have flesh-colored icons work are best for testing burners.
Simple Solution (Score:4, Insightful)
additional analogies for comparison (Score:5, Funny)
-The Kitchen Appliance Analogy: take mini fridge in for repair. Leave severed hand of (former) roommate in freezer. Hand is found when test of ice cube tray attempted. Convicted to 30 year sentence, paroled in 9 years. Begin anew with career as tech security consultant.
-The Post Office Analogy: Take large, heavy package to post office. Deliver using media mail rate, the cheapest shipping option. Miss sign claiming that any media mail package is subject to inspection by any PO employee. Box is lined with child pornography. Arrested, sentenced in federal court, killed in prison after 2 years.
-The 19th Century Tech Analogy: take daguerreotype plates in for annual silver halide tune up and focus lens coal-cloth polishing. Leave illegal woodcuts of "ladies of the night" wearing bloomers and baring arms and shoulders(!) underneath stack of plates. Illegal woodcuts & etchings located when technician reaches bottom of stack. Immediately jailed, lynched by angry torch-bearing mob by evening. Grave marker doubles consonants and adds "e"s to the ends of first and last names.
Privacy or not, it's a matter of customer care (Score:5, Insightful)
I happen to get a lot of client PCs on my desk, for similar matters. We do forensics for various high profile customers who want to follow the trail when a trojan hijacks their machine and they want to have proof how it happened. Which also means we got quite a few certs from various places, private and governmental, that allow our findings to be used as evidence in a trial. Looking through a customer's personal files (or any files not related to the problem outlined in very fine detail) is simply a no-go. No matter what.
Yes, that means that I would have to let a pedophile get off the hook. By the contract between my company and the customer, and (as odd as this may sound), even by law. I must not look at those files. Having certain customers from certain companies that deal with certain topics plays a role here, but that's not the point.
Should I accidently look at a file that does not belong to the case at hand (for example, when looking for trojan screenshots and I happen to run across a porn pic that happens to be in the same location a certain trojan would put its pics, or when undeleting files and perusing the findings), I have to ignore it. I never saw it. For all I know, it does not exist.
Now, the kid who discovered that pedophile pics might consider himself being in the right. IMO, he's not. He broke the primary law of business: Don't break your contract with your customer. Don't invade your customer's (or anyone's) privacy.
Yes, I consider an invasion into privacy a bigger crime than collecting kiddy porn. In other words, our politicians are lower than pedos in my books.
Huh? (Score:3, Funny)
Are you serious?
That's like....occuponymous.
What does the contract/policy say? (Score:3, Insightful)
I have a very clear data policy publicly available on my site, and I ask all my customers to read them.
I have these to protect myself and to protect my clients. I always tell them what data/logins/access I need, and ask them to agree or deny.
Did Circuit City tell the guy that they were about to look into his files? Did they warn him what access they needed, and what they needed to modify? If not: well the guy is right.
Note 1: I am not sorry for a kiddiporn lover who gets arrested.
Note 2: My data policy can cost my life, so I am very open and strict about it. Most importantly I always ask clients to give me the least possible access necessary, so a data lifting accusation is out of question.
Note 3: The highest danger factor of being a tech in Central America is losing knee caps/life/fingers after stealing customer info data from a gaming operation. It is best to not even attempt is, and even better to not even get suspected.
Its NOT about privacy.... (Score:3, Informative)
How do you prove he didnt get it by clicking on some pr0n spam. How do you know he didnt just get it off of google images and it got into his cache.
What has to stop is the assumption that people are responsible for whatever shit gets dropped in their box. They arent and most specially arent when using microsoft software. Anyone can put the pr0n there.
there are two issues here (Score:4, Insightful)
There are two issues here that need to be distinguished. One is whether the techs had any business going through the guy's files. The other is whether the state can use what they discovered against him. To the first, I would say that although it isn't safe to assume that the techs won't go through your files, they don't have any business doing so except to the generally limited extent that it is necessary for their work. Obviously if you have a problem with corrupted files they're going to want to look at the files, and they may well need to look at various kinds of system files and config files, but most of the time there is no good reason for them to look at other files. If they want to test a DVD burner, they can perfectly well use a file that they keep for that purpose.
