Federal Court: The Fourth Amendment Does Not Protect Your Home Computer (eff.org) 309
An anonymous reader writes: The EFF reports that a federal court in Virginia today ruled that a criminal defendant has no "reasonable expectation of privacy" in his personal computer (PDF), located inside his home. The court says the federal government does not need a warrant to hack into an individual's computer. EFF reports: "The implications for the decision, if upheld, are staggering: law enforcement would be free to remotely search and seize information from your computer, without a warrant, without probable cause, or without any suspicion at all. To say the least, the decision is bad news for privacy. But it's also incorrect as a matter of law, and we expect there is little chance it would hold up on appeal. (It also was not the central component of the judge's decision, which also diminishes the likelihood that it will become reliable precedent.) But the decision underscores a broader trend in these cases: courts across the country, faced with unfamiliar technology and unsympathetic defendants, are issuing decisions that threaten everyone's rights.
appeal (Score:2)
Re: appeal (Score:5, Informative)
I wouldn't be so quick to assign sociopolitical labels to which group favors eroding privacy rights. There are plenty of so-called conservatives (judges, legislators, etc.) who would happily erode 4th amendment and other rights. I am reminded of Ronald Reagan arguing in favor of the admissibility of illegally-obtained evidence, and more recently of provisions in the PATRIOT Act that are objectionable to civil libertarians like ACLU members.
It's worth noting that civil liberty groups like the ACLU are largely socially progressive. And they are generally the ones who say, "Get a goddamned warrant." They're also the ones who hold that the same rules are supposed to apply to everyone, regardless of socioeconomic status.
Re: (Score:3)
If you must assign labels, you have them backwards.
"If this case make it to the current SCOTUS, it will probably end up a 4-4 split, with the progressive side saying, "If you want the data, get a god damned warrant," and the conservative side saying, "Give us all your data, you have nothing to hide, right?"
Progressive = Liberal = Bernie Sanders (but !Hillary--she's a vote for status quo, unfortunately)
Conservative = Scared/Reactionary = Nixon, Reagan/Bush x2/yes, even Bill Clinton and Obama --I'm not bashin
The message is clear: (Score:4, Insightful)
Encrypt all the files!!!
No exceptions.
Re:The message is clear: (Score:5, Insightful)
Encrypt all the files!!!
No exceptions.
They'll just lock you away until you tell them the passwords [arstechnica.com].
USA! USA! USA!
Re: (Score:3)
I will give them the password, and they will be happy that they can decrypt my supersecret files.
You have to plan ahead for such events. That's why there is still unused space on my hard drive. It might contain some random data from the last time I wiped it, nothing to see here.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Then they'll lock you away for not telling them about the hidden containers. And if there aren't any hidden containers, they'll lock you away because you can't prove there aren't any.
Welcome to America, your cell is just down the hall.
Re:The message is clear: (Score:5, Funny)
Encrypt all the files!!!
No exceptions.
Now I can't read my own files! Thanks for nothing.
Re:The message is clear: (Score:4, Interesting)
Forget it. Encryption protects you against the computer being stolen while off, and that is it. Unless you want to encrypt each file individually and then decrypt each one when used? That not much better: Whoever criminals hack your machine just need to wait until you unlock a file and then can record your password.
Re:The message is clear: (Score:5, Informative)
The judge states that because home computers can be hacked so easily, it becomes a common assumption that your home computer MIGHT be hacked, therefore your expectation of privacy is forfeit. Just like a broken window blind allows police to peek into your home, an easily exploited vulnerability on your home computer means you assume your data is not private. Even a password protected file is not immune to discovery because everyone knows passwords can be easily defeated. (pages 47 - 55)
The judge's analysis is similar to saying we should not really expect any privacy in our homes because a skilled locksmith can unlock our front door at any time, and a locked safe in the home is not really private because a skilled safe cracker can open it easily. The judge is saying that because something MIGHT happen, we should assume it WILL happen, and thus give up our right to expectations of privacy.
