EFF Weighs in on Computer Privacy Case

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' "

Comments

I demand privacy but not in the private sector!

[garcia]

"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," said EFF Staff Attorney Kurt Opsahl.

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 poking around on the person's computer as it's doubtful that the files were of any direct relation to the problem.

It's a sad state of affairs when we have to discuss this and have the EFF come to the rescue. There is rarely ever a reason when LEOs should have the rights to look at anything w/o a warrant. Welcome to Scaredays 2005 people :(

"Allowing computer technicians to snoop on people's private data is like putting surveillance cameras in dressing rooms. The violation of so many people's privacy far outweighs any benefits that might be gained.

This I disagree with. While I am 100% against video cameras in the PUBLIC space I am not against video cameras in a private space (i.e. dressing rooms of a store). My feelings for personal privacy have no weight in a privately owned store that is using video cameras as a theft prevention mechanism. I do however have an equal weight with regards to my feelings about public spaces being spied upon.

Re:I demand privacy but not in the private sector!

[Kevin DeGraaf]

I am not against video cameras in a private space (i.e. dressing rooms of a store)

Well, now we know who works as a department store security guard...

Re:I demand privacy but not in the private sector!

[kevin_conaway]

My feelings for personal privacy have no weight in a privately owned store that is using video cameras as a theft prevention mechanism.

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!

[Alex P Keaton in da]

C'mon, who expects their stuff to be private when they allow another to look at their box. If you take your car in to be serviced, and the service has nothing to do with opening the truck, but the auto tech opens the trunk and finds 20 Keys of Coke, you are getting busted.
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!

[Anonymous Coward]

Knock off the karma whoring, Garcia. Moderators, please don't let this empty feel good fluff comment get rated +5 Insightful.

Re:I demand privacy but not in the private sector!

[utopianfiat]

You just can't help but picture your local security guard going into the camera room with a beer and a bag of popcorn.

*fap* oh shit she's stealing something!

Re:I demand privacy but not in the private sector!

[TiggertheMad]

I am not against video cameras in a private space (i.e. dressing rooms of a store).

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!

[mrchaotica]

This I disagree with. While I am 100% against video cameras in the PUBLIC space I am not against video cameras in a private space (i.e. dressing rooms of a store). My feelings for personal privacy have no weight in a privately owned store that is using video cameras as a theft prevention mechanism. I do however have an equal weight with regards to my feelings about public spaces being spied upon.

That's ridiculous! Privacy is (or, at least, should be) a fundamental right. Saying it's okay for people to spy on you just because they're not the government is as absurd as saying they're allowed to rob you or beat you or kill you.

Re:I demand privacy but not in the private sector!

[pixelpusher220]

The relevant point here is whether the presence of the cameras is disclosed *before* a patron is under their surveilence.

If the store is upfront about it, then I see no problem...shop somewhere else.

Re:I demand privacy but not in the private sector!

[garcia]

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?

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 to many different stores for many different reasons. If you have a problem w/cameras in the dressing rooms don't shop there or don't try on their clothes.

*EVERYONE* should be far more concerned w/the cameras at stop lights, intersections, lamp posts (traffic patterns my ass), etc.

Re:I demand privacy but not in the private sector!

[Diego_27182818]

"Allowing computer technicians to snoop on people's private data is like putting surveillance cameras in dressing rooms. The violation of so many people's privacy far outweighs any benefits that might be gained.

This I disagree with. While I am 100% against video cameras in the PUBLIC space I am not against video cameras in a private space (i.e. dressing rooms of a store). My feelings for personal privacy have no weight in a privately owned store that is using video cameras as a theft prevention mechanism. I do however have an equal weight with regards to my feelings about public spaces being spied upon.

That seems kind of backwards - you would rather have video cameras up where video can be taken of you in various states of undress, than have video cameras up in public space.

While in public I have no expectation of privacy, and I have no problems with the multiple traffic cameras that record me on my way to work. But if I found out that a store had installed cameras in the dressing room, not only would I never shop there again, but I would raise hell over it to make sure no one else ever shopped there either.

Re:I demand privacy but not in the private sector!

[saider]

I'm curious why you do not want video cameras in public, where anyone with eyeballs can observe and document your behavior, but yet as soon as we close the door, and expect some privacy, we lose that privacy. Why is it not OK to monitor public spaces?

A store may be within its rights to place cameras in dressing rooms, but I think they would suffer more from lost business than from the theft they are preventing. They would also expose themselves to lawsuits when the dressing room footage ended up on the internet.

Re:I demand privacy but not in the private sector!

[Alex P Keaton in da]

Umm- this could save the gap a lot of money- Instead of paying security guards, I know a ton of people who would pay to be security guards. Especially at one of those Gaps by a college campus...
"Work at the gap, see a gap!!!"

Re:I demand privacy but not in the private sector!

[Cerv]

The first clothing shop to put cameras in the dressing rooms would never survive the sudden, massive drop in sales and PR disaster. It's not going to happen so you don't really need to worry about it.

Re:I demand privacy but not in the private sector!

[garcia]

In the future please read and comprehend what I say:

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.

Re:I demand privacy but not in the private sector!

[mrchaotica]

But you know that sooner or later every store will have cameras and you won't have a choice. What'll you do then?

Re:I demand privacy but not in the private sector!

[BaronVonServers]

With regard to the PC files: If the files' contents where readily visible to the tech (he didn't have to break any encryption), and appeared to indicate children were being abused, he had a duty to report, and we as a society have a duty to act. A person's right to be safe in their persons and papers doesn't mean I'm not supposed to call the law if I see a person raping some child in the rapist's living room . With regard to the 'Spy Cam' in a private business. A spy cam owned and operated by a private company scares me even more than one operated by a governmental body, and I'm be tempted to take up arms of the Gov't wanted to film me going to potty at the courthouse. The local clothing store can spend the money to hire some one to observe what I take into the chaning room and what I bring out, NOT to observe me IN the changing room.

Re:I demand privacy but not in the private sector!

[einhverfr]

In each of these cases, the police would have to go through the steps of getting a warrant before doing any further searches, which they most certainly would do.

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!

[over_exposed]

As a former best buy tech, yes. That's not the point though. I've actually reported customers for child porn because they asked me to do a data backup. As I was queueing the files for DVD burn, I saw a lot of... interesting file names go acrosss. I showed my boss, he showed the manager, we called the cops.

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!

[Cerv]

and most places that do have cameras note that on a large sign that you can read before you go in.

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!

[dal20402]

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.

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 service, the drive is backed up to an external and erased first.

I just don't understand it... I'd feel dirty about looking through someone else's private stuff... but I'm apparently the only one.

Re:I demand privacy but not in the private sector!

[garcia]

I'm curious why you do not want video cameras in public, where anyone with eyeballs can observe and document your behavior, but yet as soon as we close the door, and expect some privacy, we lose that privacy. Why is it not OK to monitor public spaces?

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 expectation of privacy in public and then allowing that to be stretched to include cameras really need to think hard about their desire to have Big Brother watching over them.

Re:I demand privacy but not in the private sector!

[Anonymous Coward]

staffed by the appropriate sex

What about sexual orientation? What if the same-sex watchers are same-sex attracted? What about bisexuals, are they not allowed to work as security camera monitors at all?

That's it, we will just have to bring back eunuchs.

Re:I demand privacy but not in the private sector!

[hungrygrue]

This I disagree with. While I am 100% against video cameras in the PUBLIC space I am not against video cameras in a private space (i.e. dressing rooms of a store). My feelings for personal privacy have no weight in a privately owned store that is using video cameras as a theft prevention mechanism. I do however have an equal weight with regards to my feelings about public spaces being spied upon.

Could you explain this position a bit? I personally have far less of an issue with cameras in public places simply because they ARE public places. Very simply, any action which you choose to perform in public view is essentially public record and you have no right to expect any protection of privacy to include that which you make public. This isn't really a question of privacy, it is one of accountability. In private places, the case is much different. It is a violation of privacy simply because the victom has reason to expect privacy. Put another way, if the dressing rooms were plastered with signs stating that customers were being watched on a closed circuit television, far fewer people would actually USE these dressing rooms therefore such monitoring would have to be done in secret. If there were cameras in the park, however, very few people would be bothered enough to avoid the park. I would still take my daughter to feed the ducks regardless of whether the only observers were other people in the vicinity or included extremely bored security personel in an office somewhere.

Re:I demand privacy but not in the private sector!

[garcia]

Hang on, are you saying that there exist stores with cameras in the dressing rooms?

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!

[ThosLives]

You have several options:
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!

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

How the Evil is Done

Sensenbrenner is your basic Fat Evil Prick, perfectly cast as a dictatorial committee chairman: He has the requisite moist-with-sweat pink neck, the dour expression, the penchant for pointless bile and vengefulness.

Re:I demand privacy but not in the private sector!

[Anonymous Coward]

Place my sock over the camera lens if possible. If its out of reach or the store does not allow it, I would bring a large sheet or tarp to provide cover while I changed.

Duh.

Re:I demand privacy but not in the private sector!

[ZeissIcon]

The core issue here is the presence of a search warrant. IANAL, but my understanding is that if you have 20 kilos in the trunk of your car, and a service technician spots them, that falls under the "probable cause" clause under which the cops can search your car. If your plumber calls the cops and says, "I think my client has a meth lab in his basement," the cops would have to provide a judge with enough evidence to obtain a warrant to search your house.

The question here is: which category is your computer in? The EFF says it's on the house side of the equation. The entire reason cops can search your car is that you agree to it when you are issued a driver's license; driving is considered a voluntary practice, and as such you are required to give up some of your 4th ammendment rights in order to do it. Taking your computer to a repair shop in no way alters your relationship with law enforcement -- you have not agreed to the suspension of your rights. Thus, it requires a warrant. To whit, your terrorism example, the cops would still have to acquire a warrant to search your house and many judges would be hesitant to issue one since writing in the margins of a book is clearly a protected 1st ammendment right. On the other hand, the cops might bring you in and ask you some questions, and they are perfectly entitled to do so.

Re:I demand privacy but not in the private sector!

[melonriel]

Not try things on before buying them? Or maybe buy them online? No one is forcing you to try anything on when buying clothes. If someone cares greatly about this sort of thing, they could always buy clothes, try them on at home and take them back. A bit awkward and time-consuming, but possible. I highly doubt there will be cameras in ALL dressing rooms in the future, anyways.

Re:I demand privacy but not in the private sector!

[oriole1]

C'mon, who expects their stuff to be private when they allow another to look at their box. If you take your car in to be serviced, and the service has nothing to do with opening the truck, but the auto tech opens the trunk and finds 20 Keys of Coke, you are getting busted.

Actually, I seem to recall just that kind of thing being declared an illegal search by courts. I don't remember the specifics, but it went something like this: Guy gets pulled over for speeding. Cop opens the trunk (why? well, there's the whole issue) and finds pot. Now the speeder gets to go to jail for possession. The whole issue came down to probable cause. In the case I remember, the court found that the police did not have reason to search the trunk, since it was a routine traffic stop.

Another variant that I've heard pop up lately has been the use of drug-sniffing dogs during routine traffic stops or roadblocks. Here, the dog goes nuts at one guy's trunk, so the cops declare they now have probable cause to search the vehicle. Now the question is: does the use of dogs in the first place qualify as a search, and if so, what reason is given for the dog-sniff-search?

If you take a book in to be rebound, and you have terrorist plans written in the margins, you are going to get reported.

I'm not sure someone can argue the expectation of privacy for the margins of a publicly-owned library book.

It would be interesting to hear someone try and define "in plain view" as far as the folder structure of a machine goes.

I think it is quite reasonable to expect privacy in something that is privately owned. If the offending material (like the child pornography on the desktop somebody mentioned earlier) is immediately apparent, privacy cannot be assumed. But it not reasonable that a routine computer repair be turned into a full-blown search for illegal materials, when any results will be given to law enforcement.

BTW, if anybody has info on the specifics of the car-searching case(s) I've mentioned above, please share!

Re:I demand privacy but not in the private sector!

[Anonymous Coward]

"...blatant kiddie porn as the desktop's background (and no, a picture of your child taking a bath doesn't qualify)."


what if it's my neighbor's kid taking a bath... and she's 16? does that qualify?

Re:I demand privacy but not in the private sector!

[MobyDisk]

Very insightful comment. But also very scary.

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.

I hope you were kidding. I do computer repair, and I take certain steps to make sure I never accidentally open the "My Documents" or "My Pictures" folders unless I need to. If I hired you to fix a customer's computer and I discovered you did that, I would fire you.

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!

[keraneuology]

I am 100% against video cameras in the PUBLIC space I am not against video cameras in a private space (i.e. dressing rooms of a store).

Why? What possible expectation do you have for privacy in public? Do you object to news teams setting up video cameras to film a public event or only fixed cameras? While in public anything visible to the public is fair game, be that behavior or the T-Shirt that reads "I am a terrorist but because I am in public you have no right to read my shirt".

While on private property I say that any disclosed filming is acceptable. I have an issue with hidden cameras in dressing rooms, but if there is a sign that clearly reads "These dressing rooms are monitored by pimply 19 year olds who would rather monitor you than be turned down for a date yet again by that redheaded girl in cosmetics" then by all means. I would personally shop elsewhere, but that's irrelevant.

Re:I demand privacy but not in the private sector!

[Alex P Keaton in da]

I know it's wrong, I am just being honest. Of course I feel dirty searching for images on someone else's machine- but I can't help it. The truth is, there is nothing like seeing the soft supple, nude body of a woman you know. It is better than playboy. You know what you are going to see in Playboy- airbrushed perfection. But it is always a surprise, a festival for the eyes, to see a lady that you know well, yet always see clothed, in the buff. An ass taut like a snare drum, but still soft to the touch. Breasts white as milk, but with rich pink nipples.... Oh man, excuse me, I need to go to to restroom.

Re:I demand privacy but not in the private sector!

[WormholeFiend]

4. Make your own clothes. (This could even lead to "profit!!!")

I suppose "???" only applies to underpants?

Re:I demand privacy but not in the private sector!

['nother poster]

1. But what if all stores do this?
2. Yeah, right. You ever have cloths tailored? They don't just take 3-4 measurements and viola perfect fit. They take upwards of a dozen measurements for certain articles of clothing, and they then usually do a final fitting. You think you can take in a seamstreses tape and get the fit right?
3. They can simply stop taking returns, or make them prohibitvly annoying. Some stores are already doing this, and more are following the trend.
4. Most people have neither the time, talent, or experience for this.
5. See the comments on 2. for tailored clothing plus add in the prohibitive cost.

Re:I demand privacy but not in the private sector!

[Master of Transhuman]

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!

[Anonymous Coward]

"Is that a sheet in your pocket or are you just happy to see me?!"

Re:I demand privacy but not in the private sector!

[pete6677]

"Reasonable expectation of privacy" is the legal standard used in privacy related lawsuits. If a store has no signs or other indications that cameras are being used in a dressing room that has a locking door, the customer has a reasonable expectation of privacy and would be entitled to sue if a hidden camera were discovered. If however, the dressing rooms were not private or a sign were posted making it obvious there was a camera, then there is no reasonable expectation of privacy and a court would not award damages.

As other posters have pointed out, no store would be likely to have cameras in their dressing rooms anyway as this would hurt their business much more than shoplifters would.

Re:I demand privacy but not in the private sector!

[Alex P Keaton in da]

That is true- of the police. It is very, very different with another private citizen. If I come over to your house for dinner, and you pass out, and I snoop through drawers and find something illegal and report it, no 4th ammendment rights were violated. Because I am not the police. And then, teh police have probable cause, based on my report, to look in the drawer.
There was a supreme court case, which applies well here- I forget the name, but the police were having building inspectors do building inspections on residences suspected of being involved in crimes. The Building inspector could poke around, then report to the police as a "reliable" witness, and then the police would have probable cause to search the house.
As I recall, this result of this case was that building inspectors now need a warrant to come on your property. But Building inspectors are Public employees, it doesn't apply to private citizens.

Re:I demand privacy but not in the private sector!

[Anonymous Coward]

What channel is that on again?

Re:I demand privacy but not in the private sector!

[Valar]

The way it usually works is that you make sure there is no way to get to or from the dressing room to a door without crossing through the coverage of cameras, but there would be no actual camera coverage of the room. If you walk out of the dressing room with less items than you walked in with, they know something is up (at the least, there are items to be reshelved laying around back there). without having to watch you in the dressing room.

I actually kind of like the solution a lot of clothing stores in our mall seem to have come up with. They simply have a staff member who minds the dressing rooms and not only keeps an eye out for shop lifting, but can grab a different size for you, if the one you have doesn't work. It ends up giving them extra security and me extra convience and once again, they don't have to watch you dress.

Re:I demand privacy but not in the private sector!

[oriole1]

Ahh, here's the dog-sniffing thing, from April this year.

Not exactly a traffic stop, and I think I agree with the courts on that one, but you can definitely see the parallels.

Re:I demand privacy but not in the private sector!

[Jim_Maryland]

Boss: My boss says we need some eunuchs programmers.
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!

[cahiha]

While I am 100% against video cameras in the PUBLIC space I am not against video cameras in a private space (i.e. dressing rooms of a store). My feelings for personal privacy have no weight in a privately owned store that is using video cameras as a theft prevention mechanism.