On the second issue I am surprised at the trial court's ruling. As a rule, the state is entitled to use evidence whether or not it was legally obtained so long as it wasn't the state that broke the rules. If the person who obtains evidence is a police officer or is acting as an agent of the state, the evidence must be excluded if there was no search warrant and it does not fall under one of the exceptions to the need for a warrant. If, however, the evidence is obtained by a private party acting on his own, not at the behest of the police, it is generally admissible even if the private party had no right to do what it did. The principle is that the state should not be penalized for actions outside of its control. The Fourth Amendment constraints government action, not that of other parties.
But what did he sign? (Score:4, Insightful)
Lots of problems (Score:4, Insightful)
Overlooked point. (Score:4, Insightful)
I know in some Best Buys it gets so bad that it's not even techs individually doing this sort of thing. Last time I had a friend working at one they even had a server setup where they copied customers files that were interesting so everyone could get at them. I can't imagine Circuit City is any different.
This thing is only going to get worse. Fact is some people are always going to have reasonable reasons for trusting someone else to work on their computer. A lot of these techs even use tools to override any normal security just to make their jobs easier. People are going to have to get smart about not putting things they want private on non removable media. Software is going to have to become more mature at making sure normal users know where there information is on their drive and know how to remove it also.
It's not so much right to privacy as it is... (Score:4, Interesting)
Typically, trial and appeals courts don't examine whether or not you had a *right* to privacy. They usually examine whether "under identical circumstances, would a reasonable person expect privacy?"
In other words, if you're doing something in your un-fenced back yard, you have no "reasonable" expectation of privacy, even though you are on private property. On the other hand, if you are in your home, you do have a reasonable expectation of privacy.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Apple care (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Apple care (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Apple care (Score:5, Insightful)
Gary Glitter got busted for that in a similar manner quite a while back. Realistically, if you hand your computer in for repair they may very well have to look at the files to figure out what's going on. Especially if they need to log in and they're on the desktop.
It does surprise me that people don't realize that computer techs have to report that sort of thing to the authorities when they find out.
Re:Apple care (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Apple care (Score:5, Insightful)
The crime of allowing your computer to keep a local digital copy of a file that someone has deemed "illegal"? Was this guy generating the CP or was he just saving photos that caught his sick fancy? Was he paying for a subscription to access areas where he could get these photos and therefore financially rewarding and encouraging another to assault a child or did he stumble accross them on *chan?
Except for the fact that he isn't arguing the point, what *proof* do we have that the tech themselves didn't plant the CP? If I had it in for someone, that'd be a pretty good start. All you have to do is mention CP and the witch hunt begins.
I know I'm going to get flamed into oblivion for this (not to mention accused of being a pedophile, homophobe and everything else in the book), but, if we take it as proven that homosexuality (being sexually aroused by your own gender) is genetic (or at least something you're born with) and therefor an "abnormality" and at best a "normal variant in human sexual preference" how is pedophilia, necrophilia, and bestiality different? Are we saying it's a choice of "lifestyle" and not something you're born with? How do we prove that?
In many countries of the world it is still illegal to be gay. If someone is born with the abnormality of being attracted to "those below the [arbitrary] age limit", and goes through life never once molesting a child, but only collects images that titillate their particular twisted interests, should they be branded a pariah and be sent to prison for years and years?
"But", you say, "seeing those pictures will encourage them to rape a child!". Hmmm... Does that mean that seeing pictures of naked men will force my gay coworker to rape me?. If I download rape photos, will I be driven to rape, should I be charged with the rapes in the photos? It's like the whole "violent games" argument all over again. Maybe this is some sort of release valve for some people.
Don't get me wrong. I think the exploitation of children is wrong, but I also think that the irrational fear and associated draconian laws are so ridiculous that we can't even hold a rational discussion on the matter any more. I mean, really, a 14 year old girl takes a picture of herself naked in the mirror with her cell-phone and she is convicted of creating and possessing child pornography. A 13 year old girl has sex with her 12 year old BF and is charged as a sexual predator and the victim? WFT?!