--
Re:The message is clear: (Score:5, Insightful)
The broken-window-blind analogy works if your computer is openly broadcasting data or accepting access: if you're running a P2P application or an HTTP server sharing all your files to the world, that's your fault. Computer services are passively providing service, same as if you put a sign out front that said "FREE WEED!"--or didn't, but the cops heard people go to your house for that sort of thing, and walked up and knocked on the door and said the rumored password, and got weed.
All adversarial accesses (trojan downloader, remote exploit, password cracking) are akin to bypassing your windows or door locks. A trojan downloader is an undeclared search, like sneaking a cop into your house by posing as a horny bar girl and following you home. These aren't the same thing as finding an open port or active service.
The judge's analysis is ridiculous.
Re: (Score:3)
That gets into things like entrapment and the oddities of law. In computers, a random pile of data is a random pile of data; in law, a random pile of data that has transformed from another particular pile of data is a derivative work and subject to copyright. Likewise, being invited into a house as a civilian and finding contraband is different from deciding you can't legally get a warrant, posing as a non-cop, gaining trust, and being invited into a house as an undercover officer. Both of these involve
Re:The message is clear: (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
What Constitution? (Score:5, Insightful)
Full Scale Assault on personal liberties.
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." - Franklin
Re: What Constitution? (Score:2, Insightful)
Didn't you get the memo, see the meme pictures? The Constitution was written by a bunch of dudes long time ago, they couldn't anticipate computer and shit so obviously it's not protected. /s
Re: (Score:2)
The Court cannot take judicial notice that a computer having storage greater than 18 kilobytes has today any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of the security of people in their houses, papers, and effects, and therefore cannot say that the Fourth Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear such a device.
Re:What Constitution? (Score:5, Insightful)
To any sane person, if they need a warrant to come through your door to seize the data, they need a warrant to seize the data over the wire.
But, whenever civil liberties and State power come into conflict, the House wins. Those "protections" are only there to keep you feeling like you're not at risk from the government, but don't push them.
And please present your Internet License, Subject # 134-33-2219.
Re: (Score:3)
This is a bad sub-decision that we hope will get steamrolled on appeal.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
I favor voting for the worst candidate as a means of speeding up the demise. The faster we get to a reboot the better. Granted with the two candidates up for POTUS this go around even that is a hard call :-(
If that's your goal, vote for Hillary Clinton. I think Trump would by and large be highly ineffective, whereas Clinton would be able to mostly implement her agenda. It is likely that the Dems will retake the senate, so she'll be able to get 2 or 3 nominees put in to the Supreme Court. That will put us on the fast track toward totalitarianism.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You don't have nothing to hide? Really?
I do. Mostly because I don't know what becomes illegal tomorrow. You like guns? Did you notice what comes around every time someone shoots someone, like, say, the bit in Orlando? Again, regulation was on the table. Do you have guns that could be outlawed? Or do you speak out for having such guns? As soon as something like this becomes law, you'll be in the focus. Whether you have those guns or not, you're one who wants them and that makes you suspect.
How about speaking
Re: (Score:3)
For those who think this cannot happen, consider the people in the UK who have been jailed over "offensive" tweets.
And for those who think this cannot happen in the USA, I encourage you to read up on Woodrow Wilson.
Re:What Constitution? (Score:4, Insightful)
This is where slippery slope fallacy isn't really a fallacy. In just today's news, there are several different versions of assault on our liberties enumerated in the Constitution. And while you may be in favor of some of those assaults (from both Right and Left), I can assure you that ALL of them will eventually get passed, when nobody is looking or paying attention. And the real criminals, those in congress violating their oath, will be congratulated by those that support their party blindly.
So, no, it isn't hyperbole.
We need a penalty for retarded judges (Score:5, Interesting)
What we need is something to be applied to judges who make blatantly subversive rulings like this. They're literally ruining our government and our country.