For the government to set rules on whether, where, and how video cameras may be used in stores is no more and no less arbitrary than for the government to set rules on how money may be exchanged, how contracts are enforced, and what kind of safety a store has to guarantee its customers.

As a matter of principle, we prefer to keep government regulations to a minimum and we demand some kind of cost/benefit justification for regulations, but there is no clear line between public/private as you seem to imagine. Government can legitimately set rules on the use of video cameras as they can on any other aspect of the operations of a business. The fact that most Americans want privacy in dressing rooms is an excellent justification for prohibiting stores from installing video cameras there. If stores don't like to operate under those conditions, their owners have the right to take their capital and investment and start operating in some other line of business.

Re:I demand privacy but not in the private sector!

[shotfeel]

Don't know what country you're in, but in the US the cops do need a warrant or your permission to search your car (open the trunk, glove box to take a look). They can, however, look in the windows all they want. They can not revoke your license for refusing a search.

It does become a bit murkeir if your car is at a repair shop and the repairman opens the trunk to show the cops.It would be a bit like someone visiting your house giving the cops permission to search your house.

Re:I demand privacy but not in the private sector!

[Dun Malg]

Sensenbrenner is your basic Fat Evil Prick, perfectly cast as a dictatorial committee chairman: He has the requisite moist-with-sweat pink neck, the dour expression, the penchant for pointless bile and vengefulness.

I couldn't find a good color picture, but here's a perfect B&W one that shows off the slack, deflated-innertube-like neck flab that also seems to be a prerequisite for the position!

Wait! Found a pretty good color photo too!

Re:I demand privacy but not in the private sector!

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

The question here is: which category is your computer in? The EFF says it's on the house side of the equation.

It's not the computer per se, it's the files on it that are important. The things protected are specifically described by the fourth amendment. "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated..." I'd say your computer files are your papers wouldn't you?

Re:I demand privacy but not in the private sector!

[Alex P Keaton in da]

Ahhh... but if the plumber snoops in the basement to find out about whether his curiosity is justified, and sees a meth lab and reports that, the police can roll right on into the basement.I am concerned here- people seem to think that they have fourth ammendment rights from other citizens- you do NOT! You have them from the gov't
Example- I break in your house to steal silverware, and find 100 pot plants. I report it to the police. Yes, I am guilty of burglary, but the police would still have probable cause to search your living room!!! (aside from the fact that a burgular may not be a trustworthy informant).
You do not have any 4th ammendment rights from other citizens!!!!

Re:I demand privacy but not in the private sector!

[Anonymous Coward]

Hint: Most women do option 3.

Re:I demand privacy but not in the private sector!

[TommyBlack]

You don't seem to get it. The store owner can make whatever policies he wants in his store, and you don't have to shop there. They're his clothes and he doesn't have to sell them to you.

What if every store does that? Oh well, them's the breaks. If you want extra features that the store doesn't want to sell you, find someone that will (It may cost more, but at least you're the one paying the price for what you want)

Re:I demand privacy but not in the private sector!

['nother poster]

Unlike you, I have no issue with cameras in public places. If it's public, that pretty much means that anyone and everyone can see you there. You use the "cameras are OK in fitting rooms because they cut costs due to less shoplifting" excuse, but don't like it when they increase the governments tax base and lower your insurance rates by busting speeders and red light runners. I find this amusing. Remember, if you don't want the government enforcing the traffic laws on you, you are perfectly welcome to walk or take public transportation. Driving is a privilege, being clothed in public is pretty much legislated most places.

Re:I demand privacy but not in the private sector!

[bedroll]

This I disagree with. While I am 100% against video cameras in the PUBLIC space I am not against video cameras in a private space (i.e. dressing rooms of a store). My feelings for personal privacy have no weight in a privately owned store that is using video cameras as a theft prevention mechanism. I do however have an equal weight with regards to my feelings about public spaces being spied upon.

The benefit of cameras in dressing rooms is incredibly little. Cameras are easy to block or trick when you're trying to steal something. That makes it less effective than other measures. The privacy concerns heavily outweigh the effectiveness. What if a minor goes in to the dressing room? Are there tapes being generated that could later be sold (illicitly or not)? Do we really know the gender of the security guard?

It's just wasteful and stupid to pay someone to watch cameras when you could pay that same person to sit outside the dressing rooms and enforce strict policy on the customers. Only three items allowed; no bags in the room; all items must be returned to the guard before purchase or restock; etc... Much more effective and no privacy issues.

Out in public issues occur if the law specifies that cameras are to be used for enforcement instead of just evidence gathering. Red light cameras are enforcement, and they are a big problem because they're not always accurate, they can't take context into accountm, and they're considered so indisputable that some courts won't hear the case until after you pay the fine. A system that silently watches and then uses cameras as evidence if need be is far less intrusive. Sure it might record 24/7, but if no one is looking at those recordings then it's not a big deal. That's why no one complains that they're on tape at ever convenience store and bank.

Re:I demand privacy but not in the private sector!

[mrchaotica]

No, you don't seem to get it! The store owner can't make whatever policies he wants in his store. For example, he can't refuse to serve black people, he can't murder every third customer, and he can't lock everyone in at closing time and use them for slave labor.

It should be the case that he can't spy on his customers, either!

Re:I demand privacy but not in the private sector!

[Jim_Maryland]

Another variant that I've heard pop up lately has been the use of drug-sniffing dogs during routine traffic stops or roadblocks. Here, the dog goes nuts at one guy's trunk, so the cops declare they now have probable cause to search the vehicle. Now the question is: does the use of dogs in the first place qualify as a search, and if so, what reason is given for the dog-sniff-search?

This may fall under a similar situation of the DUI check points that get setup. IANAL but I believe as long as they have a system for checking cars (say every car, every third car, etc...), they can do a basic check on the operator and condition of the car. I'm sure the officer is trained to detect signs of intoxication (smell of alcohol being a pretty obvious sign) and I could see an extension of that to include drug sniffing dogs to ensure the driver isn't operating under the influence of drugs. If drugs or alcohol are detected, the officer may inspect the vehicle for further evidence without a warrant given that the driver would likely remove any evidence before a warrant could be obtained.

Re:I demand privacy but not in the private sector!

[pete6677]

If you think your insurance rates will go down as a result of red light cameras and speed cameras, may I interest you in some prime oceanfront property in Kansas?

Re:I demand privacy but not in the private sector!

[Anonymous Coward]

The first clothing shop to put cameras in the dressing rooms would never survive the sudden, massive drop in sales and PR disaster. It's not going to happen so you don't really need to worry about it.

Surely you are joking.
Almost all large stores have those, and/or live
people looking thru one-way glass.

Re:I demand privacy but not in the private sector!

[voorko02]

Wouldn't a more accurate example be:

If you have a plumber over to fix a leaky pipe, and you've got child porn in the bottom drawer of your nightstand, expect him to find it.

You know what though, I don't expect him to find it. If I'm using some of that porn to plug the holes in the leaky pipe, then sure, but otherwise stay the hell out of my stuff. If I take my computer in to have someone put in a new video card (which I think is actually a service Best Buy provides), I don't expect them to search through my hard drive.

Look I search for images whenever I use someone else's computer, but I don't expect to have any kind of legal footing if I try to do anything with what I find.

Re:I demand privacy but not in the private sector!

[It doesn't come easy]

The entire reason cops can search your car is that you agree to it when you are issued a driver's license.

Sorry but this is wrong. You do not automatically agree to allow cops to search your vehicle simply because they want to. They must either have your explicit permission or have probable cause. If they have probable cause then they don't have to ask your permission. If they don't, then they either have to get a warrant or your permission before searching.

Probable cause is a gray area of the law but it is real. Without going into all of the detail, read this brief definition. If you refuse to agree to a search, this does not constitute probable cause to go ahead and search anyway (you're not automatically guilty if you refuse to grant permission).

I'm a radical when it comes to privacy these days. I no longer cooperate with all of these intrusions fostered on us by so called "security measures". If they have the authority then you don't have to ask me for permission. If they don't then any evidence will get thrown out as inadmissible.

Re:I demand privacy but not in the private sector!

[Alef]

Doesn't both:
    4. Make your own clothes. (This could even lead to "profit!!!")
    5. Hire a tailor to make clothes for you.
imply:
    1. Don't shop at (those) stores at all.
?

Re:I demand privacy but not in the private sector!

[Anonymous Coward]

i hope alex p keaton isn't your real name... you may have a tough time finding jobs or keeping friends after they www.zoominfo.com you.

Re:I demand privacy but not in the private sector!

[Anonymous Coward]

According to my wife, their were plenty of homosexuals who had absolutely ZERO problem describing each night's sexual exploits in the back room working at the Gap store that she worked at for a whopping 3 weeks. Do you think I want dudes staring at me while I'm changing? NOPE!

And what choice do we have on where to shop anymore? Not much now that Walmart has taken over.

Re:I demand privacy but not in the private sector!

[ImaLamer]

You've got a good point there, but it doesn't change the fact that as a computer repair technician you aren't working as a government agent so your "search" isn't going to be protected/restricted under the 4th Amendment.

Imagine if I broke into your home and found pot plants growing. While I was even in the commission of a crime, not being a police officer that search is legal and admissible in court.

Sorry.

I've told many people to not take their PC's in for repair because of porn (which in any form can be partially illegal in my county/city/state) and copies of software that no one paid for. Just as if you cut off your O2 sensor and catalytic converter and took your car in to get fixed you can expect the mechanic to report you.

Now, approaching someone might be a better option, but people sometimes would rather go to the police.

Re:I demand privacy but not in the private sector!

[beebware]

Echoed here! I'm a server admin and hence have access to every single email passing through the server and any files uploaded. However, it'll be a massive breach of ethics and probably the UK Data Protection Act and Computer Misuse Act to look at those emails or files without good enough reason (i.e. reports of copyright material, customer saying they've got a problem with email etc). Hell, every single email my boss receives goes through the servers I admin and whilst it can be tempting to "have a peek", I don't as it'll be "wrong".

Re:I demand privacy but not in the private sector!

[Master of Transhuman]

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 situation maintains.

However, if a store is owned by a CORPORATION with EMPLOYEES, spying is another matter. While the corporation has a reasonable basis for ensuring security, having random people spying on customers - especially in an intimate setting like a dressing room - is going a bit far. There are other ways to deploy security than violating customers privacy.

This is a problem with the notion of the corporation being an entity created by the state with the rights of a person.

Having said all that, I don't believe in "rights", in any event. Stores that spy on customers in dressing rooms should be avoided, but if all stores do it, there's nothing you can do about it because it's unlikely the retail industry will allow Congress to pass legislation prohibiting it. Only mass consumer action could change it, and that's not likely to happen either.

Compared to the other problems caused by corporations manipulating the state, it's a minor issue, so you might as well concentrate on getting rid of the state and the corporation concept.

Now, as to the original problem, employees should not be cops. First of all, if they fuck up trying to BE cops, they make their employer legally liable for lawsuits. Secondly, they AREN'T cops and don't know the law or what to do to handle a situation.

Example: tech guy finds kiddie porn on somebody's computer. Who's to say HE DIDN'T PUT IT THERE FOR HIS OWN REASONS? You have no evidence until you have a warrant and a forensic examination. Meanwhile, his very poking around has DESTROYED THE CASE. Any competent defense attorney will raise this defense, unless forensic evidence can disprove it.

So, the tech reports his find to the cops. The cops should STILL have to get a warrant as there is no distinction between this and a vehicle stop on the street. The government is prohibited from doing search and seizure of anything you own without a warrant issued by a judge based on probable cause (which is violated constantly by lying cops and lazy judges on a daily basis, but that's another story.)

And if the tech screwed up and is wrong, and the cops find nothing, your customer sues the tech, your company, and everybody else. And the rest of your customers don't trust you anymore, so you lose business.

Does your company want that hassle? It's not your job to be a cop. If you have direct, unequivocal knowledge of an IMMINENT or IN-PROGRESS crime such as a terrorist attack or child molestation or a serial killing, then it is reasonable to report it to your boss, and the company can decide whether it is reasonable to report it to the cops.

Anything beyond that isn't very smart. There have been too many cases of asshole employees interpreting some innocent picture of somebody's kid as "child porn", resulting in ridiculous persecution of some parent as a result of overzealous cops and DAs trying to make names for themselves. And this is what the Constitution was attempting to prevent with the search and seizure amendment.

Re:I demand privacy but not in the private sector!

[Total_Wimp]

In our IT department it has been made very clear that we never snoop in anyone's email or home directory without either the prior concent of the 'owner' or the fact that there is some kind of an emergency that must be addressed. Similarly, we've directed our PC techs to only browse the folder structure as appears necessary to complete the task at hand.

Yes, we have the law on our side and can look at anything we damn well want on our network. We don't snoop, not because we're required not to snoop, but because our whole job is to serve the end user community and it's just plain rude to snoop on someone you're serving.

I know there are a lot of different views on this and I know the law says that the company owns everything. The law also says you can kill your dog for any reason or even no reason whatsoever. People need to realize that the law does not always follow what is right and in those cases where it doesn't, doing what's right is always the best course of action.

TW

Re:I demand privacy but not in the private sector!

[Com2Kid]

• 
  I hope you were kidding. I do computer repair, and I take certain steps to make sure I never accidentally open the "My Documents" or "My Pictures" folders unless I need to. If I hired you to fix a customer's computer and I discovered you did that, I would fire you.
  

Normally yes, except of course when I am asked to go through and backup all important files.

Then I get bored when I find nothing BUT boring important files. *sigh*

Re:I demand privacy but not in the private sector!

[stinerman]

Indeed.

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!

[dereference]

Remember, any place you shop (including ones w/cameras) is *your* choice...
*EVERYONE* should be far more concerned w/the cameras at stop lights, intersections, lamp posts (traffic patterns my ass), etc.

You've got to be kidding. Ok, more correctly, I sure hope you're kidding, or that I'm totally misunderstanding you.

If you're saying I should be more against traffic cameras than dressing room cameras, please think about this for a moment. I (part of everyone, by the way) have not problem with cameras at stop lights, as part of a targeted enforcement effort. Yes, if you've turned the thing on constantly to monitor citizen movements, it's abusing the system. I understand, and have my tinfoil hat at the ready.

However, if you catch (or better still, prevent) somebody from running a red light, doesn't that seem like a benefit to the public good? Are you truly saying I should be against these cameras *more* than I should be against dressing room cameras?

Well, I'm not convinced. I'm against them both, but I certainly tolerate traffic cameras when used appropriately. Yes, yes, again, I realize they can and will be abused, and it's the abuse I would want to stop.

However, you might very reasonably expect that stopping even one moronic motorist from running a red light might actually keep somebody from being needlessly killed. That's right, we're talking about a crime that makes people irreversibly non-living. And now are you actually saying I should be more against this device, that can save lives, than I should be against the dressing room cameras?

Now, for a moment, please picture your bride-to-be being violently killed in a horrible traffic accient, because some low-life ran a red light. You don't want anybody to even try to prevent that, because you'd rather your privacy while breaking the law with a ton or two of steel?

I see no benefit at all to society from the dressing room cameras. More to my point, getting rid of them certainly cannot possibly change the number of lives ended. In contrast, getting rid of traffic cameras might actually cause(or more correctly, fail to prevent) needless deaths.

Re:I demand privacy but not in the private sector!

[Nurseman]

"Reasonable expectation of privacy" is the legal standard used in privacy related lawsuits.

You are talking about cameras in changing rooms, but you could also be talking about this case. A Private citzen, saw what he thought was criminal activity, and called police. This case is very similar to This Case Where a retail mail store owner opened a suspcious package, found MJ, and called police. Citizens are allowed to report what they believe is a crime, and the police are obligated to investigate. Both these individuals may have civil quarrels with the people who snooped on them, but I don't think you can fault the police for investiagting.

Re:I demand privacy but not in the private sector!

[computational super]

Allowing computer technicians to snoop on people's private data is like putting surveillance cameras in dressing rooms.

So if you are putting cameras in the dressing rooms and storing the images on computers, don't take those computers to Best Buy for repairs.

Re:I demand privacy but not in the private sector!

[stinerman]

I would expect that their theft prevention team would be staffed by the appropriate sex

Sir, with all due respect, you expect too much. I think you might find that expecting every last business you frequent to try to screw you out of as much money as possible while selling you the most sub-standard merchandise they can get their hands on without you complaining about it is a better strategy. At the very least, you can be suprised when a rare business does offer good service and quality at a fair price.

I would suspect that one guy watches all the cameras. I would also suspect that if someone made a stink about that, the business in question wouldn't do jack unless they thought it would hurt their bottom line. They don't care about you or your rights or what you think of them. They care about money and nothing else.

Re:I demand privacy but not in the private sector!

[danheskett]

In fact they are more likely to go up. The incidence of rear-end collisons is higher in traffic-camera "protected" intersections.

Re:I demand privacy but not in the private sector!

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, don't let your daughter/wife out of the house then, because this happens, and isn't illegal.

And if there is a large mirror in the dressing room, there could probably be someone sitting behind it.

Dressing rooms aren't restrooms. Laws protect restrooms and locker rooms from being spied on, but not dressing rooms.

Re:I demand privacy but not in the private sector!

[Aeiri]

Hang on, are you saying that there exist stores with cameras in the dressing rooms?

Yes. Welcome to 2005.

Where do I apply?

I'm a certified theft prevention control officer. Honest.

Re:I demand privacy but not in the private sector!