Something in me says that the same people who make the most noise in government about pedophilia are the ones that are probably hiding something in themselves, sorta like those politicians that bash gays so bad then get caught soliciting strange men.
C'mon people! If pedophilia is a "genetic disease" we should be working for a cure. If it is a sociopathic "choice" then we should be allowing those "suffering" from it to get treatment, not cart them off to jail.
And if someone assaults a child, charge them with the assault and lock them up. Rape is rape. Kidnapping is kidnapping. Child abuse is child abuse. There are already laws for that. Use them. But destroying someone's life because some pictures were found of a child without proper clothing on is ridiculous. Where I grew up it was normal for a girl to be married off and start having children as soon as she started menstruating. That often made her 12 or 13 years old. That was life. That's the way it had been for untold generations. Suddenly, there's something terrible about those people. My grandmother was married at 14. I guess my grandfather was a sick bastard. Funny, he never struck me that way. They were married for almost 70 years.
Well, I've got my flame-proof panties on and karma to burn. Flame on!
Re:Apple care (Score:5, Informative)
But, this case raises TWO different questions that are getting confused.
1 -- Did the service technician violate the privacy of the computer owner by looking at files on the hard drive that might not have been required to perform the repair work? This is a question of civil law, and possibly of the contract between the user and technician.
2 -- Can the police use the evidence found by the technician to prosecute the computer owner? This is a question of constitutional law and criminal procedure.
The answers to 1 and 2 are not necessarily linked.
The constitution provides protection against GOVERNMENT searches of your property. The government can't, without a warrant or an emergency, take your computer away and look through your files. Nor can the government pay a repairman to do what the government can't do directly--for example, if the government paid repairmen to snoop through computer.
But, the constitution doesn't say anything about what OTHER people can do. If the repairman did snoop beyond the limits of his authorization then the computer owner might be able to sue the repairman. But, just because the repairman did a bad thing doesn't mean that the protections in the constitution against government invasion are automatically triggered. Take a different example -- a burglar breaks into a home, steals a lot of stuff, and also sees child porn on the way out the door. If the burglar gives an anonymous tip to the police (or bargains for a lighter sentence in exchange for testimony) then the evidence can probably still be used, even though the burglar had no right whatsoever to be in your house. In fact, it was CRIMINAL for the burglar to be inside your house at the time he saw the child porn, but it's still probably fair game in a prosecution.
The key difference is whether the STATE has violated your right to privacy. You can't bargain with the state to set a higher or lower expectation of privacy; we have a Constitution that sets a minimum floor of privacy for everyone. But, you can negotiate with a computer repair service--if one service offers "no privacy-we'll read all your files" and the other say "complete privacy, for a little bit more money" then you get to pick which one you like, and to sue the "complete privacy" company if they break their word.
Disclaimer: Before you do something dumb, speak with YOUR attorney. I am not an attorney and the law often turns on what seem like very small differences in facts; your situation is probably different and will require personalized advice.
Re:Apple care (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Apple care (Score:4, Insightful)
http://pbfcomics.com/?cid=PBF215-Kitty_Photographer.jpg [pbfcomics.com]
The sad thing, this has happened. Parents in the UK have been arrested for pretty much exactly this. From what I can see, no one seriously thinks they were abusing their children - they just took a few admittedly tasteless pictures of them.
E.g.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elton_John [wikipedia.org]
Re:Apple care (Score:5, Interesting)
"There's at least an argument that such a law would be unconstitutional as it would make computer repair technicians into agents of the state. It's one thing if they act voluntarily to report suspicious files (like here), it's another if there's a criminal penalty for failing to do so. I'm curious and will read up on it. Thanks for the tip."
It's been the case for a while that hosting providers must, by law, report child pornography when they find it. Been there, done that, got the ncmec.org login. I don't understand why extending this to repair technicians would bring up any new constitutional issues that don't already exist. Might be one of those legal elephants in the room that nobody -- not even the ACLU -- wants to touch, as it's political suicide... would you want to be the one to go to court to defend hosting providers' rights to protect kiddy porn collectors?