Anyone else want to see these judges spend twenty years in federal prison?
Re:We need a penalty for retarded judges (Score:5, Insightful)
We ransack all of their personal computers.
We don't need a warrant.
Re:We need a penalty for retarded judges (Score:5, Insightful)
It should be pretty simple: Would it be illegal for an ordinary citizen to do something? If the answer is yes, you need a warrant.
So, if an investigation involves going to somebody's webpage, that doesn't require a warrant. If the investigation involves compromising a computer - brute force password crack, sneaking in and installing a keylogger, utilizing a zero day exploit - you need a warrant.
Re: (Score:3)
Would it be illegal for an ordinary citizen to do something? If the answer is yes, you need a warrant
In Soviet America, warrant rubber stamp you!
Re:We need a penalty for retarded judges (Score:5, Insightful)
The real problem, I think, is that a lot of older judges just don't understand technology. Now, that doesn't mean it was the case here, certainly (I have no idea who the judge was), but judges like the one in the Oracle vs Google trial, who took the time to learn to code in Java just to understand what was going on, are few and far between. There's probably a lot more older ones who are about as computer savvy as your parents or grandparents, who think computers are for Facebook and cat pictures. They don't understand that when the Founding Fathers were talking about the privacy of one's personal letters and effects, those EXACT things are today stored on your computer and your phone. Almost nobody has a locked drawer full of paper documents anymore, it's all electronic, and on your computer (well, hopefully you store it locally, rather than in the cloud). It absolutely should be protected.
Re: (Score:2)
The real problem, I think, is that a lot of older judges just don't understand technology.
Reading the case, he seems to understand technology well enough. Civil liberties, not so much.
Re: (Score:3)
The real problem, I think, is that a lot of older judges just don't understand technology.
Reading the case, he seems to understand technology well enough. Civil liberties, not so much.
Ah yes, political appointees doing what they perceive is their master's bidding.. I tell you, the framers did not envision a judicial branch like this. They where supposed to be independent.
We've long ago abandoned the legal principles that this nation was founded upon and have spiraled into this ruling from the social issue and identity politics perspectives and not legal principle and original meaning. If you can contort the words, either by redefining their meaning or using twisted logic to find a loop
I'd say my computer is an extended part of my brai (Score:5, Insightful)
and therefore, it needs super extra protection. Its forbidden to open someone's skull to look for info as well, as should be the analogon for computers.
Re:I'd say my computer is an extended part of my b (Score:5, Interesting)
You can be sure that when they invent the scanner that can read your memories/thoughts, it will be legal to use.
Re:I'd say my computer is an extended part of my b (Score:4, Interesting)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] is used by the courts already.
I'm seeing the bigger picture now (Score:5, Informative)
The invasion of privacy and constant violations of basic and human rights in the US, and around the rest of the Western world for that matter, are starting to have a lot in common with what George Orwell wrote in Animal Farm. The irony is of course that what he described in his book was Stalin-era Soviet Union.
Does Windows 10 still seem safe to you? (Score:5, Interesting)
Another slashdotter argued that I was being paranoia over the idea that Windows 10 grants Microsoft carte blanche access your computer without needing your permission or knowledge.
Well well well, look at that other shoe that just dropped! Now all the gov't needs to do is give the word and Microsoft can/will hoover everything and anything they want off your machine. This brings dragnet spying to a whole new level.
Re:Does Windows 10 still seem safe to you? (Score:5, Funny)
Microsoft is an American company. They aren't going to "hoover" anything. Maybe they'll "vacuum it up", and they'll definitely "suck", but they will never "hoover". Because verbing proper nouns is still a line we don't cross in the USA. For now.
Verbing (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No conspiracy--this would hurt companies. (Score:2)
This ruling, if upheld, would hurt Microsoft and every other company more than it helps them. There is no conspiracy here, just a federal judge who made the wrong call. It is less common than you would think because Federal Judges tend to be great and thoughtful people. But it happens.