[Proteus]

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?

I have a wife, and I don't worry about this. I figure one of three things will happen:

1. the watcher will think my wife is beautiful, in which case someone had a good day. My wife hasn't lost anything.
   
2. the watcher will think my wife is ugly, in which case he/she will simply look away. My wife still hasn't lost anything.
   
3. the watcher will be ambivalent and just watch for shoplifting. My wife still hasn't lost antyhing.

Why does this freak everyone out so much? I mean, you certainly have the right to your privacy, and if you think the skin that lies under your clothes is a private matter, then so be it. But, why is it a private matter?

Remember, we aren't talking about nakedness — this isn't a bathroom stall camera — we're talking about someone seeing someone else in their underwear. What's private, your bellybutton? I don't think I would have married someone who felt their privacy was being invaded because someone saw her undies.

The loss of people's right to privacy is a scary thing, but what scares me more is that our society hasn't progressed beyond this idea that skin is somehow shameful, wrong, or private. And that we have a double standard to boot: when it's IP we're talking about, then we rail about how we are depriving people of something, but when it comes to privacy (another mythical construct) suddenly we aren't harming them. Or vice-versa, depending.

Re:I demand privacy but not in the private sector!

[Anonymous Coward]

Those are against the law no matter where you do them, so they should not be part of your argument.

Re:I demand privacy but not in the private sector!

[saider]

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.

According to your argument, would it be appropriate to have people looking over our every move? Perhaps an officer on every streetcorner? What happens if society changes to the point where it is feasable for the government to be able to afford this option?

If you are relying on financial infeasability, then your argument is a straw man and does not address the real issue of public surveillance.

Also, the cameras in question are viewed by a human dispatcher. So a human is watching things using an aid. The aid offers no more information than the naked eye.

You need to explain why the government cannot observe our behavior in public, en masse, not criticize the particular method they choose to use. That is what I want to know.

Why can't the government put an officer in a location and watch for people breaking the law?

Re:I demand privacy but not in the private sector!

[Alex P Keaton in da]

You do have legal footing. If I have you over, and you use the loo, and look in the medicine cabinet- and you report what you find there, the cops can look.
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 think otherwise would be folly...
Like the people who call teh police and say so and so stole my cocaine, and they both get arrested...
Not to be a dick, but if someone takes a computer full of illegal images to a tech and leaves it with him, they deserve to be arrested and tried for stupidity.

Re:I demand privacy but not in the private sector!

[Anonymous Coward]

in all fairness, most of todays wonderful cars are made of plastic... so maybe a ton or two of that wouldn't be so bad?

Re:I demand privacy but not in the private sector!

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you serious? Public cameras are more haneous than private?

If you are walking down a PUBLIC street you have NO EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY. People can see you, you know that. People will see you, you SHOULD know that. You have no reason to believe you aren't being watched.

WTF are you thinking. Cameras on the street are no different than cops walking a beat. If you are breaking a law in public, and a cop sees you, he has to call and get a warrant? No, he can arrest you on the spot. If you are breaking the law on a public street, and get caught on tape, good for the state, you f'in idiot.

If you are in public, PUBLIC, you have no expectation of PRIVACY. PUBLIC specifically precludes PRIVATE.

Now, my only problem with the facial recognition cameras, which are different than just security cameras, are the false positives, and the harassment that ensues.

Re:I demand privacy but not in the private sector!

[Amouth]

I have to agree with this.. i had to fire someone for a diffrent reason.. he would check out what software and games people had and would copy all their stuff off and take it home. I warned him the first time but had to let him go after that.

Re:I demand privacy but not in the private sector!

[falconwolf]

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).

Unfortunately some people have been accused of child porn just for this reason when they photographed their child taking a bath. They've then taken the photos to the lab to have processed and some over zealious lab tech called the police.

This I disagree with. While I am 100% against video cameras in the PUBLIC space I am not against video cameras in a private space (i.e. dressing rooms of a store).

Anf what if that video of someone undressing is released on a porn site? While I agree there's no right of privacy in stores, or even in public, when I try on cloths in a dressing room I don't expect nor do I agree to having a camera in the room. The only thing left is to take the cothing home, try it on there, and if it doesn't fit then take it back. Personally I want to make sure it fits before I leave and don't want to have to waste tyme returning a bunch of clothing to the store, especially if I have to buy different sizes of the same clothing to try on.

Falcon

Re:I demand privacy but not in the private sector!

[dfetter]

I don't believe that a business owner, merely by "virtue" of being a business owner, gets a power to violate my civil rights. They get all kinds of benefits from living in a civil society, and in exchange, they have to do things like pay taxes, not put up signs that say "No niggers, kikes or faggots allowed," etc., etc.

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!

['nother poster]

You are right. The owner doesn't have to sell to me or anyone else. That doesn't mean he can do as he pleases. there are laws that govern what any private citizen or corporation can do. You do not become the property of the business owner simply because you go into his store. He doesn't have to sell to me. He can bar me from his shop. He can not break laws just because he owns, or leases, the property and runs a business out of it. Seems more like you don't get it.

Re:I demand privacy but not in the private sector!

[cbreaker]

I've been an e-mail admin for years and I never look at e-mail unless there's a need to do so. I'm entrusted with the enture companies' store of e-mail and I would really have to be a dick to break that trust.

I've never done it at home on my own mail server (friends and family) and I've never done it at work. It would be unethical.

But, I do know of some people that don't give a shit and think it's funny to read everyone's mail. It just pisses me off.

Re:I demand privacy but not in the private sector!

[Anonymous Coward]

There aren't very many heterosexual males who work at Gap. In fact there are none that I've seen.

Re:I demand privacy but not in the private sector!

['nother poster]

I just gotta remember that there are many, many, sarcasm and irony challanged people populating Slashdot.

Re:I demand privacy but not in the private sector!

[pixelpusher220]

Initially this is true...as people get used to the presence of the cameras, accidents do go down.

The BIG difference that such arguments love to omit, is that the 'increased' accidents actually have a lower overal cost than the 'fewer' more serious accidents.

Would you prefer a 10 mph rear-end collision or the 35mph T-bone?

Rates will go down if the costs of insurance go down as well...it's a thing called competition.

Re:I demand privacy but not in the private sector!

[computational super]

Hmmm... that's a tough one. Post the picture and we'll make an official ruling.

Re:I demand privacy but not in the private sector!

[gstovall]

There's a reason why fabric shops have almost gone out of existence; the cost to purchase the raw materials at retail far exceeds the cost to purchase a garment manufactured in some far off country.

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!

[a whoabot]

He can do any of those, and he should be allowed to if agreements are mutual. The government may not let him, but that just makes them in the wrong, not the store owner.

If a shop owner doesn't want black people in his store, so be it. Black people don't have to go there, and I'm not sure why they would want to give money to someone who dislikes them as such. It's his store, he can make whatever poor business decisions he wants with regards to it.

If the agreement of buying something at his store is "if you're the third customer, I will kill you!" and people agree to this deal, so be it. It's his store and its their lives to do with as they see fit, not the government's.

He can spy on his customers if they agree to be spied on. The government should let store owners and store patrons be to make whatever mutual agreements they want.

Re:I demand privacy but not in the private sector!

[falconwolf]

You have several options: 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.

All except no 4 adding to your costs. As for no 4, making your own clothing, I used to make some of my own and if I had the equipment now I'd start making some again as it's difficult finding the clothing styles and materials I like. Like you said, if it's good you may be able to make some money selling clothing to others.

Falcon

Re:I demand privacy but not in the private sector!

[ThosLives]

Actually, laws don't tell you what you can and cannot do. Laws simply state agreed-upon consequences for certain actions.

Nasty little caveat there...but it means that you are actually free to ban certain folks from entering your store or killing every third customer; but, if you choose to do that, people can either shut down your store, take all your assets, lock you up, and/or execute you (depending on the laws to which your particular society adheres).

Re:I demand privacy but not in the private sector!

[sqlrob]

If they have probable cause then they don't have to ask your permission.

And currently, not giving permission is considered probable cause.

Re:I demand privacy but not in the private sector!

[theblueprint]

I worked in a photo lab some years ago...we had a similar rule. If the photos in question were kiddie porn, you're getting turned in. (We checked the photos for color corrections, so we saw everything). If the photos were of anything besides kiddie porn...then it's none of our business. I thought it was a fair rule, and I don't think it would be unreasonable to apply in the situation cited in the article.

Re:I demand privacy but not in the private sector!

[gallen1234]

Among these is the right to privacy.

Okay, I'll take the bait. Can you tell me in which article this "right to privacy" is? I seem to have missed it.

Re:I demand privacy but not in the private sector!

[Alex P Keaton in da]

You make a strong point, however you are imposing your views on others. Many don't want to be seen in their undies. What about muslims or hasidic Jews?
And A lot of times I don't wear underwear (I am trying to keep a high sperm count, and I really enjoy the breeze on my balls.)
And what if some of these "undie" shots get out on the net? Then what?
I am not being argumentative, But people have a right to not be seen in fewer clothes than they want to be.
And also, a lot of crimes happen in the bathroom, from gay sex romps to shoplifting. A lot of merchandise is stolen in bathroom stalls- so I am curious if you think that we should moniteor those.
What about backscatter x ray machines near the door? You could check out what people have in bags and under their clothes....
And do you think permanently embedded rfid will solve the shoplifting problem once and for all?

Re:I demand privacy but not in the private sector!

[StrongAxe]

Example- I break in your house to steal silverware, and find 100 pot plants. I report it to the police. Yes, I am guilty of burglary, but the police would still have probable cause to search your living room!!! (aside from the fact that a burgular may not be a trustworthy informant).

Yes. Police may have probable cause to get a warrant before searching your house. But they can't just break into your house on a burglar's say-so (unless, say, you were strangling someone to death with said plants).

Re:I demand privacy but not in the private sector!

[stinerman]

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.

Note to self:

Do not, under any circumstances, let "Alex P. Keaton" use the computer.

Re:I demand privacy but not in the private sector!

[Beyond_GoodandEvil]

Gee, if only red light camera's were used as an enforcement tool, and not a revenue generator. Oh, it would also help if speed limits were set and reviewed via a scientific and democratic process. However, in most areas they aren't. Btw poll taxes also increase the govt. tax base, do you also think they are good?

Re:I demand privacy but not in the private sector!

[Anonymous Coward]

The cameras are also not in the bathroom or the dressingroom.

Re:I demand privacy but not in the private sector!

[freshman_a]

The store owner can't make whatever policies he wants in his store.

You should tell that to all the liquor stores and restaurants I've been to that have a sign in the window that says "We reserve the right to deny the sale of alcohol" (or something along those lines).

Re:I demand privacy but not in the private sector!

[MarkGriz]

"i hope alex p keaton isn't your real name"

Nope, just a pseudonym. His real name is Marty McFly

Re:I demand privacy but not in the private sector!

[Anonymous Coward]

And even 4 is most of them time more expensive than buying. Compare the price of cheap chinese made clothes to the retail cost of fabric and you don't even have to factor in the cost of your time for it to end up being cheaper just to buy the item in the store.

Re:I demand privacy but not in the private sector!

[Malyven]

If there is a big bold sign stating that camera's are in use is it spying?
And personally I don't see anything wrong with it. I do admit they should have to make sure you are aware of the camera's and there should be steps in place to make sure there is no abuse.
but is there any real reason why you should expect privacy in someone else's store trying on clothes that you don't own yet.
especially if there are large amounts of theft happening

Re:I demand privacy but not in the private sector!

[gclef]

It's not there. The folks here claim that Article 9:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

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!

[Taevin]

Would you prefer a 10 mph rear-end collision or the 35mph T-bone?

You conveniently ignore the fact that the vast majority of people "caught" by the red light cameras are simply average people passing safely through the intersection while it is yellow only to be caught at the last second when the light turns red. The people who are going to T-bone you at 35mph are the ones that have no respect for the traffic laws or safety in the first place (obviously so if they are going to purposefully continue on through a stale red light). I doubt they are suddenly going to become faithful servants of the law just because you stick a camera there.

If it was truly about increasing public safety and reducing accidents why did they not increase yellow light times in addition to the cameras? That way people would have sufficient time to clear the intersection or safely stop and those in the intersection after that extended time would indeed be running the red light. Oh wait, they decreased the time at some lights... can someone say free money?

Re:I demand privacy but not in the private sector!

[GPLDAN]

He didn't claim he was a repairman. He just said when he uses another person's box. If he isn't using the machine under the pretense of fixing it, then what is his ethical duty? This is like opening somebody's medicine cabinet when you use their bathroom, to see how many pain killers they swig.

So, you may fire him (as you should), but that's not what we are talking about.

Re:I demand privacy but not in the private sector!

[Anonymous Coward]

I have worked on a couple of hundred systems for folks over the past few years. I ALWAYS ask the user where their important data is. However, however much it may be their fault, if I went by their answer I would have many unhappy customers. One user might be storing their important files in C:\windows\system32\voodoo to keep the kids out of them. Hell, I have had a couple of people storing ALL of their documents in the recycle bin. In fact, one of the first computers I worked on had them in there and I wiped em out. They were pissed. I straight up asked if they kept their tax returns in the trash next to their desk.

The point is, as unobtrusively as possible, I lightly view user information in the quest to save their data...even that which they can't tell me they want saved...and I don't mean because they don't want me to know about it. I did have one guy that got real nervous when I was asking what data he wanted saved...he got angry, in fact and insisted that I just wipe his drive out. I asked him to take it somewhere else because I was fairly sure by his behaviour that something on there could put him away for awhile. (Or, maybe it was just photos of he and his mistress.) About three years later, the FBI showed up and hauled him away. He had embezzeled retirement and other funds from his company.

And let's face it, if I find plans to blow some building up or kiddie porn, I will call the law. I won't however, tell your spouse about your porn collection or your boss about the nasty letters you have written, but not sent him.

Camera in the dressing room? Whacked I tell ya.

Re:I demand privacy but not in the private sector!

[terrymr]

That's not quite accurate ... when a store owner opens a store he is issuing a general invitation for people to shop at his store, provided they enter with that intent there's not really much he can do.

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 entered.

Re:I demand privacy but not in the private sector!

[stinerman]

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.

I agree to the extent that the surveillance is for bona fide security purposes. For instance, having a "toilet cam" to sell pictures / videos wouldn't hold water where I'm standing.

If I PERSONALLY own a store, I believe that same situation maintains.

I disagree here. I think that once you have opened up a store or any other place for the purporse of commerce, you have opened up your property to the public. At this point, the commerce clause allows for regulation of your privately owned store (although this should be, IMO, regulated by the state, not the feds). If the store is reserved exclusively for members that pay dues or private such a way that a random person is not welcome (think private clubs) then my postion is that of the former situation.

Re:I demand privacy but not in the private sector!

[E8086]

At least in NJ there's there are these legal phrases called "in plain sight" and "just cause" at least for police. If you get pulled over the officer cannot search your car without asking, you legally can and should say no (in most cases they have nothing on you and need to meet their monthly quota of tickets) or they must have a very good reason for a search which they must be able to prove in court. If they think they see part of a firearm sticking out from under the seat that's good enough. If you open the door or window and they smell pot that's also good enough.

The repair tech didn't meet either of those, with a computer, in plain sight would be the desktop wallpaper or any directories they need to access and it's set to thumbnail view, the guy kept his porn in winnt\system32 and the view was set to thumbnails and the pictures were clearly instantly visable. Anything other was an illegal search/snooping, could have been looking for stuff to pirate from a paying customer.

Re:I demand privacy but not in the private sector!

[It doesn't come easy]

No, sorry, it's not. If it were, that would mean all they would have to do would be to ask and then go ahead and search regardless of your response (if they ask and you refuse, probable cause so they search...if they ask and you agree, they search with your permission -- in either case they would be able to search no matter your answer). So a refusal cannot be interpreted as probable cause, otherwise there would be no need to require probable cause.

Re:I demand privacy but not in the private sector!

['nother poster]

Yes. And if you wish to bring up assinine arguments like that, then the owner can't ban the shopper because the shopper can simply use his weapons of mass destruction... so on and so forth. In simple terms, he can not legally do whatever he wishes simply because he owns the business.

p.s. You CAN legally ban people from your store. No reason needed as long as you can prove it wasn't for illegal reasons like race and such.

Re:I demand privacy but not in the private sector!

[pixelpusher220]

I live in Fairfax, VA and we just had the cameras turned off because of grandstanding about such things. See here for some good info linky

lets see your points:
the vast majority of people "caught" by the red light cameras are simply average people passing safely through the intersection while it is yellow only to be caught at the last second when the light turns red
If they are IN the intersection when it turns red then they are in violation of the law. - and the sensors are actually in the pavement BEHIND the stop line, only triggered if you go over it when the light is ALREADY red.

I doubt they are suddenly going to become faithful servants of the law just because you stick a camera there.
And you attribute the significant drop in t-bone accidents at these intersections to what then? Seems clear cut proof is also in the initial increase of rear-end accidents...those are people who would have otherwise gone through stopping very quickly.

why did they not increase yellow light times in addition to the cameras?
Yellows are timed based on the posted Speed Limit. If people aren't obeying that law (or within say 5mph) then the problem isn't the yellow time, it's the road speed. A *new* traffic feature such as the cameras will take time to get used too.