"poking around for files to test the burner?" (Score:5, Informative)
I hate child porn as much as anyone else, but this stinks of people looking for personal details on their clients that are none of their business. This shady shit has to stop.
Do what I do. Keep a spare drive. (Score:3, Insightful)
Load a clean copy of an OS on there, verify that it works, then submit the machine with that in. And NO, I'm not talking about pirating Windows by installing a second copy. Ubuntu works fine. If they can't use it, they can wipe the drive and install Windows on it again. It's just going to get wiped and re-Ubuntu'ed when it gets back anyhow. I then slam my Windows drive back in and voila!
Re:"poking around for files to test the burner?" (Score:4, Insightful)
They should have put in their own test disk of data, read from that, then burned that back. That way they'd have tested both reading and writing ability of the drive without invading anyone's privacy. Or if they were afraid of modifying blank sectors, they could have plugged in a company USB drive with data they had rights to copy for testing the DVD burner and used that data instead. Surely they have a drive with boot test ISOs from corporate they can burn to replenish their supply, or other promotional disks.
If they didn't find child porn, what were they going to do with the disk they burned anyway? Retain it for later data mining? Distribute copies? Give it back to the customer? Just throw it in the trash, or shred it first?
Snooping around in a customer's drive for data to burn is not necessary to perform a hardware test on a DVD burner, and is an attempt to violate his or others' copyrights. He could civil-sue Circuit City (5 times fast) for attempted copyright infringement with premeditation... or something like that. IANAL.
Re:"poking around for files to test the burner?" (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:"poking around for files to test the burner?" (Score:5, Insightful)
If the lens on my digital camera breaks, can the repairman view my pictures?
You don't need to "find about 4GB of stuff to burn" in order to check a DVD-burner. What's the matter, these techs never heard of any of the dozens of diagnostic programs that fit on a flash drive that will test your burner, your hard drive, and just about everything else on your PC? I don't even know what to say...
Re:"poking around for files to test the burner?" (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:"poking around for files to test the burner?" (Score:5, Informative)
NO you never "put some data on a customers computer", you never test a burner and its software by just checking the hardware, you never "go looking through peoples files... just for the hell of it".
Usually I grab a few gig of files from the "Windows" folder, which, once the burn is tested as successful, said disk is destroyed (not just binned, i peel the backing off it and break it).
Giving me your computer to fix software problems (burner install requires software work) is giving me permission to access your data for the purposes of making said repair. As a microsoft cert installer (and we are a member of the MS partener program) we have the right to make copies of windows files for internal use, so thats how I test them, an easier way is to use the customers data, as they have the rights in regard to that.
Lay off the guys, they did their job AND their duty to the letter of the law, you should be thanking them not looking for a which to burn.
Oh, and as for external testing programs, yeah knoppix will test the drive, but if their copy of nero is fubar they will be in the next day talking to your manager about having you sacked
Re:"poking around for files to test the burner?" (Score:4, Interesting)
This story becomes interesting because child porn is involved. What if the files were his last 5 years' income tax returns? Do you think the member of the Geek Squad should maybe send them to the IRS if he doesn't think a 47" HDTV should be deductible?
Please. The last thing we need is self-appointed vigilantes turning in their clients, no less. I hope these guys quietly lost their jobs for "accidentally" coming across this pervert's kiddie porn. Because you know this wasn't the first time they went looking for something interesting on a customer's computer. I'd like to see what's on their personal computers.
Re:"poking around for files to test the burner?" (Score:5, Insightful)
Now, I'm not arguing that the guy shouldn't be busted for child pornography. But I do think the guys privacy was violated by the techs: From the article, we know that the techs did a search for video files "to test the burner". Well, you don't need video files to test the burner, so based on my understanding of human nature within menial jobs, they guys were probably having a laugh about what kind of porn the guy had on his computer. Probably it's that systematic too. I would be surprised if the techs in question didn't have a pretty big stash of burnt porn, collected from various computer users.