Microsoft has no obligation to follow the Fourth Amendment, which protects individuals against intrusion by the state. An exception arises if Microsoft is acting as an agent for the state. Some other laws may occasionally p
Re:No conspiracy--this would hurt companies. (Score:5, Informative)
Microsoft has no obligation to follow the Fourth Amendment, which protects individuals against intrusion by the state. An exception arises if Microsoft is acting as an agent for the state. Some other laws may occasionally protect your privacy against companies; the Fourth Amendment does not.
I don't think you understand how the third party doctrine works. Basically if you've shared information with a third party, you've shared it with the world as far as the law is concerned. Like in this case, your ISP knows your IP so you have no expectation of privacy so if the cops post some exploit code to reveal it to them that's all right. So if you've given Microsoft access to all your data, you've given the law warrantless access to all your data. Microsoft doesn't have to participate in it.
Re: (Score:3)
So according to you then the police would need a warrant if the person is running Linux, BSD, Mac, etc?
It's called a Telescreen (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
If upheld: Time to go offline? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Just because they are allowed to search it, doesn't necessarily mean they have the capability.
Until the next Snowden reveals that in fact they have the capability and likely have for some time.
Re: (Score:3)
Good fucking grief. Passive voice, "there are concerns". If there's a backdoor in systemd, that would be massively huge news. I get that you don't like it, and I agree that it is spooky that it is getting pushed into pretty much every place, but that doesn't justify a massive claim like this at all.
Rhel 7 uses systemd. Industry and military use the living shit out of Rhel 7. If systemd had a backdoor, tons of industry and government computers would be compromisable instantly. Keep in mind, this is for
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
No, because TLAs believe only the good guys (TM) can leverage backdoors.
It may be what they tell the public, and the PR tools that stand in front of congress etc might even beleive it but I'm skeptical anyone actually in charge of securing the same TLA's shit from attacks has remotely the same opinion.
If I worked for the CIA or NSA or FBI or DHS securing their networks from attack, I certainly wouldn't be in favor of a backdoor, *especially* one that was in the hands of one of the other (lesser!) TLAs... that I would naturally have professional contempt for. :)
Re: (Score:2)
Keep in mind, this is for a theoretical backdoor, somehow hidden in plain site, and used on serious and sensitive machines all throughout US infrastructure.
Just like the Heartbleed bug in OpenSSL, except for the "theoretical" part.
That seems unlikely, right?
Yes, it is unlikely, but similar things have happened before.
Re: (Score:3)
No.
Large chunks of new code typically have lots of interactions that most people don't suspect. Some easter-eggs have remained hidden for over a decade. There's nothing unlikely about something unexpected hiding in systemd. What would be surprising was if there weren't. Now assuming that it was put there intentionally is a bit of a stretch, but not a huge stretch, because that, also, has happened before.
Re: (Score:2)
The previous poster was discussing INTENTIONAL backdoors, you are talking about inadvertent backdoors caused by honest mistakes.
I don't think anybody has intentionally slipped some backdoor into systemd with the intention of breaking into systems later. Are there possible avenues someone could use to leverage a here to fore unknown systemd bug to do this same? It would not be surprising, but it would also be fixed as soon as it was found and if the feds where out breaking into scads of computers in some
Re: (Score:2)
Considering the number of hacks on government and industry, no, it doesn't seem that unlikely.
No, that's not what the court ruled. (Score:5, Insightful)
This was an open-and-shut search with a warrant, arising out of the FBI running a kiddie porn site after taking control of it. The warrant authorized the deployment of malware disguised to look like kiddie porn that, when opened, would cause the target's machine to identify its IP address, operating system, etc. This was then followed by a search warrant for the residence, during which the computers were confiscated and their contents searched. That search was covered under the residential search warrant, so no additional warrant was needed to search the contents of the machine that was confiscated.