Oh wait, they decreased the time at some lights... can someone say free money?
Were there less then honest implementations of the cameras? Definitely...contractors making money PER ticket thus inducing all sorts of 'incentive' to do less then ethical/legal things. Does this mean you should ban a PROVEN technology? I say no...You're welcome to not want the cameras, but the stats don't lie, they save lives and money.

Re:I demand privacy but not in the private sector!

[varith]

I think the sale of alcohol is considered something of a special case. In fact, in many cases the owner of the store or restaurant is required not to sell to certain people. The underaged and the visibly intoxicated spring to mind.

Re:I demand privacy but not in the private sector!

[Master of Transhuman]

Point one: a toilet cam would be dumb, but should be perfectly legal in one's own home.

Point two: I don't see that opening up a space to the public for commerce changes anything about PERSONAL property control. While the state evidently does think that, since I don't approve of the state, I don't agree. It's still dumb to spy on customers, of course, but I don't think there is any "right" to privacy in such a space.

Corporate ownership is another matter.

Actually, my issue is with employees more than ownership. Even in scenario 2, where you operate a commercial space personally, if you have an employee spying on your customers, I don't agree with that. He doesn't own the space, and even if you do, he's responsible for his actions, even if under your direction. It's an iffy proposition since I'm saying that you as owner may spy on people but others under your direction may not.

Bottom line for all this is social contract and culture. Anybody can actually spy on anybody anywhere and the consequences are determined by culture and social negotiation. Family members spy on each other all the time because it's culturally accepted that family members in the same residence have more or less equal "rights". I think a good case could be made for opposing even that if you want to argue for inviolable individual rights.

So I think my point on spying by an individual owner of property is acceptable, but not spying by employees or persons other than the owner in commercial property.

And the real bottom line is that spying for anything other than physical security reasons is dumb as it violates trust relationships which could end up costing more than any benefit from spying.

Re:I demand privacy but not in the private sector!

[stinerman]

A sibling mentioned the 9th.

Some founders believed that having a bill of rights would make it seem that only the rights listed therein are the only rights one has. Many believed the Bill of Rights would be redundant since the government was one of enumerated powers and had no power to regulate religion, the press, etc.

Rule of thumb: government powers are enumerated, while rights are not. Basically, you have the right to do anything not expressly forbidden.

The right to privacy is not forbidden and is alluded to in the 4th and 9th amendments. Ergo, you have that right. QED

Re:I demand privacy but not in the private sector!

[Taevin]

No, I think the difference is that you have invited the private citizen into your home. Unless I'm mistaken, the same would apply to a police officer. If you invite the officer into your home, they may look wherever they want (until you ask them to leave). The idea being you know they are a police officer and by accepting their entrance into your home, you also accept any duties they may carry out while inside (just as you accept the fact that the person you invite over for dinner might end up snooping through your things). The part I don't remember is whether they can arrest you on the spot or have to come back with a warrant. Anyways, I could be wrong but that's what I remember being told by an ATF agent a long time ago.

Re:I demand privacy but not in the private sector!

[Anonymous Coward]

Thats not true. they take them home, wear them once to a dinner or something like that leaving the tag on them, then they take them back and say they didn't fit.

Re:I demand privacy but not in the private sector!

[Anonymous Coward]

OT: I recently read that it is often cheaper in some places to buy IKEA furniture and use the parts rather than buy the raw wood from the lumber store.

Re:I demand privacy but not in the private sector!

[falconwolf]

Can you tell me in which article this "right to privacy" is? I seem to have missed it.

IN THE
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

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

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

Re:I demand privacy but not in the private sector!

[Anti-Trend]

There are two reasons I can think of why there should be a precedent set against this kind of thing. First of all, it would be excruciatingly easy to frame someone by intentionally planting illegal material on their HDD and reporting them. Secondly, in many cases the actual servers which are dishing up this filth are situated on compromised home PCs with a fast broadband pipe. A lot of these people don't even know they're serving it!

Re:I demand privacy but not in the private sector!

[Miscreatn]

It's hard to really say what was really going through the mind of the tech. There are soo many variables that one can't come to a real conclusion on the situation. What was the original problem with the PC? Was the tech working on a software problem, or just poking around? What did he find that he thought that he must call the cops? (warez software, kiddie porn?) The fact that the cops did not follow procedure and obatin a warrant to search the computer, is what was wrong here. There is absolutly nothing wrong with calling the cops about something that you think might be illegal, but what the cops do with that information is where rules need to be followed. This I disagree with. While I am 100% against video cameras in the PUBLIC space I am not against video cameras in a private space (i.e. dressing rooms of a store). My feelings for personal privacy have no weight in a privately owned store that is using video cameras as a theft prevention mechanism. I do however have an equal weight with regards to my feelings about public spaces being spied upon. I think that it is odd that you have a problem with cameras in the public, but when it comes to having a camera in a private area you have no problem. I mean correct me if I'm wrong in my interpation. If you saw a camera on the outside of a gas station that was set to view the parking lot and pumps, would you rather not visit that station in some kind of fear (for lack of a better word) that you might be caught on camera? (not that you are doing anything wrong) That camera is there to protect the patrons of that station from harm, or to catch someone that is doing something illegal. As for a camera in a private place I'm totally against it. A bathroom for example, is a place that people in general expect to have privacy without somone watching them. Your example of the camera in a dressing room as a anti-theft mechanism, is frankly absurd. If the store wants to catch thieves stealing from them they would put an attendant near the rooms who's job it was to check in and out the items that are going into the area. It's like your child's school placing cameras in the restrooms to prevent kids and adults from stealing toliet paper. I mean where would it end? Privacy is privacy except when you let that privacy be open to the public, then it becomes someone's headline.

Re:I demand privacy but not in the private sector!

['nother poster]

Oooh. A nice dose of sarcasm right back at me. I may not have totaly missed in my intent. To answer you questions, I believe that photo enforcement is pretty much a revenue generator as you say. I would love to see a review process for intersection light timing and stop sign placement that wasn't simply people at the town hall meetings screaming "think about the children" or "do you know how much that would cost the city in revenue". And lastly, I believe we should have just as many poll taxes as we have cameras in restrooms and changing rooms.

Re:I demand privacy but not in the private sector!

[pixelpusher220]

Actually I hope you have a set of underwear with you as your not SUPPOSED to be trying on pants/etc without it...

Reminds me of an old Friends joke:


Chandler: What do you mean, it's soap, it's self cleaning?

Joey: Oh yeah? Think about what I wash last and what you wash first...

Chandler: -freaks out-

Re:I demand privacy but not in the private sector!

[tombeard]

Just as if you cut off your O2 sensor and catalytic converter and took your car in to get fixed you can expect the mechanic to report you.

Only in a police state.

Re:I demand privacy but not in the private sector!

[stinerman]

Point one: a toilet cam would be dumb, but should be perfectly legal in one's own home.

I'd agree so long as everyone using your toilet knows it's there. If a friend came over to use the john, and you decided to post the feed (as people have been known to do), I'd be willing to bet you'd be (and ought to be) sued.

As far as point two, I think there is an implicit agreement that when you open your property to the public at large, you lose some of your property rights. I think you'd have to because there will likely be a confict between your property rights and someone else's personal rights. When property rights come in confict with personal and/or social rights (think privacy, free speech), I think property rights have to lose. It seems to me that there should be a differences with respect to privacy law between your local 7-11 (assuming 7-11 is privately held) and your house.

Re:I demand privacy but not in the private sector!

[Qzukk]

I choose not to give business to many different stores for many different reasons. If you have a problem w/cameras in the dressing rooms don't shop there or don't try on their clothes.

Ah, the good old "vote with your wallet" argument. So tell me, what do you do if they don't tell you they have cameras in the dressing rooms, do you simply assume that there are no cameras there? Or do you assume that the company believes the cameras are so well hidden, nobody will find them and turn it into a morning news "expose"?

Re:I demand privacy but not in the private sector!

[jebell]

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.

Yeah, I think the Constitutional guarantee of the right to privacy is found somewhere betweeen the 5th and 6th Amendments. Maybe we should call it the five-and-a-halfth Amendment?

While I agree with you (and so does the Supreme Court) that the right to privacy is implied somewhere within the "penumbra" of the Constitution, it is NOT enumerated anywhere within it.

Re:I demand privacy but not in the private sector!

[Frank T. Lofaro Jr.]

But he can use DRM to do all those things for him and have the DMCA back him up with the force of law if someone circumvents.

Just 1/2 kidding. :)

Re:I demand privacy but not in the private sector!

[shmlco]

"They care about money and nothing else."

I think this does a disservice to a great many businesses, owners, and managers out there who do in fact care about other things. And if, in fact, many DO only care about money, the smart ones realize that they will make more of it off happy repeat customers than they will unhappy customers who complain about them to their friends and take their business elsewhere.

Re:I demand privacy but not in the private sector!

[LexNaturalis]

You're partially right, insofar as needing a search warrent. There is the "plain view" exception that allows for a search based upon evidence found in plain view. For instance, if someone's background on his computer was of child porn, and the cops saw it and seized the computer as evidence of child porn, that would not violate the 4th amendment. Also, during a vehicle stop, the plain view doctrine holds true. Insofar as this case is concerned, it's not really a matter of privacy. The EFF even stated that technicians shouldn't hand over data WITHOUT a warrant. Really all this boils down to is a case of the police being over-zealous in their attempts at capturing someone with child pornography. It's a pity that the missteps of the police are likely to allow a child pornographer to go free. So in short, the article title is somewhat misleading (surprise, surprise) because this doesn't really deal with "privacy" so much as it deals with the police searching the computer without a warrant, at least insofar as the EFF is concerned.

Re:I demand privacy but not in the private sector!

[maxpublic]

As others have pointed out, government powers are enumerated, not rights. Any power not granted to the government belongs to you.

Max

Re:I demand privacy but not in the private sector!

[Qzukk]

All of those points are good and all, but when cameras threatened to show up where I live, I complained for two reasons, a big one against cameras, and one against the planned implementation.

1) We allow right turn on red here. How can a camera know what you're doing when you cross the line during a red light?

2) The photo taken needs to show both the state of the light and the car. Otherwise, there is no proof that they aren't going off in the middle of a green light.

Meanwhile, the city completely ignored a campaign to have the lights synchronized so that there was a 4-way red light (where nobody was allowed to go) between each phase, which has been proven to almost completely end accidents due to red-light runners (anyone running the light or even a little late would be alone in the intersection), making it obvious that the city just wanted to fiddle with the lights to make money, not to save anyone's lives.

Re:I demand privacy but not in the private sector!

[Anonymous Coward]

wah, garcia fucking ownz ur ass. Fucking retarded little whining fuckstick dickface.

pwnt!

Re:I demand privacy but not in the private sector!

[Anonymous Coward]

How would you know?

Re:I demand privacy but not in the private sector!

[jedidiah]

The state should not be allowed use the illegal actions of proxies in order to get around their legal obligations. The public policy interest here is painfully obvious. If you allow this sort of thing, it can and will be abused.

If the 4th amendment doesn't protect me from such poisonous fruits, it should.

Re:I demand privacy but not in the private sector!

[pixelpusher220]

How can a camera know what you're doing when you cross the line during a red light?
My understanding is that the sensors detect your speed based on the change in magnetic field as your engine block passes over.
Just as cops don't pull people for 5mph over speed limits, it *should* be pretty simple to program this sensor to ignore anything similarly slow.

The photo taken needs to show both the state of the light and the car.
If the camera is set far enough back this isn't an issue.

The 4 way red is an interesting idea...though around here you'd have increasing hospital bills as blood pressures boil over waiting for *nobody* LOL

Re:I demand privacy but not in the private sector!

[Wazukkithemaster]

Actually i work as a computer repair guy at a small shop. Uhhh no... i dont go around installing Picasa on customer's computers. The reason for this is A) it seems, to me, to be a common courtesy their business is their business. and B) their is no clear law i am aware of and they haven't signed anything stating that their personal/private information is at risk. i mean... my boss had his CC# stored in firefox! yeesh! Dont need to be sued becuase they get embarassed. I'm not saying that what you do is wrong or that you are sick but your blanket statement of "Doesn't everyone?" is definitely false.

Re:I demand privacy but not in the private sector!

[sqlrob]

*Ding*. Give that man a Cigar. It means probable cause is not required.

Atwater v. Lago Vista.

Re:I demand privacy but not in the private sector!

[Anonymous Coward]

I am not against video cameras in a private space (i.e. dressing rooms of a store).
Seriously dude, we have all clicked through to you website- and lets be honest, you aren't qualifies to make the above statement, because no one would want to see your girlfriend in the dressing room. THose of us with good looking companions don't want other dudes checking them out....

Re:I demand privacy but not in the private sector!

[falconwolf]

Does this mean you should ban a PROVEN technology? I say no...You're welcome to not want the cameras, but the stats don't lie, they save lives and money.

Banning vehicles will also save lives.

Falcon

Re:I demand privacy but not in the private sector!

[Pxtl]

In that case, that's your cue to moon the mirror every time you go to a dressing room.

Re:I demand privacy but not in the private sector!

[Pxtl]

iirc, you've got chandler and joey backwards in that dialogue.

Re:I demand privacy but not in the private sector!

[idokus]

if it is private property you're on, then you can choose to be on it. (or you can choose to go else where.)

In the public space, well, you can choose to stay at home all day and eat ordered pizza every day, never set a foot out the door, but let's be realistic it would be devastating for your personal life.

public space is "owned" by us all, private property isn't. just a difference, but I think a significant one. (otherwise I can't follow the reasoning, I'd sure as hell would be uncomfortable knowing I'd be spied upon when in the dressing room)

Yes government is granted powers, but it isn't granted the abuse. A shopping store is granted the protection of it's property, but there are different ways of doing so. Having a "servent/counseler/dressing advisor" at the dressingroom is quite effective in combination with a limited amount of items in the dressingrooms. It should be a sign: person x went in with n items, came out with m items (m<n). This in combination with a camera at the entrance of the dressingrooms will do the proofing bit.

Re:I demand privacy but not in the private sector!

[batura]

If you don't like it, don't shop at the GAP, or, simply buy what you think is your size and try it on at home. You DON'T have to try on your clothes at the department store-- therein lies your freedom.

Re:I demand privacy but not in the private sector!

[Fulcrum of Evil]

As I recall, this result of this case was that building inspectors now need a warrant to come on your property. But Building inspectors are Public employees, it doesn't apply to private citizens.

I'm surprised. I'd have expected that they'd rule that the inspectors were acting as agents of the police and were, therefore, subject to the same constraints.

Re:I demand privacy but not in the private sector!

[StikyPad]

You obviously feel some affection for "Noni," (did you make that up yourself?), and I know people don't want to believe bad things about people they like. But it's perfectly reasonable that celebrities be held to the same standard of law as everyone else. Even if one believes that the DA had ulterior motives other than, say, just filing charges against a suspect, the DA didn't convict her -- the jury did. Shoplifting is such a minor charge that she should've just plea bargained in the first place, especially considering the DA never sought jail time.

It's possible that I'm just talking crazy, and there really was a huge consipracy within the justice system to frame a celebrity for something only slightly worse than a parking ticket. But all things being equal, I tend to think she was just using the trial for some free publicity, and to bolster her card carrying fan base. Looks like it worked.

Re:I demand privacy but not in the private sector!

[pixelpusher220]

nope...badly paraphrased but I got the parts correct ;-)

Re:I demand privacy but not in the private sector!

[falconwolf]

At least in NJ there's there are these legal phrases called "in plain sight" and "just cause" at least for police....

The repair tech didn't meet either of those

The repair tech wasn't a law enforcement officer either, at least the article didn't say he was or wasn't. But it reminds me the way this admin has tried to get people to report "suspicious activity" sounds to me like the Hitler Youth program where kids were encouraged to spy on people.

Falcon

Re:I demand privacy but not in the private sector!

[teslatug]

Yes that's true, but somewhere in between the mechanic having a look and the police having a look, there should be a warrant. Otherwise, how do you hold people accountable.

Re:I demand privacy but not in the private sector!

[magefile]

In addition to what everyone else has said, it's implied by the First Amendment - it's generally understood that free speech doesn't work if you are constantly being watched.

Re:I demand privacy but not in the private sector!

[vandon]

Sounds like:

Stan: C'mon, Pip! Say it! Say "Please hit me!"!
Pip: But, if I say that, you'll hit me!
Stan: No! I'm gonna hit you if you DON'T say it! If you say "Please hit me!", I won't hit you!
Pip: Please hit me!
Stan: Alright! (Hits Pip.)
Pip: OW!
Stan: Alright! Let's try this again.

Re:I demand privacy but not in the private sector!

[Platupous]

I also have the ability to view many peoples private files, but what I found out early on. . . is that you *really* dont want to know most peoples private information. Most of the time is is boring, and when it's interesting, you probably didn't want to know that little tidbit, as it may shock you.

In reality... Dosen't everyone feel dirty rifling through others private info? If you do not, then I think there is something wrong with your conscience.

Re:I demand privacy but not in the private sector!

[vandon]

BTW, if anybody has info on the specifics of the car-searching case(s) I've mentioned above, please share!

Jan 25 article allowing dogs to be the "probable cause"
Wouldn't this be almost the same as using an infrared camera to see through the walls of your home to see what you're doing?

Re:I demand privacy but not in the private sector!