Now, yeah, the guy should have been more careful with his data, especially concerning the nature of the data. But did he have a reasonable expectation of privacy when bringing his computer in for an hour, to have a dvd burner installed. That's actually a question of policy, and I think we should make it policy that YES we should have that right. If I'm going to give up the privacy of my data, I think that should be explicit, and that the techs should be bound to violate my privacy only to the minimum extent necessary (which doesn't include searching my hard drive for video files).
Discussing these issues has nothing to do with defending child-pornography (as the ACLU understands). We have to question these things to protect our more pedestrian privacy interests, which would otherwise be compromised by such systems. For example, I have some artistic movies of me and my girlfriend on my hard drive. They're on a linux partition, and I do my own repairs, but if I were just some non tech-savvy joe, I wouldn't want the techs searching for video files so they and their colleagues can have a laugh over me shtupping my gf, or (god forbid) burning a copy for their own use. And based on the procedure described in the article, I'd bet my money that that's happening pretty often.
Sure the guy is probably a dope, but I doubt he had his files on the desktop or some easily discovered place. When the tech guys are sitting with the criminal prosecutors and or the police they have to come up with a description of their activities that doesn't make them sound criminal, so "searching for video files to test the burner" sounds more reasonable than "killing some boredom by seeing what kinda freaky shit the guy had on his PC".
What amazes me is that more people haven't commented on the poor guy's name. Sodomsky? The poor guy was doomed from the beginning.
Re:"poking around for files to test the burner?" (Score:5, Insightful)
You make me sad.
It's obviously not [slashdot.org] a conspiracy [slashdot.org], but so what? It is completely wrong.
They were hoping for shots of his wife, instead found some child porn, and suddenly because caped crusaders instead of the low-life porn thieves they were.
They are paid to install DVD drives and don't have an OTS test disk that they burn? Bullshit. This is an excuse made up after the fact, and the cops are only too happy to catch this guy - why question a convenient excuse about a process they don't really understand anyway.
And you're willing to throw away your rights for a PC upgrade. I hope you don't vote.
Re:obvious (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:No sympathy (Score:4, Insightful)
That the tech was rifling through his photos looking for pictures of his wife or hot 19yo daughter is irrelevant. That is a matter of internal security and policy, and potential prosecution in its own right, but Sodomsky's possession of child pornography should not be tainted by this action.
It is VERY easy to accidentally uncover stuff you don't want or mean to when working with Windows. I have more than once stumbled upon private information while working with a customer's computer by simply way of the folder previews in Windows XP. You open a folder with pictures and there's thumbnails all over the place.
Most techs have some kind of ethical standard, written or unwritten, which prevents them from engrossed reading of personal documents and unnecessary browsing of media, as well as not divulging or discussing private information found in the course of normal work.
In Florida, as soon as you come across what you even think is child porn on a client computer, that computer and all around it immediately become a crime scene and cops must be called immediately. No arrests or charges are made until authorities investigate and make a final decision.
If the investigation deems necessary, an arrest is made and the whole thing can go to court where the accused has the right to proclaim his innocence and the prosecution has the burden of proving guilt. If the investigation determines that the media is not of concern, the customer is miffed, but life goes on. If the case goes to trial and the accused is exonerated, then only the court of public opinion lays judgment.
I fail to see a problem with this system.
Re:sweet one more scumbag nailed (Score:5, Insightful)
The people at the photo development place can be very sure that a person under 18 was molested by the person who brought in the roll of film.
The person with under-18 porn on their computer might never have molested a minor
Thus I think that child porn should only be considered as evidence for someone molesting a child, but not a crime in its own right, as that makes it very easy to frame someone just by emailing them some pictures. Or what if the tech in this case planted the pictures on the hard drive? And then if you make having artifically generated pictures or text stories that depict people under 18 having sex illegal, that is just crazy, as no kids were ever harmed there. What about someone under 18 taking a picture of themselves?
Of course, if you like the idea of thought police, where you can be arrested for creating something from your imagination that is evil, then where does it stop?