The defendant has no prayer unless he can show reasonable cause for the jury to believe that someone else was using or controlling the computer in question at the time, or unless he can convince the judge to throw out the warrant based on the investigative technique itself being illegal in some way (fruit of the poisonous tree).
Re:No, that's not what the court ruled. (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:No, that's not what the court ruled. (Score:5, Informative)
Yes it is what the court ruled. If you read the ruling, it says what you say, but then after that has an additional section arguing that even if that doesn't hold up, it doesn't matter anyways because by a second line of reasoning, they didn't actually need the warrant to begin with.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
And they will have done it to computers abroad, committing a number of computer crimes in the process. A US warrant is not a global warrant in any way.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't forget, warrants just make the evidence collected viable in criminal court. So what if evidence is collected on perps outside the USA. It's not like the FBI is going to charge and try some foreign national not in the USA using this evidence which would only be valid in a US criminal court. It is clearly out of their jurisdiction to file charges in a foreign country and it doesn't make sense to charge them here unless they happen to BE here...
Re: (Score:2)
You missed a couple of sections (Score:5, Informative)
You seem to have missed a couple of sections in the opinion.
A key sentence is on page 3:
"Furthermore, the Court FINDS suppression unwarranted because the Government did not need a warrant in this case. Thus, any potential defects in the issuance of the warrant or in the warrant itself could not result in constitutional violations".
There's the court's ruling that the government does "not need a warrant" to hack your computer.
Then on page 47 see the section headed "Defendant Has No Reasonable Expectation of Privacy in His Computer", which STARTS with a bit about IP address, but then goes on to cover other information retrieved from the computer. The reasoning (excuse) given is that because your computer could be hacked, you have no reasonable expectation that it won't be. Per well-established precedent, no "reasonable expectation of privacy" means no fourth amendment protection.
On the other hand, the court ALSO pointed out that the hack did not occur until the defendant tried to download child porn. They didn't hack the machine as soon as it connected to the front page of the CP site; rather it was a trojan in the child porn download. The court says that when you download child porn from foreign countries, you should expect that you might get malware and your information might be exposed.
Re:You missed a couple of sections (Score:4, Interesting)
What it actually said was that the defendant, by intentionally going on a kiddie porn website, should have been aware that getting hacked was a possibility, and should have been careful enough to avoid getting hacked. Because the defendant was not careful, the defendant had already effectively given up any expectation privacy on that computer, and the government's further intrusion was akin to looking through a broken window shade. Although I don't agree with that sentiment, the ruling is far narrower than you're interpreting it to be.
Also, it's a district court, so it doesn't create binding precedent. It literally affects only this one case. If we start to see more and more rulings making such claims under different circumstances, it might be worth getting concerned over, but this is barely even peaking above the court system's noise floor.
Re: (Score:2)
Looking at the Court's decision: "Furthermore, the Court FINDS suppression unwarranted because the Government did not need a warrant in this case." In this case, there was a warrant, but the Court said one was not needed. I find the argument that there is no expectation of privacy for one's IP address when on the internet reasonable, but the argument that a search of the contents of the computer is reasonable. The argument that there is no expectation of privacy for the contents of one's computer seems
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This was then followed by a search warrant for the residence, during which the computers were confiscated and their contents searched. That search was covered under the residential search warrant, so no additional warrant was needed to search the contents of the machine that was confiscated.
Yeah, which is why the court didn't have to go there. But by saying they wouldn't even need a warrant, he just went one over the top.
Fourth Amendment (Score:2)
"The right of the people do be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated...." My computer is one of my "effects" in the meaning of the Amendment, and it's usually in my house, which falls under the category "houses" in the Amendment. This is really bad Constitutional law, and is going to be overthrown on appeal, which I'd like to happen ASAP.
In the meantime, strong full-disk encryption is your friend.