[StikyPad]

Well put. I have the same view of RF scans in airports. They're even one step removed as you're not seeing skin through the visible spectrum; rather something akin to night vision. Bodies aren't particularly private just because we call them "private parts," and Puritanical moral standards shouldn't be confused with real privacy issues, i.e. political beliefs, what you read, what you purchase, what you say in the privacy of your home, where you go, etc. The shape of our physical shells is probably the least important part of what makes us human, but we tend to place the greatest emphasis on it in all aspects of society.

Re:I demand privacy but not in the private sector!

[Cerv]

You know what, America is crazy.

Re:I demand privacy but not in the private sector!

[oslawyer]

I absolutely agree that there should be a fundamental right to privacy, but there is no law to back up what you want. The Supreme Court's interpretation of the Constitution only supports a right to privacy in your own home (i.e., Lawerence v. Texas). If you want to extend privacy out to the public sector and to private property where the public is invited (such as a store), then you need to be lobbying Congress, as opposed to just proclaiming that this is the way the world should be.

Re:I demand privacy but not in the private sector!

[Thunderstruck]

IAAL, and the last time I looked it worked something like this:

1. A DUI checkpoint is allowed, you can systematically stop cars and make sure the driver is sober. This is because unsober drivers present a present threat to the safety of the road. The intrusion is therefore justifiable.

2. A drug checkpoint is not allowed. Merely having drugs in the vehicle does not create a present threat to the safety of the road, and the intrusion is not justifiable.

3. A fake drug checkpoint is allowed. You can put up signs that say "Drug Checkpoint Ahead" even when none exists, and then claim probable cause to check the cars that whip off the road, through the ditch, and burn rubber in the opposite direction.

Again, while IAAL, I am not your lawyer, and this is not a carefully researched opinion.

Re:I demand privacy but not in the private sector!

[dustmite]

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?

Worse, such pics would be leaking onto the Net all the time :/

Re:I demand privacy but not in the private sector!

[StikyPad]

That's why I encrypt personal files, and why password-based encryption of folders should be commonplace and a promoted feature of any modern OS. The same reason they make valet keys that don't open the trunk.. because sooner or later, most people will have to put their computer/car in someone else's hands.

Re:I demand privacy but not in the private sector!

[Anonymous Coward]

But it is always a surprise, a festival for the eyes, to see a lady that you know well, yet always see clothed, in the buff.

You've been snooping on your dad's computer again, haven't you?

Re:I demand privacy but not in the private sector!

[HansF]

I agree with parent.
In Belgium there's somebody watching the dressing rooms. When you enter you get a big plastic card with a number on it, the numer of items you take with you.
Upon leaving the area a staff member takes that card back and discretely checks the items you're holding.
Works like a charm.

Re:I demand privacy but not in the private sector!

[arminw]

.....And if it goes in for service, the drive is backed up to an external and erased first....

So the computer won't boot and you're going to back up the drive? Just take the drive out and replace it with another temporarily if the computer is dead. That and a re-install of the OS thereon may obviate a trip to the repair shop. A new cheap drive is likely less than the repair bill. Another solution is to routinely encrypt all the folders containing your deep dark secret files. On Macs, just turn on the "File Vault" option and all your data in your account is safely encrypted. You can make a special account that contains all your private data and another, normal non-encrpted account for the stuff you don't mind anyone looking at.

Re:I demand privacy but not in the private sector!

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you one of those "anti-garcia trolls" he's been complaining about? I certainly hope not, because garcia must be a pretty important person if he has his own legion of opposing trolls. We're gonna keep an eye on you, you garcia-making-fun-of-comment poster.

Re:I demand privacy but not in the private sector!

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

That's funny, whenever I come over to do some plumbing, I go through your drawers looking for nude pictures of your wife, too.

Re:I demand privacy but not in the private sector!

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Look out, though. The powers-that-be have been getting upset at the court's attempts to make them obey the law, and now seem to be thinking about castrating the judicial branch. See the recent "Justice Sunday" reporting.

I don't know what to think when a US Senator doesn't think that the Supreme Court should be able to throw out a law enacted by Congress simply because it is unconstitutional. Do these guys even understand the structure of the government they work in anymore?

For those who would defend the senator's views, Congress can still pass laws that are immune to the Supreme Court. They do so by amending the Constitution. Since the Constitution is the only thing that gives them the authority to make laws, any laws that don't fit within its boundaries are simply not allowed. Also note things like the 9th amendment, which says that just because the Constitution doesn't specifically say that a right is protected doesn't mean it isn't (For those who say that abortion isn't a right because it isn't mentioned in the Consitution) (Which is not to say that it is, just that it is up to interpretation by the Supreme Court, whose job it is to interpret the Constitution).

Re:I demand privacy but not in the private sector!

[Anonymous Coward]

Unfortunately there is only one s in asinine (I lost a game of ghost because of that).

Re:I demand privacy but not in the private sector!

[einhverfr]

Look out, though. The powers-that-be have been getting upset at the court's attempts to make them obey the law, and now seem to be thinking about castrating the judicial branch. See the recent "Justice Sunday" reporting.

Believe me, I am worried.

The problem is not unique to today. I tend to vote for more Democrates than Republicans, but I think that one of the most serious constitutional crises occurred when FDR expanded the Supreme Court in order to get them to go along with his policies. We are certainly in a similar period today, but right now, it is not quite to that level *yet.*

But you know it is interesting. These sort of problems have been going on for a while. For better or worse, the public has become more *aware* of them after 9/11 but this does not mean that they started in that period. The executive branch of our government has been thoroughly corrupt for some time regardless of political party. We now know, for example, that this policy of rendition of suspects to other countries for torture was started by the Clinton Administration.

Things are far worse than many people think. Presidential elections don't matter for those aspects of policy that matter most and these are not set by our elected representatives (Eisenhower spoke of a Military-Industrial Complex, but I think that today it is more Military and less Industrial).

The next few decades will be interesting to watch, I am sure.

Re:I demand privacy but not in the private sector!

[vsprintf]

It is deeply disturbing to me that people imagine that starting a business gives them arbitrary powers of surveillance and coercion in that sphere.

I'm sitting on the fence in this discussion, but you bring up an interesting point. Are they really doing anything new? In a fancy clothier's shop, an attendant will be near you while in the fitting room (even if not directly observing you) and know what garments you have. Shopkeepers have always observed shoppers otherwise.

I suppose if you don't approve of the cameras, you could always try on the clothes right next to the rack. As long as you don't take off your underwear, you shouldn't be violating any indecent exposure laws. What the heck - people try on shoes right in front of God and everybody, right? After a few of us boomers start undressing in the shopping area, the cameras should be removed from the fitting rooms in no time. Problem solved.

Re:I demand privacy but not in the private sector!

[Ironsides]

What about sexual orientation? What if the same-sex watchers are same-sex attracted? What about bisexuals, are they not allowed to work as security camera monitors at all?

That's it, we will just have to bring back eunuchs.

What's to prevent some low paid worker from making videos of what is on the CC cameras in the changing rooms and posting/selling them on the internet? I would not be surprised to find some straight women who would have no qualms posting videos of other women chaning clothes on the internet for profit. Hmmm.... looks like we have a new way here:

1) Get job watching CC cameras in dressing rooms
2) Record women changing clothes
3) Sell videos of the good looking ones online
4) PROFIT!!!

Re:I demand privacy but not in the private sector!

[jp10558]

Have you tried ordering via the internet from some foreign country?

Re:I demand privacy but not in the private sector!

[mrchaotica]

(Sigh) This is why some of the founding fathers didn't want the Bill of Rights -- because morons like those that ruled in Lawrence v. Texas would assume that the enumerated rights are the only ones we have. On the contrary, the reality is that we have every right not expressly prohibited, and the Bill of Rights only exists to reiterate a few particularly important ones.

Show me a law (statute, not case law) that explicitly states that we have no expectation of privacy in public restrooms and dressing rooms, and (getting back on-topic) also that service technicians can legally search our computers (which I would interpret as tresspass). Until then, the Supreme Court can go fuck themselves.

Re:I demand privacy but not in the private sector!

[thesnarky1]

Privacy does *not* extend to whereever you want it. On your property, sure, you have the right to privacy. But when you enter someone else's property, their rules go. Every store that uses cameras has a sign somewhere or other that states they have them in use. If you don't like it, you don't go to the store. As for the murder, and sweat shops, we have laws against those. As for holding others against their will, well, kidnapping anyone? Now, as for putting up cameras to protect your property (and yes, until you buy 'em the clothes are their property) that's completely legal. Look at every celebrity in the world, government installations, private businesses. If they can afford it, they have closed circut cameras to watch their property. This is completely in their right, as you are on their property.

Re:I demand privacy but not in the private sector!

[CommiePuddin]

The 4 way red is an interesting idea...though around here you'd have increasing hospital bills as blood pressures boil over waiting for *nobody* LOL

The 4-way red isn't something that lasts a significantly irritating amount of time. Typically 1-5 seconds.

There again, someone mentioned a city that has 4-way reds that allow pedestrians to cross an intersection diagonally. Not sure if it was here or someone else.

Re:I demand privacy but not in the private sector!

[oslawyer]

The Constitution and the original Bill of Rights enumerated what rights the states had. Anything not enumermated in the Constitution was supposed to go back to the states, not to the individual. That's why states could still outlaw abortion before the SC found a right to privacy in the Constitution. So it's up to your state one way or the other to decide whether to give a right to privacy. I don't think it should be that way, I think many of the founders believed in a right to be left alone. But legal history is built on this. The reason I think Congress could act if they chose to with regard to stores is because you can regulate just about anything under the Commerce Clause. But I'd be happy with state privacy laws.

Re:I demand privacy but not in the private sector!

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree, You might as well leave ID, Credit Cards,etc when you leave the PC. Made need to get some beer while the rootkit is installing.

While the practice is unethical, No one has signed anything in most cases.

However, I believe that at the point the tech called police. The police should have got a warrant. They need to keep it all legal.

by the way wifey has a website, already... :)

Re:I demand privacy but not in the private sector!

[Moofie]

Thanks for asking.

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated"

That'd be Number 4.

Re:I demand privacy but not in the private sector!

[smannell]

LEOs? Low Earth Orbit. I agree, the aliens shouldn't be looking at my stuff without a warrant.

Re:I demand privacy but not in the private sector!

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not as much fun as you'd think. Do know what the hotties-to-fatties ratio is like? Not pretty.

Re:I demand privacy but not in the private sector!

[gstovall]

She has purchased fabric from the UK (we live in the US), but has not tried ordering the other supplies internationally. Do you have a vendor you'd recommend?

Re:I demand privacy but not in the private sector!

[jp10558]

Sorry, no. I was being somewhat flippant - ie, if the manufacturers can screw you by making the clothes in China, maybe you can get back at them by buying from a chinese wholesaler or something.

Re:I demand privacy but not in the private sector!

['nother poster]

Oops. Sorry. My bad. I really should spell check.

Re:I demand privacy but not in the private sector!

[ImaLamer]

well, both are required on cars made after a certain date...

I'd report the bastards for throwing emmissions into the 'commons'

Re:I demand privacy but not in the private sector!

[It doesn't come easy]

You need to take a class in logic. Probable cause is required. What I said was that refusal to agree to a search is not equivalent to probable cause. Please follow closely:
IF refusal was the same as probable cause THEN the cops would never need to ask BECAUSE the result would be the same. The cops DO ask and unless they are just giggling about the silliness of the question, the FACT that they ask MEANS your answer affects their actions, THEREFORE refusal IS NOT the same as probable cause.

You need to learn to stand up for your rights. Read this for some insight.

Some choice quotes:

Ordinarily, police must have a good reason to invade your privacy. If an officer wants to search your home, the Fourth Amendment requires that she first obtain a warrant -- after demonstrating to a neutral magistrate that she has probable cause to believe she will find evidence of crime there.

In the absence of a warrant, or an emergency explaining the failure to obtain a warrant, the police officer violates your constitutional right against unreasonable searches and seizures when she crosses the threshold of your home.

and...

As rare as it is for people to exercise their right to privacy in the face of police "requests" for forfeiture, those assertions -- when they do occur -- deserve respect. If the Court holds otherwise, it will further whittle away the right against unreasonable searches and seizures -- the right to make police accumulate probable cause and seek a warrant from a neutral magistrate before showing up at your doorstep or your car window, hoping to look around.

As a citizen of the US, I have the option to consent or not. If I do not consent then the police MUST be able to show probable cause or the search is illegal without a warrant. Otherwise, the 4th amendment means nothing.

Re:I demand privacy but not in the private sector!

[Master of Transhuman]

I disagree with the notion that free speech rights apply on private property. I think you can order anyone to leave your property for any reason, including speech you disagree with. You can't stop him from talking, but you can order him to leave.

I'm also inclined not to agree that someone whose toilet habits are broadcast has any particular case to bring to suit. There may certainly be laws that allow that, but I'm not sure any significant damage has been done to the individual other than embarassment which justifies such a law. In any event, a civil suit is different than a criminal investigation, so this gets a bit far afield from the issue in the original article.

As libertarians have argued strongly, property rights ARE personal rights and should have equal strength, because if you don't control your property, someone else does and that means your personal freedom and rights are limited. The only right libertarians recognize as stronger than property rights is the right to be free of coercion - meaning you can't use property rights to justify beating someone in your home unless you are exercising the right of self-defense. Privacy is a much less significant right than non-coercion in my view. It's more a cultural issue than a "right."

Again, as far as 7-11 goes, it may be privately held, but it's not AFAIK PERSONALLY held. I think that is a significant difference. A corporation should not have property or personal rights the same as a person and thus should be required to respect privacy rights more than an individual home or business owner needs to.

Re:I demand privacy but not in the private sector!

[Master of Transhuman]

Well, the plain view clause is fairly obvious, since by definition it means a crime is being committed in "plain view" of the police - not the smartest thing someone can do, and obviously search and seizure should not be an issue there. You wouldn't require a warrant if you shoot someone in front of a cop, either. The point of search and seizure is to prevent searches when there is no "probable cause" to believe a crime is IN FACT being committed.

I agree that the main issue in the case is lack of a warrant - the privacy issue is a side issue.

One related problem recently is that part of the Patriot Act which requires financial institutions to assign a "Money Laundering Officer" to examine all transactions and report anything that looks suspicious - to him. This makes every J Random Asshole in a bank or a brokerage an informer by definition.

And given the number of transactions, the only way any institution can handle this is either err on the side of over-reporting or err on the side of under-reporting. Which means that too many false positives will be made or too few proper identifications will be made.

Both of which defeat the purpose of the legislation - assuming the purpose was legit in the first place and not just another effort to collect privacy-violating information on the citizenry in the first place.

Re:I demand privacy but not in the private sector!

[Master of Transhuman]

You missed some of the details of the case.

Shoplifting in the vast majority of cases is considered a misdemeanor and is so prosecuted in LA. Only if a very large dollar value is involved is the case prosecuted as a felony. There were NO cases larger than hers so prosecuted over the previous several years. Her case was immediately prosecuted as a felony.

Secondly, the DA reassigned lawyers in the office from a MURDER case to this lame shoplifting case. Reports were that a number of the DA's office lawyers were highly irritated by this.

Third, the case was tried by the police department and the DA in the press with statements made about video evidence and the like which proved non-existent when the case came to trial. The only significant evidence they had was the security guard testimony. It was a case of "he said, she said" - or more precisely, "they said, she said" - but her idiot lawyer did not let her testify.

Fourth, she got no free publicity that worked to her advantage. Her movie career was set back by a couple years at least, and she's only now getting some more serious offers. Conviction of a crime can raise the cost of insurance for a motion picture production - production companies need indemnification in case an actor fails to complete a role. This was Bob Downey's problem after his drug convictions.

Joel Mowbray at the National Review made a number of critical comments of this case at the time, so this isn't only my opinion.

As far as the jury goes, as I said, the testimony was obviously perjured and the defense was poorly conducted by that idiot Garregos. The jury chose to believe the security guards which is certainly their right, but I think a little celebrity envy went along with that.

Finally, "Noni" is her long-time known nickname.

My interest in her comes from her being the god-daughter of Dr. Timothy Leary - she was one of the last people to take care of him when he was dying, and her and her family (well-known Bay Area hippies from the Sixties - her father runs an alternative bookstore and her mother was one of the founders of the Free Clinic here) were close to Dr. Tim for years.

She's also known here for being part of the Polly Klass murder case - she went on public TV and urged people to help search for Polly. Klass's father attended Ryder's trial and spoke out on her behalf. By all accounts she's quite a responsible person, at least compared to many celebrities.

My only complaint about her is she smokes...:-) And she dates rock stars instead of me...:-)

Re:I demand privacy but not in the private sector!

[Anonymous Coward]

these legal phrases called "in plain sight"

COps have been known to hire helicopters and use binoculars to look thru a roof vent to see the pot that was "in plain sight".

Re:I demand privacy but not in the private sector!

[NormalVisual]

9th Amendment: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Just because it's not explicitly spelled out in the Constitution doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Re:I demand privacy but not in the private sector!

[Anonymous Coward]

What if every store does that?

1. open your own store that doesn't
2. advertise the fact that you don't spy on your customers intimacy
3. sell more then any other store
4. (obligatory) ????
5. profit !!!!

Re:I demand privacy but not in the private sector!

[Farmer Tim]

...he can't murder every third customer...

So I shouldn't consider a career in retail, then? ... and he can't lock everyone in at closing time and use them for slave labor.

No, only Electronic Arts is allowed to do that.

Re:I demand privacy but not in the private sector!

[ArtStone]

>>The right to privacy is not forbidden and is alluded to in the 4th and 9th amendments. Ergo, you have that right. QED

By that logic, I claim I have right to free chocolate ice cream.

Re:I demand privacy but not in the private sector!

[Kevin DeGraaf]

Uhm, no, I didn't realize that there was a super-important user named "garcia" and that he (she?) had a troll following.

I just saw a comment and replied with a funny thought that happened to cross my mind.

Re:I demand privacy but not in the private sector!

[Jim_Maryland]

2. A drug checkpoint is not allowed. Merely having drugs in the vehicle does not create a present threat to the safety of the road, and the intrusion is not justifiable.

I agree that merely having drugs in the car would not pose a driving danger, but operating the vehicle under the influence of drugs would be. Wouldn't one of the signs of the influence of drugs be having drugs on hand? One of my friends found drugs (marajuna in this case) in their son's car recently so likely he either used them while driving or shortly before driving. Either case, he would driving under the influence and if stopped at a checkpoint, I think he would have warranted a search from some initial assessment. Even taking the actions you mentioned (cars the whip off the road, through the ditch, and burn rubber) don't necessarily indicate posession. The driver may have just remembered leaving his wallet at home or something like that.

Re:I demand privacy but not in the private sector!

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, they can deny anyone they wish service.
"I'm sorry, we're closing"
"Excuse me, but that item is being held for another customer"

Just because "Management reserves the right to refuse service" signs are no longer posted, does not mean that they have given up the right. They just can't make it obvious as to WHY one is being denied service.

Ever been followed around a store by the rent a cops? You have been spied on. See the cameras all around? You're been watched in that Duane Read. Sorry, but they can watch you. and if they follow Wal-Mart's example, they can kill you too.

Re:I demand privacy but not in the private sector!

[IchBinEinPenguin]

I am not against video cameras in a private space

Do you rent?
Would you object to your landlord putting cameras in your/his home?

Re:I demand privacy but not in the private sector!

[Anonymous Coward]

I claim I have right to free chocolate ice cream.

There are chocolate ice cream slaves?

Newsflash : EFF pro-privacy!

[Anonymous Coward]

This is news?

How about encrypting your important files...

[joelparker]

...before you hand over your computer and login to a complete stranger?

Re:How about encrypting your important files...

[utopianfiat]

I'm wondering if this isn't better linked to 4chan, where people should actually be WORRIED about being caught with child porn.

Re:How about encrypting your important files...

[thegamerformelyknown]

The problem with this is some times your computer crashes or something and you cannot get to the actual files to encrypt them.

Or you forget.

Or you are an average Joe Blow who doesn't know how to ecrypt his files.

Re:How about encrypting your important files...

[ornil]

Let us suppose you are savy enough to know about encryption and to find the right software. Suppose your computer breaks (e.g. won't boot up). How are you planning to encrypt the files now? (You are not paranoid enough to encrypt the files during normal use, nor do you want to open up the box - you aren't a PC hardware guy).

Re:How about encrypting your important files...

[christrs]

How about simply pulling the hard drives out of the machine!? As long as it is not a software/virus problem you are trying to fix; the techie can place his own hard drive in the box with all the tools he needs.

I did this the last time I had to have my system worked on and there was no problems. I told the tech that federal law required me to keep the data on the drives private (which was true - HIPPA).

Re:How about encrypting your important files...

[Anonymous Coward]

In that case, you're screwed. (I'll give you the benefit of assuming that there's no way to repair the computer without outside assistance). But if the you have committed a computer crime, it behooves you to destroy the computer. Or at least the hard drive. You can always buy a new computer, but you can't get your 5 to 10 back.

Re:How about encrypting your important files...

[varmittang]

Um, how bout just taking out the hard drive before sending it back. That is what I did with the company computers that get sent in for servicing.

Re:How about encrypting your important files...

[Kevin DeGraaf]

How about encrypting your important files... before you hand over your computer and login to a complete stranger?

How many people competent enough to use encryption actually take their computers somewhere for service as opposed to just fixing the problem themselves?

Re:How about encrypting your important files...

[foolish_to_be_here]

Gee wiz fella. I've yet to have a customer capable of encrypting files after their mother board failed. (Why is this guy's post a mod 4 insightful?)

Re:How about encrypting your important files...

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly, and you should keep anything personal in your apartment in a locked safe. That way, you won't mind when your landlord comes in and rummages through your stuff.

Re:How about encrypting your important files...

[arbitraryaardvark]

If you are competant at encryption, you probably aren't using gateway's service department.

Anybody got those "gateway drug" pics?

Took me awhile to catch it, but EFF is right (as usual) - the cops failed to obtain a warrant, even if they had probable cause, so the search is presumptively unlawful (probably under the Washington constitution.)

A trickier question is what was the role of the store? If company policy is, search every box and always call the cops if soemthing iffy is spotted,
they risk being in the class of informants whose activities constitute state action.

If company policy is, never search without a warrant, then they've created a reasonable expectation of privacy* which was breached here.

If, however, they have no policy, they can probably get away with being random as here.

* my use of the term "reasonable expectation of privacy" is based on federal caselaw, Katz. The Washington state cases may use some other standard entirely. If I had one beef with EFF, a wonderful organization, it's that they sometimes neglect rights under state law.

The main reason I'm posting today is to mention another EFF case.
http://ballots.blogspot.com/2005/08/case-in-smyrna -delaware-raises-issues.html
  The EFF has filed an amicus breif in a case before the Delaware Supreme Court about the standard to be used before an anonymous message board poster can be identified by their service provider. It's a libel case where some nasty things were said about a city councilperson, who sued. The nasty things may have been said by the mayor, so it's kind of an open secret, but the legal standard is important and I applaud the good work EFF does in this area.

What's the old saying?

[saskboy]

"This ruling could threaten to 'turn your friendly neighborhood computer repair technician into a government informer' "

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.

Re:What's the old saying?

[AndersOSU]

I'm noticing that everyone is making the assumption that it's child porn, whereas TFA only says "a technician saw private files on the computer that he thought might be illegal."

I'm wondering how the slashdot clime would change if it was the Lord of the Rings Trilogy the tech suspected of being illegal.

Re:What's the old saying?

[E8086]

"everyone is making the assumption that it's child porn"

it is kiddy porn, it's in the "friend-of-the-court brief" pdf linked to in the article

"I'm wondering how the slashdot clime would change if it was the Lord of the Rings Trilogy the tech suspected of being illegal."

good point, replace JPEG of kiddy porn with MP3 or AVI/MPEG. In this case it's THAT the tech was going through the files, not WHAT was in the files. If the tech found music or movies, both could be illegal, but they could also be legal, MP3s could be CD rips for use with his MP3 player and DVD rips for taking on the road with his laptop, that's what I do. It seems the point here is child porn is universally illegal in the US by federal law(I think) while other file types can be legal or illegal to have, on a case by case basis. The technician is still wrong for going through "private files".

What would the EFF want the technician to do?

[KLFrosty]

Shut off the computer, and pretend he never saw the child pornography? He wasn't reading the defendant's diary looking for thought-crimes, folks.

Re:What would the EFF want the technician to do?

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree I seen kiddie porn in the process of trouble shooting a pc once few years ago as a tech I was disgusted. I mean If you that worried. Don't break laws. BTW Acidental Kiddie porn is almost inpossible. It takes work to find it and to dl it. This was in a folder in mydocs The reason i had to look there was there was a jpeg virus. I was not snooping i was doing my job...

Call me hipcrit i mean warez i leave that alone but kiddie porn i would prefer to beat the customer

Re:What would the EFF want the technician to do?

[BannedfrompostingAC]

It's not what the technician should have done, but what the police should have done. They should have obtained a warrant to continue searching the computer. This is simply a matter of incorrect police procedures. Somebody guilty of a crime can walk away free from court on these sorts of technicalities.

Re:What would the EFF want the technician to do?

[MinotaurUK]

Shut off the computer, and pretend he never saw the child pornography?

Actually, that's exactly what I'd do if I was servicing a client's machine and was confronted with the situation. I'd return it to them having done nothing with it and politely inform them that by doing any work on it I would be putting myself in an unpleasant position.

Re:What would the EFF want the technician to do?

[Holi]

I on the other hand, if I came across one of the files, would probably contact the police. Now I may have had no right to be snooping around but since I had seen it I could not turn my back. The police should then take my report and, if they thought it had merit, gotten a warrent to search the computer. Now I may have to suffer some repercussions, not sure what they would be. But the police would not be in the wrong, nor do I think I could be convicted of any crime.

Re:What would the EFF want the technician to do?

[Anonymous Coward]

Shut off the computer, and pretend he never saw the child pornography? He wasn't reading the defendant's diary looking for thought-crimes, folks.

Isn't viewing child porn, however wrong, a thought crime?

Re:What would the EFF want the technician to do?

[Ian Wolf]

Aren't you already in an unpleasant position? You would have already seen the images. Suppose the local news ran a report on a girl who went missing recently being found dead and that you recognized her from that person's computer? What then? Do you sleep well knowing that you did the "ethical" thing from a business standpoint? Would you try to convince yourself that she was probably already dead when you saw that picture?

I'm not arguing that repair techs should go searching for stuff, but if you came across it there is only one "ethical" thing to do.

As a matter of procedure though, the police should have obtained a warrant. There was no real good reason why they couldn't have called a judge explained the situation and not received one. There was no time-sensitive element in this case they simply got lazy/careless and didn't bother.

Re:What would the EFF want the technician to do?

[geekee]

"It's not what the technician should have done, but what the police should have done. They should have obtained a warrant to continue searching the computer. This is simply a matter of incorrect police procedures. Somebody guilty of a crime can walk away free from court on these sorts of technicalities."

I believe the EFF does not even want the technician to have the ability to tell the police what he saw.

Re:What would the EFF want the technician to do?

[servognome]

Actually, that's exactly what I'd do if I was servicing a client's machine and was confronted with the situation. I'd return it to them having done nothing with it and politely inform them that by doing any work on it I would be putting myself in an unpleasant position.

It's too late though. Once you've seen something you're a witness to a crime.
Morally I don't think the relationship between a person and their neighborhood computer technician merits the same level of "trust" and protection as a person with their spouse, religious advisor, doctor, or lawyer.

Re:What would the EFF want the technician to do?

[BaronVonServers]

Yes, viewing is only a thought crime, but its not a pure thought crime (much like the 'hate crimes' it takes the thought AND some action to get you in trouble). Owning this type of material is not just a thought, and some child was certainly harmed in its production. Leaving KP where anyone can find it is, well, criminally stupid.

Re:What would the EFF want the technician to do?

[poopdeville]

You'd already be in an uncomfortable position. You're technically legally obligated to report the crime, or you'd be considered an accessory. It usually doesn't work that way -- no one's going to arrest you for smelling marijuana and not calling the cops, for instance -- but it could. You're opening yourself up to a huge legal liability, specifically because of the severity of the crime.

Re:What would the EFF want the technician to do?

[Scroatzilla]

Your point is well taken. There are two sides to this.

1. Where was the technician looking that he found these files? It seems to me that unless the computer owner's desktop wallpaper were kiddie porn, there is really no good way for the technician to have stumbled across the pictures. So, the technician was up to something sleazy. How do we even know that the technician didn't print out the pics and jerk off to them before reporting it to the police?

2. Once the photos were discovered, the truth was out there on the table. So yes, the computer owner deserves what he gets. I would temper this attitude by pointing out that there probably aren't many adults without some kind of skeletons in their closets. So we should absolutely be vigilant about guarding against these types of attacks on our privacy so that we* don't end up down the slippery slope of self-righteously assassinating each other's characters.

* "We" of course meaning "commoners"; politicians do it for a living and make out quite well.

Re:What would the EFF want the technician to do?

[Ixitar]

The guy's lawyer would probably sue the company you work for and you for breach of contract. It probably would not stick, but I would think that the lawyer would try it anyway.

Re:What would the EFF want the technician to do?

[Holi]

Oh I agree, but do you think the guy's conviction would stick?

Re:What would the EFF want the technician to do?

[Ixitar]

IANAL:

The conviction of the person with the child pornography would probably stick as long as the proper procedures are followed by law enforcement.

If the technician has in the past or is consulting for the police, then a good lawyer could argue that it was a warrantless search by the technician.

Re:What would the EFF want the technician to do?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think that the police could have easily gotten a warrant based on probable cause. It's not so much that the tech found kiddie port and reported it. It's that the police didn't bother to get a warrant. The guy might not go to jail on a technicality. That's just stupid.

Re:What would the EFF want the technician to do?

[Anonymous Coward]

Criminal trespass.

Be smart

[Pig Hogger]

Use at least TWO disk drives on your systems, one for data, the other for the system and software.

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.

Re:Be smart

[Anonymous Coward]

Er.

If a user is doing all that, then it's reasonably likely that the user could fix his own computer.

Re:Be smart

[DarkDigger]

If the guy was capable of all that you just mentioned, he wouldn't have to take his computer to Gateway for repairs, now would he?

Re:Be smart

[Anonymous Coward]

Right, because after you rm -rf a file, the data is never, ever retrievable under any possible circumstance, even with dedicated equipment or something like the Coroner's Toolkit.
[/sarcastic]

Re:Be smart

[DongleFondle]

"Hmmmm, this could be something to do: kitbashing a boot Linux distribution that would ferret-out all cache and temporary directories and nuke them."

Jesus Christ. What the hell are you talking about? I consider myself resonably well versed in computers and technology. Often times I am that friendly neighborhood technician that consumers bring their consumer pc's into to be fixed. We're talking about mom and pop here. You must really just love to hear yourself wax pseudo-intellectually about technology, huh?

Re:Be smart

[Master of Transhuman]

Yeah, but your average Geek Squad moron isn't going to be using Coroner's Toolkit or the Auditor live CD while fixing your computer - unless Best Buy is REALLY a front for the CIA.

The advice is sound. Never send your data disk out to a repair shop. If the data disk dies, better have a backup - and then melt the broken one with a blowtorch. Run file shredders on any file on the system disk that is the least bit suspicious to some paranoid moron working at Best Buy.

Best general advice: trust no one - especially your fellow monkey at Best Buy.

Re:Be smart

[caffeineHacker]

and then melt the broken one with a blowtorch.

Someone's got something good on his computer.

Anywho, I personally have a small partition with cryptOS that I have also encrypted the sensitive data with pgp. It requires a 25 character password and a USB token to get into. The swap and free space is scheduled in cron to be wiped every night 35 times with BCWipe. But maybe I'm slightly paranoid.

Analogy

[ChadAmberg]

OK, read the story again, only replace "computer" with "car" and "possibly illegal files" with "body in the trunk".

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?

Re:Analogy

[Tackhead]

> OK, read the story again, only replace "computer" with "car" and "possibly illegal files" with "body in the trunk".
>
> 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 get some weird stares when I get the hard drive back.

This isn't a case of "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear". This is a case of a someone being "too dumb to fear, too dumb to bother hiding", and the gene pool is improved by it.

Re:Analogy

[OhHellWithIt]

That's pretty much what I did, except I substituted a bag of weed under the driver's seat for the body in the trunk. If I'm stupid enough to take my car in for service without ensuring I removed the evidence from crimes committed, and another citizen happens to see it & call the cops, I deserve to be thrown in jail.

This is not to say I think the gov't has any right to engage contractors to go around looking into my car (computer) to see if there's anything illegal there.

I'll give the EFF half a loaf for this one, but they're half out to lunch on the other half.

Re:Analogy

[Anonymous Coward]

Not all that great of analogy. Unless the person who dropped off the computer had a folder on the desktop entitled "1lleg4l f1l4s h3r3" Then perhaps it would work. A better analogy would be replacing computer with car, and "possibly illegal files" with "a bag of white powder inside a purse which you left in the car" Now it becomes much different. Did the mechanic have a right to see what was in the purse in the car? I'd say no, even though it was illegal. So unless coming across these files was required to fix the computer he shouldn't be snooping around.

Re:Analogy

[mrchaotica]

A better question would be if the mechanic doesn't see blood dripping out from under the car, would he be allowed to open the trunk?

Re:Analogy

[Anakron]

Get a grip, people!
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

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

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.

Re:Analogy

[Holi]

Whether or not he is allowed, the 4th Amendment does not apply. He is a private citizen, not an enforcement agent. He opened the trunk of the car he is working on, it doesn't amtter if he had a reason to or not, until it get's to the police no search and seizure restrictions apply. All he is doing is reporting a crime.

Let's try this example, I am robbing a store, I have broken in and am hunting for the valuables. I hear a noise and go to investigate and proceed to witness a murder. If I tell the police about it can't they proceed to investigate it.

Re:Analogy

[pknoll]

Sure he would, but they' should still need a search warrant to open the trunk.

I'm not so sure. If the police see blood dripping, they can probably investigate under probable cause. In fact, I'm pretty certain they can, and would.

The question here though is whether the suspiciously named files = dripping blood. What if there was no visible blood on that car?

Once reported, though, I would bet you'll find the police were operating under probable cause. They'd had a report. If someone in your house is screaming, the cops don't need a warrant to enter.

Re:Analogy

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Once reported, though, I would bet you'll find the police were operating under probable cause.