Re:Fourth Amendment (Score:5, Informative)
They had a warrant to search the house, based on probable cause, and they confiscated the computer. The perp knowingly downloaded something that he thought was child porn and opened it (which turned out to be malware that reported his location). And even the distribution of that malware was authorized by a warrant.
At no point was this a warantless search of a computer. At no point was due process violated. This is solid constitutional law. The summary is just a ridiculously alarmist, factually inaccurate analysis of the case in question.
Re: (Score:2)
Look at the second line of reasoning. I'm not lawyer enough (i.e., at all) to know whether their first line of reasoning, which you are discussing, is valid. But the second line of reasoning is vile, evil, and any other disgusting term of abuse you can think of. And the judge should be impeached for saying it.
The conviction is probably sound. I think the first line of reasoning is probably valid. But that addendum where he says they didn't need a warrant anyway should lead to his impeachment...and *sho
That's Not What The Decision Says (Score:5, Informative)
Re:That's Not What The Decision Says (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Hah... I stick to AppleMumble er Talk...
Re:That's Not What The Decision Says (Score:5, Informative)
Read the next section of the opinion, starting toward the bottom of page 47. After writing that there's no expectation of privacy for an IP address (which is a pretty reasonable point), the judge goes on to write that there's no reasonable expectation of privacy for the contents of an Internet-connected computer, because that computer "can - and eventually will - be hacked."
Re: (Score:3)
"the judge goes on to write that there's no reasonable expectation of privacy for the contents of an Internet-connected computer, because that computer "can - and eventually will - be hacked.""
So, am I free to take the money on a bank safe? The contents of any safe can -and eventually will, be cracked.
Re: (Score:2)
The opinion is right, IMO. If you dig in far enough, you'll conclude that the judge is really saying, "If you're too stupid to see if that kiddie porn image is a .jpg or .exe, you don't have any right to balk when the government's program runs on your computer."
Either way, there was a warrant that covered this, making much of this opinion mostly of academic interest and immaterial to the decision. And it's a district court, which means it doesn't set binding precedent.
And because those opinions don't aff
Wiretaps require a warrant, so this will too. (Score:2)
Not any different, there was a warrant (Score:2)
Then let out all the innocent people (Score:3)
Because if there is no expectation of privacy, than all those people who have gone to prison on computer crimes related to accessing information without permission have probably committed no crime.
Re: (Score:2)
Those people that went to jail were not working for law enforcement, nor breaking into said computers as part of any duty to that effect.
There are, in fact, a few things that are entirely illegal for the layman to do, but are entirely legal for law enforcement, or agents acting on their behalf, when the specific purpose is to uphold the law. Speeding comes to mind as one extremely common example.
Logic? (Score:2)
I'm actually okay with this..... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
EFF really fibbed on this one. There was a warrant (Score:5, Informative)
Re:EFF really fibbed on this one. There was a warr (Score:4, Insightful)
No, they didn't. The court ruled that there was a warrant, but even if there hadn't been, there was no need for one, since there was no expectation of privacy on an Internet-connected computer. See the section starting at the bottom of page 47.
Ah, that's the part that has the alarmed (Score:2)
Re:EFF really fibbed on this one. There was a warr (Score:5, Informative)
Sounds like dicta [thefreedictionary.com]. Not as big a deal as it could be then, since dicta are not binding.
From the link I gave: "[dicta] therefore are individual views of the author of the opinion and not binding in subsequent cases as legal precedent."
Re: (Score:3)
Sounds like dicta. Not as big a deal as it could be then, since dicta are not binding.
And yet a big enough deal. Because this case did involve a series of properly executed warrants and involves an unsympathetic defendant, it will stand on appeal. That means that dicta is going to show up in LexisNexis searches of successful cases and some prosecutor somewhere is going to attempt to cite it in a different case that does not involve the correct set of warrants, in hopes that another judge won't inquire too closely, or notice exactly how unconstitutional the theory is, and lets it fly. Wash
Why bother? (Score:2)
Why bother having a 4th Amendment at all if it doesn't apply to the things you own and store information on?