That remains to be seen. You see, they did not seize the computer and copy the files reported to them as evidence. (We don't know if the Gateway employee looked at files and reported them, or just filenames.) What they did was search through all the files on the computer looking for other evidence.

Basically if someone calls the police and says they saw a kiddie porn picture in your desk in your office, do the police then have the right to go through all your file cabinets in your home without obtaining a warrant? I think the 4th amendment clearly implies that they do not have that right without a warrant. Case law also supports this view. If you don't grant permission they must wait for a warrant from the courts (although they can remain to make sure you do not destroy any evidence).

Ignoring the constitution and looking at this from a completely fresh perspective, what is the harm in the police having to acquire a warrant to search your personal files? What benefit does society gain by the police not having to get a warrant, state their reasons, inform you, and state what they are looking for before looking through your files? How does that benefit weigh in against the danger of the police looking through your private files, without a warrant, and the danger to free speech, freedom from religious persecution, freedom from political persecution, and all the other hazards to your freedom that come along with unregulated fishing expeditions into any and all citizens personal files?

Re:Analogy

[KillShill]

i would ask you if could join you for your freshly killed lamb/beef dinner.

yeah, it's what's for dinner.

Re:Analogy

[Nuttles1]

Dude, don't even use 'weed' in analogies. Then programmers might figure out like I did that you code much more effectively while stoned. Let them first figure out that beer has a direct correlation to the quality of code. Forget caffiene, that is for script kiddies!

Re:Analogy

[Anonymous Coward]

You should have to pay extra for needed cleaning.

Re:Analogy

[nzkbuk]

In both cases you point out the police have to get a warrent to search.
The issue here is one of an illegal search. The law enforcement obtained the evidance without a warrent.

Re:Analogy

[Anonymous Coward]

Then I'll probably remember to say "sir."

Re:Analogy

[Macdude]

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.

The mechanic has been given control of the car for the period of time it is in the shop, the cops can't open the trunk (without a warrant or probable cause) but they can ask the mechanic to do it for them.

In this case the technician was given control of the computer and found potentially illegal images on it and called the cops. He showed the images to the cops, they now have probable cause of the commission of a crime and therefore the right to gather evidence.

Question of Honor?

[Transcendor]

I know honor is a bit a wrong argument to use when it comes to wars concerning the relation between personal rights and public interests.
But - I repair a lot of computers in my spare time (as well as at school - I need to them to work) and I have always handled the data of my "clients" as sensitive as possible. I wouldn't even throw away a failing hard drive without destroying as much data as possible and then gathering repair/tinker parts from the drive, destroying all data on the disc's surface using a strong electromagnet.
So if a service wasn't trustworthy, it might as well give up, since well-informed costumers tend to be VERY picky about that topic. A law, forcing technicians to inform executive institutions when they find "suspicious" content on the drive, would make many people stop using repair services.
That would lead to higher sales of computer manufactures (as well as to the bankrupt of a industry of small enterprises). Is this a law that was pushed by some PC-Lobby?
--- be critical. Just don't bite the bait. get bitten

Re:I've said it before...

[agent dero]

In Soviet Russia....you would be correct.

Innocent until proven guilty still applies in this country? Whatever happened to always presuming a man's innocence?

The last thing I want...

[Karma_fucker_sucker]

is some tech seeing pictures of my baby daughter in the bathtub and then calling the cops because of my "kiddie porn." Then having to spend the thousands of $$$ on an attourney to get myself out of custody and to prove my innocence. Because when it comes to: terrorism, drugs, taxes, and kiddie porn, you are guilty until proven innocent, maybe not legally, but that's how the system works around these crimes.

Re:The last thing I want...

[Nasarius]

Because when it comes to: terrorism, drugs, taxes, and kiddie porn, you are guilty until proven innocent, maybe not legally, but that's how the system works around these crimes.

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.

get 2 harddrives

[Anonymous Coward]

a small one for windows/linux and applications
a big one with your files

don't bring the big HD to the repairman

I disagree with this

[pHatidic]

Obviously the police should need a warrant in order to search information on your computer. However, I don't think there needs to be any laws preventing computer technicians from informing the government of illegal files. How is this any different from any person reporting anything else they see to the government? Only have your computer fixed by a company with a legally binding privacy policy or else encrypt your files, I really don't see what the big deal is.

Re:I disagree with this

[brunes69]

How is this any different from any person reporting anything else they see to the government?

It is no different, and is thus illegal.

If you invite a plumber into your house to fix a pipe, and during the process he snoops through your kitchen drawers and discovers a bloody knife, that evidence is not admissible in court. This is what protection against "unreasonable search and seizure" means.

There is no logical reason a computer technician should be snooping around in your data files for any reason, as they have no bearing on the operation of the machine. It would be the same if you brought your car in for an oil change and they started snooping through the trunk. It is totally uncalled for.

Re:I disagree with this

[Holi]

Wrong, the search and seizure restrictions don't apply to the plumber. You can get all pissed off at the man for snooping but if he finds a bloody knife and reports it to the police, that may be grounds to get a warrent to search house, depends on the judge.

Re:I disagree with this

[Enigma_Man]

What if he opens up the cabinet under the sink, and the bloody knife is right there? Or what about if you had a mechanic working on your car, and he discovered a few bags of crack under the hood? What then? What if it's someplace obvious?

-Jesse

Re:I disagree with this

[Anonymous Coward]

I posted above about my looking over each customers hard drive thoroughly for data when I repair them. I do this FOR the customer, not to get my kicks off their private stuff.

Your plumber analogy is faulty. Instead of a plumber, you need to lay out the following scenario: the customer is wealthy and pays a moving company to come over and pack up all their belongings and move them. This guy finds a bloody knife in the kitchen drawer. That is analagous.

We all expect some degree of privacy, however, if you don't expect the mover to call the cops about the knife or me to call the cops about your kiddie porn collection, then you are nuts. You shouldn't take your car for an oil change with a dead body in the trunk. Funny that you noted that finding this body would be bullshit snooping by the Viscosity Technician...I don't know where you take your car for an oil change, but the gentlemen that change my oil always check all of my exterior and interior lamps, including the trunk light. They also check the pressure in the spare tire. Hardly snooping. If I was hauling dead bodies in my trunk, it would probably, I am just guessing here, be prudent to change my own oil or take the vehicle to the local organized crime repair shop.

Someone else said something about a privacy contract. Heh heh. No contract may legally subvert the law. Like it or not, every citizen has the duty to report illegal activity...it IS the law. A contract does not circumvent this. In the end, however, it does no one any good to report a guy for having a picture of his 2 year old running naked in the back yard (I have some photos of myself doing this many years ago.) It does no one any good for the Viscosity Technician to report the single roach he found lying on the floorboard (though he sure may tell your Dad.) It is a matter of scale. Like it or not, the finder has to judge this. There is a balancing act to be played out. I jaywalk...it is illegal. I do it in front of a police station just about every day. My personal belief is that crossing in the middle of the block is much safer than crossing at the corner. Around here, the dipstick turning the corner is always blind to the pedestrian in the crosswalk. You would be a prude to report me for this. If the cops didn't laugh at you when you reported it, they would probably be reamed at a council meeting for pissing with this instead of stopping the meth makers.

On the other hand, if you tell a husband about his wife's adult porn collection, you deserve the lawsuit that you will probably lose.

Re:I disagree with this

[brunes69]

Emphasis on the "get a warrant". Without that warrant, it is not admissable. And because the plumber idd not have one, the original search is inadmissable.

Anyways, by the time the guys got back with the warrant, you'd have long since disposed of the evidence.

EFF defends right to keep child porn private

[waynegoode]

The article left out a very important fact. From the brief:

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

[utopianfiat]

Where did he find the child pornography? In a spam email sent to the defendant that was sitting in his trashcan? In his temporary files directory? In his kazaa shared folder which he doesn't even know he has because his 17-year-old son is a porno addict? In his pictures directory containing pictures of his daughter in the bathtub?
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:EFF defends right to keep child porn private

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, consider this scenario: A plumber goes to someones house to repair their kitchen sink while the owner is away, and happens to find some child pornography in the owners bedroom. Does that mean we should let plumbers search the house of everyone who has a leaky sink from now on? If you don't defend someones right to privacy, even if you find something sometimes, you might as well give up on defending it at all. The fact that this technician found something illegal is irrelevant, the point is that this implies he was probably searching through the images, and who knows what else, on all the computers he serviced.

Re:EFF defends right to keep child porn private

[Cerv]

It doesn't matter whether they were child porn, beastiality porn or plans to bomb the Whitehouse. The EFF article states that the techie believe that the files may have been illegal and that's what matters.
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:EFF defends right to keep child porn private

[finkployd]

So I'm confused about your position. There is no way to know if child porn is present unless they poke around where they shouldn't (ie. searching). So you are for warrantless searching on the off chance child porn is present? Does this extend to the home as well or just computers?

Finkployd

Re:EFF defends right to keep child porn private

[suprcvic]

I believe that in most districts it is a crime merely to possess child pornography so, while I see where you're going with this, it's kind of a moot point.

Re:EFF defends right to keep child porn private

[RockClimbingFool]

What people are charged with doesn't matter. Groups like the EFF, and the ACLU especially, catch alot of grief for the people they defend.

You need to realize they are not fighting for the defendents in these cases. They are fighting to ensure due process is followed IN ALL CASES.

If you can't follow the rules when it comes to prosecuting people who are truly guilty of crimes, how much are the authorities willing to bend the rules when the case isn't so cut and dry.

Re:EFF defends right to keep child porn private

[Kaa]

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?

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

[sheldon]

Interesting point.

Child porn isn't a victimless crime. So by possessing the material, the man was in his actions committing a crime.

Taking your computer in because you can't view your child porn probably isn't the smartest action. It's like going to the gun shop and saying "Look, I need to hold up a bank at 4pm... can you repair my gun before then?"

This is just a wild guess, but somehow I suspect the gun shop would have a duty to call the cops.

It's an interesting case, but it's not clearly cut and dry.

Re:EFF defends right to keep child porn private

[Vip]

"EFF appears to be ashamed of this "detail" [child pornography found] because they left it out of the report on their website."

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

[GogglesPisano]

"Oh, won't somebody please think of the children!!!"

Way to go with the kneejerk reaction. You're ready to send the guy to death row, despite knowing none of the facts of the case.

How do you know the files were his (maybe he has a creepy friend/roommate/uncle), or that he even had any idea they were there? Indeed, I would argue that he certainly acted as if he didn't know that crap was on his computer, considering that he just blithely brought the thing in to Dell for repair.

It's pretty easy to envision any number of ways a computer (especially if it was a Windoze box) could be hacked and have creepy stuff uploaded to it. Might even explain why it was broken in the first place.

Re:EFF defends right to keep child porn private

[waynegoode]

If you are working on a computer, you do not have to necessarily "poke around" to see graphic files. You should understand that a technician will need to look at the contents of you drives to some extent, particularly looking at directory listings. Often folders are set to show thumbnails or full size images by default.

Re:EFF defends right to keep child porn private

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Before you jump to any conclusions;
Child pornography can be molesting kids(very bad) or it could be a few pictures of models that are legal where they were made(eg. 17 in neatherlands) but not legal in your area.

Also, what if it was a pic in the browser cache from a pop-ad? Before we automatically lynch him for being a pedo... lets hear the details.

Re:EFF defends right to keep child porn private

[cavemanf16]

True, that's an absolutely disgusting downside to the EFF fighting this one, but then again, could the technician actually prove that the pr0n was put there by the defendant in this case? Was it his roommate? Did he get hacked and it was being served up by hist now-r00ted box? The defendant obviously had to have someone else fix some type of computer problem, so the likelihood that it WASN'T the defendant who put it on there goes up.

Yes, I agree that's pretty horrible to defend child porn, but the fact of the matter is that you're still assuming "guilty until proven innocent", and in America that has a VERY long and prestigious precedent of being the wrong way to go about providing freedom and liberty to all.

Re:EFF defends right to keep child porn private

[waynegoode]

The title is very much misleading.

The title is not misleading. I was careful not to say that the EFF was defending a child pronographer, a pedophile or even the right to keep child porn. My title, "EFF defends right to keep child porn private", is correct because the EFF is defending the right to keep information private and in this case the information is child porn. I did not detail the conditions under which the EFF thinks the information should be kept private, but that was stated in the original article and titles have a length limit.

Re:EFF defends right to keep child porn private

[m50d]

EFF appears to be ashamed of this "detail" because they left it out of the report on their website.

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?

Re:EFF defends right to keep child porn private

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Or maybe they left it out because just about anything is now called 'child porn', if
you happen not to like it or the politics of the
person involved.

For example: pictures of a father kissing his baby
on the navel.
Porn [check],
Photos mom took of 3 yr. old in bathtub.
Porn [check].
Nudist teens at nudist colony.
Porn [check].

Sure there is real, disgusting child porn. Very
little of this ever makes it to court.
In a foreign country? [check]
With no extradition treaty? [check]
Mafia connections ? [check][check][feverish check]
We'd better drop that case!

Re:EFF defends right to keep child porn private

[alan_dershowitz]

It's a piece of property, and I'm not aware of any rulings that have declared a PC to be an extension of one's person like a home or car. It would be different if the police had no probable cause and were just searching people's machines, but the technician found the stuff on the machine incidentally, and notified the authorities. Should such a ruling come, I would welcome it. I wouldn't have thought that aquiring such a warrant would even have been that hard. They could have siezed the computer anyway and just not searched it until they aquired the warrant.

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"" 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

[waynegoode]

I am sorry, does the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution say something about child pornography?

The First Amendment to the Constitution does not say anything about child pornography either, but court ruling show that it is not covered by "Freedom of Speech". The precedents show that where the constitution is not explicit, there is more to be considered than the words of the Constitution. Supreme Court ruling often refer to balancing the rights of one group vs. the other.

I did not say the EFF was right or wrong, I merely asked how the rights of the parties should be balanced.

Re:EFF defends right to keep child porn private

[E8086]

Yes, the contents of the files turned out to be illegal and the guy was legally wrong to have them.
I think the question the EFF is after is "Why was the tech staff going through the customer's files if it was not on the work order?" For all I know they could have been looking for apps and media to copy for themselves, stealing, or files containing personal data, ID theft or credit card fraud or a calendar/schedule showing when no one whould be home so someone can stop by and clean out their house or they were looking for kiddy porn for themselves and copied it before calling the police. So we're left with guy having kiddy porn is wrong and tech staff browsing through the guys files are also wrong, through chance they found kiddy porn. As far as the issue with the police search, I've only had two criminal justice couses and watched a few eps of COPS and these things may varry between states. The police can accept tips from ordinary citizens, the inital picture shown to the officer by the repair techs would be fine, but the officer could not open additional files herself without a warrant. The first picture might be enough to obtain the warrant, depends on the judge signing the warrant. The EFF wants to make it illegal for repair techs to browse through users files without their permission or reason to work on the files, I see none for image files. And this will result in a guilty person going free because of an illegal and everything found is not usable in a court of law. Then there's that old legal quote that goes something like "better to let 100 guilty people walk than to punnish one innocent person" He walks so others may stay free.

Re:EFF defends right to keep child porn private

[Tim C]

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?

That is absolutely not what this is about. What was the technician doing that caused him to find the pictures in the first place? If they were on the "all users" desktop, then that's one thing. If he was trawling through the hard drive just looking to see what he could find, then that's another entirely.

To my mind, the technician had no right to perform any action on or with that PC other than those required in the course of carrying out his job. His job is to fix the machine, not to poke around and see what he can dig up on it.

What would your opinion be if it was pictures of your child or if you lived near the defendant?

I'd be glad that they caught the guy, but I'd still be just as concerned to know what the hell the technician was doing poking around the hard drive in the first place.

I had new windows fitted a few months ago. I expected the men to come, remove the old windows, fit the new ones, and leave (which is what they did). I would not have expected them to go through drawers and cupboards while they were here. I fail to see how this is any different.

Re:EFF defends right to keep child porn private

[dasunt]

What, haven't you heard of the DUI Exemption to the US Constitution?

The current presidential administration has already found a Terrorism Clause in the Bill of Rights. I'm sure there is a child pornography clause if you look hard enough as well.

But hey, we already know that anyone accused of pedophillia, drunk driving, or terrorism is automatically guilty, so its no big deal, right?

Re:EFF defends right to keep child porn private

[nmos]

The EFF is defending the right of the person to not have his hard disk go through an unauthorized search.

Your right but I think the EFF is dead wrong here. It's one thing for the police to come into your house and search your computer (or anything else) without a warrent but when you invite someone in (and especially a private citizen) then you clearly don't have any reasonable expectation of privacy. If you ask someone to repair a computer then you KNOW that they are likely to stumble upon pretty much anything you have stored on there unless it's encrypted.

Re:EFF defends right to keep child porn private

[imsabbel]

Doesnt matter.

What if a plumber finds some bodyparts in the drain while repairing it.

Should he mentally try to make stupid excused ("maybe his children found those fingers and he just flushed them away") or call the police (who are in charge of finding out what really happened?)

Re:EFF defends right to keep child porn private

[Brandybuck]

The technician accidentally discovers the presence of child pornography. Thus, you have probable cause. Duh.

This IS NOT a case of some police state arbitrarily searching people's computers in the hopes they might find something. This is instead analogous to a plumber noticing a stack of child pornography under the bathroom sink, and telling the cops about it.