Soon they'll decide that the 1st Amendment is a pain in the ass and make it conditional.
Context Might Be Important Here (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
The enormity of the alleged crime can't make a difference before conviction. The police, according to that opinion, are allowed to not only get your IP address (which I consider reasonable), but also to hack in and search.
Please fire this judge (Score:2)
To be sure, "the appropriate [Fourth Amendment] inquiry [is] whether the individual had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the area searched, not merely in the items found." Thus, the Court will address whether Defendant possessed a reasonable expectation ofprivacy not only inhis IP address but also in his computer, the "place to be searched." The Court FINDS that Defendant did not possess a reasonable expectation of privacy in his computer.
Examining the search of computers in the Fourth Amendment context, in 2007, the Ninth Circuit held that a defendant had both a subjective expectation of privacy and an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in his personal computer, even though the defendant had connected that computer to a network.
In Trulock v. Freeh, the Fourth Circuit held that "password-protected files [on a computer] are analogous to [a] locked footlocker inside the bedroom;" thus, the defendant "had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the password protected computer files."
In other words, plenty good precedent but fuck that because:
For example, hacking is much more prevalent now than it was even nine years ago, and the rise of computer hacking viathe Internet has changed the public's reasonable expectations of privacy. (...) Now, it seems unreasonable to think that a computer connected to the Web is immune from invasion. Indeed, the opposite holds true: in today's digital world, it appears to be a virtual certainty that computers accessing the Internet can - and eventually will - be hacked.
Cases identifying a reasonable expectation of privacy in personal computer files protected with only a password, can be distinguished, because in 2016 it now appears unreasonable to expect that simply utilizing a password provides any practical protection.
Thus, in today's world, the locked footlocker referenced in Trulock. 275 F.3d at 403, would be more akin to a bag carried on an airplane as the owner travels the world with his private information on display.
First of all the logic is appalling, because there are burglars you shouldn't have privacy in your own home? And from "locked footlocker" to "travelling the world with the naughty bits hanging out", even if you bought the argument that the lock is weaker than before it's certainly on the inside of the bag, not the outside so "secure in your papers" is out the window too. This judge is ready to fuck over the constitution, screw the fourth amendment
Ahem... (Score:5, Insightful)
The court argues that since "computer hacking is more prevalent than it was even nine years ago" the defendant has no expectation of privacy to the contents of his own machine.
This is like arguing the content of a person's wallet is not private because of the existence of pick-pockets.
This is insanity.
--
BMO
Very bad for liberty (Score:2)
Your Only Right Is To Get Fucked. (Score:2)
I read it (Score:3)
"The court finds that Defendant possessed no reasonable expectation of privacy in his computer's IP address, so the Government's acquisition of the IP address did not represent a prohibited Forth Amendment search."
"The court cautioned, however, that its decision was limited to the fact that the researchers 'obtained the defendant's IP address while he was using the Tor network and [the researchers were] operating nodes on that network, and not by any access to his computer.'"
The defendant was claiming the warrant was invalid, which it was deemed not to be, but finding the IP address of the person's computer was not something that required a warrant.
Case...dismissed?
Will fail (Score:2)
in a most spectacular fashion upon appeal.
If everything else in your home requires a warrant prior to a search, you don't get to cherry pick specific items that will be exempt from it.
Seriously, it makes me wonder HOW a judge can even make a ruling like this and continue to sit at the bench. :|
Sauce, Goose, Gander, etc. (Score:2)
The implications for the decision, if upheld, are staggering: law enforcement would be free to remotely search and seize information from your computer, without a warrant, without probable cause, or without any suspicion at all.
Can we then assume that law enforcement doesn't have an expectation of privacy for the computers in their precincts, or their cars?