Re:EFF defends right to keep child porn private

[dgos78]

"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."

If you have data that you have to worry about being handed over to the police, what the fuck are you doing taking it in to a service shop?! Secondly, no person WITH A BRAIN has that expectation.

right of the person to not have his hard disk go through an unauthorized search

There are no 'rights' or 'unauthorized searches' when a GOOD technician looks through your pc to make sure the AV/anti-spyware programs did their job thoroughly, and there aren't junk/temp files left everywhere, or any other such situations.

I'm sick to death of all these unintelligent and uneducated analogies. You take your car to a mechanic, you reasonably expect him to need to look and work everywhere to find and fix the problem, so fuck that analogy.

Re:EFF defends right to keep child porn private

[AK Marc]

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?

I value the right to privacy higher. The 4th Amendment doesnt' say "right be be secure unless we don't like what they do." There are lots of laws against child porn, and they should be enforced. But someone shouldn't have their personal files (be it financial, or illegal child porn) searched by the police without a warrant. This is no different than inviting a repairman in to work on the sink, while in your house he looks through your desk drawers and sees something that looks like it might indicate tax evasion, then he steals or copies it, and turns it in to the authorities.

The person that should be punished is the repairman that that probably did a search for *.avi and *.jpg in order to add to his personal porn collection, but when he found something he wasn't expecting, turns in the guy. He's a thief and a snitch. Why isn't anyone asking what he was doing opening up random graphic/video files on the computer?

What would your opinion be if it was pictures of your child or if you lived near the defendant?

Well, I'd find the bastard that is abusing my kids and kill him, or something to that effect. The taking of the child porn is the real crime. Two adults passing child porn among themselves or looking at it once it is made are not harming anyone. The laws against such are to reduce the demand and make a moral statement about the initial deplorable act. I see no evidence in this case that the person involved was ever alone with a child, ever made child porn, or anything else that your statements imply. I don't remember the specifics, but I think it was Tracy Lords that forged documents to pass as 18 when she was 16 and entered the porn business. Possessing the porn she made from 16 to 18 would be charagable as posession of child porn. Yet, they were sold in stores for a while and such. Sure, and incident like that turned the porn industry for a loop and got more laws passed to regulate them, but it still is a case where even under the best faith, "child porn" got into wide release.

Child porn is bad. It is harmful to those that are abused in the making of it. It shouldn't be made, sold, or spread. But do you really want the Constitution suspended just because the crime is for something you don't like? That's too arbitrary for my tastes. Take the pics, find out who made and distributed them and put them in jail. But don't illegally search computers looking for it.

Oh, and while we are on "sex crimes" I would like to add that if you and your wife were to decide it would be fun to make out in the car in a deserted parking lot, and you are caught by a cop (charged and convicted), then you both would be sex offenders, and would have to be registered as such for the rest of your life. Sometimes the laws that are enacted for emotional reasons like the ones against child porn, end up punishing those that aren't really those intended. With out details, I wouldn't hop on the "he had child porn, he should go to jail even if it means that I have to burn the Constitution to send him there" bandwaggon. I would focus on the verified facts. The police admit to searching his hard drive without a warrant. And the question of whether searching a hard drive without a warrant is a legal search. What they find is irrelevant to whether the search was legal.

Re:EFF defends right to keep child porn private

[MacDork]

The article left out a very important fact. From the brief:

And your post overlooks one very important fact:

This is computer repair. You know, viruses, root kits, the kind of thing that can place illegal files on your drive without your knowledge or consent. I'd hope that if my system were compromised by a remote root exploit, having it fixed would not result in child pornography charges against me.

Re:EFF defends right to keep child porn private

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

Perhaps this is a stupid question, but how are children victimized by child pornography? Sexual abuse, I can understand. But someone else seeing the pictures? The only way that a child can be victimized by child pornography is if people blame the victim. Of course the answer to that is to yell at the fucker who wants to blame the victim.

What would your opinion be if it was pictures of your child or if you lived near the defendant?

Well, if it was pictures of my child, I'd be less concerned that he had child porn and more concerned on who the fucker is who's abusing my child. And I'd be all for the police getting a search warrant if there's legitimiate cause. That could very likely be my child explaining what happened, since they clearly were present at the scene of the crime. Of course, my only real concern then is if the repair person telling me or the police would somehow void the warrant. But, that's not the situation that occurred.

Re:EFF defends right to keep child porn private

[limabone]

That's the whole point of rights. These basic rights are for ALL citizens, even ones that have child pornography on their PC's.
There is no balance. You either give everyone the rights or no one has rights, it seems western societies are shockingly adopting the latter in some bizarre hope that it will make them safer.
I am a parent and would like to cut the &^&^#@ off purveyors of child pornography, but I also don't want my child to grow up in a world where citizens are presumed guilty of something and communication lines are tapped, etc.
Isn't that what the U.S.A. spent trillions of dollars fighting against during the cold war, only to turn around and do it to their own citizens?

Re:EFF defends right to keep child porn private

[Princeofcups]

> The EFF is defending the right of the person to not have his hard disk go through an unauthorized
> search.

I don't see this being any different from someone leaving child porno pics in the pocket of his coat when he brings it to the tailor to have a button replaced. What would the precedent be if the tailor called the cops? If you give your harddrive to another person, that other person might look at the files.

jfs

Re:EFF defends right to keep child porn private

[CyberSp00k]

> I'd hope that if my system were compromised by a remote root exploit, having it fixed would not result in child pornography charges against me.

And your hope would likely be in vain, unless you have a very savvy defense attorney, a competent and ethical computer forensics defense analyst, and a bumbling DA. Take an introductory course in Computer Forensics (criminal justice, not IT service tech) to learn more, but be prepared to experience a chilling attitude from both your fellow students and the texts you work from.

When it comes to drugs, taxes, terrorism, or kiddie porn, it's "Guilty, even if proven innocent - kill them all, God will know his own."

Re:EFF defends right to keep child porn private

[Anonymous Coward]

The tech put it there. I've never seen those files.

Re:EFF defends right to keep child porn private

[gnuASM]

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?

This is already the case and has been for years on end already. Only now are we beginning to see the maturity of the ramifications created through inaction by the People for so many years. Now that these branch offs already exist, the only way to repair the social damage is to cut it off at the root...the Constitution.

The Constitution is not the problem with our nation, but rather the tearing and rending of what the Constitution stands for and was meant for...controlling the actions of the Government!

Our "Rights" have already been restricted and stripped based on social/criminal statuses. The Fourth and Second Amendment rights are "automagically" stripped of ANY person who has committed a felony "against the State".

"Commit" a felony, and your probation automatically strips you of your Constitutional Rights by prohibiting you the RIGHT to bear arms (this is NOT a "priviledge" based upon your "good behavior"). Furthermore, your Fourth Amendment Rights are automatically stripped by forcing you to relinquish such rights upon demand by the probation officer or law enforcement under threat of punishment.

The ramifications we see today beginning to bear fruit against the U.S. People is the turning of the People into Government actors, as a whole. It is taught in the schools and our localized governments are passing more and more laws requiring us to become Government actors (and thus further forcing us to relinquish our Rights) against our will, under threat of punishment.

This technician is only doing what he has been raised and taught by our government to do. All of this is our OWN fault, and NOBODY but ourselves are to blame for these occurances. Stop bitching and take action! Demand your rights of your "representatives" or ACTIVELY remove them. We have enough "clout" online to bring whole systems down, let's take down the corrupt U.S. system!

(Sorta off-topic: For those that read my few posts and know what happened to my family last summer, the State of Wyoming institued a new law a few months ago that would make what the State agents did a FELONY and punishable with jail time now! Take action and reform your government!)

Re:EFF defends right to keep child porn private

[Overzeetop]

Really? So I can expect that my stash in the glove compartment (or center console, or ashtray) is probably going to get turned over to the police if I take my car into the shop because it keeps stalling when I stop for red lights?

If I'm paying by the hour for a tech to run an anti-virus and spyware check, I don't think I'm up for him browsing my photos or mp3 collection on the clock. I've got a hundred thousand files on my laptop...I sure hope he doesn't plan on going through them manually during the check. It would be cheaper to buy a new laptop.

Re:EFF defends right to keep child porn private

[nzkbuk]

What if the picture was in a zipped up pocket ?
Or maybe a buttoned up inside pocket ?
Even if it's in the outside pockets, what right does the tailor have to go through the coat pockets?

Assuming in your example the pictures simply fell out of the pocket. Then the tailor would have a duty to report them.

One of the consequences of calling the cops would be a search (to see if they can find more). The cops STILL have to get a search warrent. The cops DIDN'T get a warrent in this case.

Re:EFF defends right to keep child porn private

[nzkbuk]

Sorry, no I disagree with both of your points.

If I invite someone over for a coffee I would NOT expect them to start going through my wardrobe, drawers or even go into my bedroom without my permission.

The same goes for my computer. If I had put it in to be fixed, I would expect the person fixing the computer NOT to snoop through the HDD.
As has been pointed elsewhere. If you had say a glazer come to your house to fix a broken window in your kitchen, you would NOT expect them to go into your bedroom etc. You would expect them to go into your kitchen and do their work in there.
There would be NO reason for them to report the pile of stolen goods in your bedroom when the door and curtains were closed.

Re:EFF defends right to keep child porn private

[waynegoode]

You are right that people should not jump to conclusions. But, since this is an appeal, he has already been convicted and therefore is guilty by the standards of law. However, so as not to jump to conclusions, I did not call the defendant a child pornographer or a pedophile or even infer that he is guilty in my comment.

The case is apparently not being appealed for any of the reasons you mentioned, but only on the "right to privacy".

My comments are on the "right to privacy" and not the guilt or innocence of the defendant.

Re:EFF defends right to keep child porn private

[Anonymous Coward]

Was it the technician?

Re:EFF defends right to keep child porn private

[dgos78]

First of all, your car analogy is FUCKING STUPID. Car stalls when you stop. Cars don't run for 2 reasons. Lack of gas, or electrical problems. Guess what's usually in the glove box? Light bulbs. Tracing electrical wires could lead there. Also, the wiring for the glove box could be tied in with some other systems in the fuse box, so watching the light in the glove box while changing fuses is a perfectly reasonable act. Now if your tire keeps going flat, that's a different story. Jesus Christ. Heeeeeere's your sign.

Second, no normal tech is going to go through the 'my music' or 'my pictures' folders unless they suspect that the person who brought the pc in is a really stupid user. And if they don't get the illegal stuff off of there, then they are so stupid they deserve to get busted. It's about time the morons get weeded out. And what the hell are they doing with all those pics and music on there if their system is being taken in some place to be fixed? More stupidity. Come to think of it, there are viruses out there that do affect mp3s and jpgs, so looking through some of them those type of files IS a reasonable act in that situation. Does nobody around here THINK anymore?

Re:EFF defends right to keep child porn private

[natet]

This is a poor analogy. He discovered the body parts in the thing he was repairing in the first place. Now, if he didn't find them in the drain, but found them in the refrigerator, what the heck was he doing looking in the refrigeratory anyway? He wasn't there to look at the refrigerator. That is closer to what is being discussed here. The tech was hired to fix the guys computer, not to do a search of the hard drive for movie and image files. He was looking through the refrigerator when he was supposed to be working on the drain.

Now let's say for a minute that what the tech found on your computer wasn't illegal at all, but potentially embarrasing. You and your significant other had fun with a digital camera a couple of months ago, and the pictures from your romp are stored on the computer. Shortly after you get your computer repaired, you're browsing your favorite porn site, when lo and behold in the amateur section, you see a picture series of you and your SO! Was it ok for the tech to go perusing your files system then?

Re:EFF defends right to keep child porn private

[Macdude]

How about we get rid of innocent until proven guilty for child porn cases too?

I thought we already did that?

Re:EFF defends right to keep child porn private

[wasted time]

I wouldn't expect your stash to get turned over to the police; but I would suspect you may be missing part/all of your stash when you go back to pick up your car.

Oh, wait. Wrong stash.

Re:EFF defends right to keep child porn private

[Macdude]

The person that should be punished is the repairman that that probably did a search for *.avi and *.jpg in order to add to his personal porn collection, but when he found something he wasn't expecting, turns in the guy. He's a thief and a snitch. Why isn't anyone asking what he was doing opening up random graphic/video files on the computer?

Checking the files for corruption? We don't know why the tech was looking at the images (there are valid reasons) but it doesn't have any bearing this case anyway. If the tech was violating the guy's privacy then they guy has a civil case against the tech -- but that doesn't effect the legal case against the guy.

Re:EFF defends right to keep child porn private

[Anonymous Coward]

So child pornography is a special case and situation here, different than any other crime that may come after such a guise if such case law stands?

The fact is, if this stands, this will include copyrighted files and anything else perceived as illegal, e.g. hard porn, lolita pics, homosexual (lewd) writings, banned books (e.g. Sallinger) etc.

Further, what exactly here is proof of the chain of evidence? At least one person (the tech) had access to the computer; this could lead to frame jobs as well. If this gets held up, I wouldn't give anyone access to my computer given what they could download or copy TO it.

Re:EFF defends right to keep child porn private

[Anonymous Coward]

If it's a piece of property, your property, to which you may put personal information in, it does (and should, by letter of the law) fall under "effects" of the 4th amendment.

Just because it's not on your property SHOULD not (it does unfortunately due to erosion of rights) mean it is treated as less. (If someone was inclined, do not compare this to searching a trashcan, which is considered abandoned/discarded/salvage.)

Second, you are also wrong in that your car is not considered protected on equal level as your home. Even account for the DUI exception, your car is certainly not given the same equal level of protection (again, it should, but is not).

As to your other examples where protection is not correctly extended (and you are certainly correct in pointing those out), there is a legal matter and there is the matter of principle. To me, I think the violations by the government to go after tax fraud, drug crimes, pedophilia, copyright abuses, go against what the fourth amendment clearly states. It is unfortunate that people now look at such named abuses as examples to support even further abuses and erosions of a very plainfaced amendment.

Re:EFF defends right to keep child porn private

[Anonymous Coward]

Errr...what about the witness protection program? Is that unconstitutional as well then? Child Protective Services' anonymity is in place because people tend to get very angry and often violent when other people interfere in their family life.

Actually, now that I think about it, don't they use the testimony of the CPS investigator instead of the tipster in court? Surely this person's testimony could be confronted as per the constitution. Will you then say it's unconstitutional to investigate based on an anonymous tip?

The only people I've ever heard publically argue for removing CPS anonymity were the Texas Republican Party, and they also wanted to make it legal to beat your kids.

Re:EFF defends right to keep child porn private

[Anonymous Coward]

Poor argument.
the issue isn't that is was child porn, but that it was private information, whatever that information was. The info could have been .mp3 files, porn, plans to divorce my wife, plans to go on vacation next week...anything. the tech had no business looking at ANYTHING not related to the repair. Now, the tech should have called his/her boss, and then called the police so they could get a warrant to look at the files...then the tech should have been fired for looking into private information of customers that they were not authorized to see.

Your poor argument: asking what if it were my child or a neighbor of mine brings up emotions but doesn't address the issue at hand. This was tried in Dukakis in the 1988 presidential debates. If it were my child, the bastard would hang, BUT...this doesn't address the privacy issue at hand, does it? Your statement simply asks others to ignore the issue at hand creates a knee-jerk reaction to a serious issue: child porn AND privacy. these are separate issues. Rights of privacy and rights of others not to be victimized are balanced, we have laws to address both.

Re:EFF defends right to keep child porn private

[geekoid]

because that point is irrelevant to someones rights.

the police didn't follow procedure, and as such any evidence gathered should not be allowed.

Are you saying that the police can decide when its appropriet to not need a warrant?

Re:EFF defends right to keep child porn private

[daspriest]

Reminds me of an old poem:

"In Germany, they first came for the communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a communist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Catholics and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Catholic.
Then they came for me -- and by that time there was nobody left to speak up."
-Martin Niemoller

Re:EFF defends right to keep child porn private

[Anonymous Coward]

why did the technician look at someone else's files? he is the one who violated the privacy in the first place. unless the porn files were named like autoexec.bat and resided in system32 directory (or linux equivalent), he had no right to sniff around.

Re:EFF defends right to keep child porn private

[alan_dershowitz]

In the witness protection program, a witness is given a new identity AFTER they
have testified, so the accused still know who is testifying against them at
their trial. What the problem with the Child Protective Services is, that an
anonymous person makes a claim against you, and that evidence is accepted
as full-fledged witness testimony (NOT hearsay!) in your trial, without their
identity ever having been disclosed to you. (In some cases, even the
INVESTIGATOR's identity is kept secret, or you only get their "first" name.)

Now, the logic behind this makes sense: they want to prevent reprisals
against witnesses. What doesn't make sense it what makes these cases
important enough, indeed more important than any other kind of cases
in the United States that the constitutional requirement that the
accused know their accuser can be outright ignored. I'm sorry, but
child abuse allegations don't make the cut.

This is a COMPLETELY black and white issue. ALL accused have an
irrevokable right to face their accuser at their trial. This is one of
the most important rights we have, especially now with all this
terrorist bull crap going on. How would you like to be accused of
terrorism and your accuser is kept "secret?" That's Gestapo tactics
you're supporting.

Re:I've said it before...

[Anonymous Coward]

and that statement made you an idiot before and still makes you an idiot now

the only way you can prove otherwise is to post your home address and allow a local slashdotter to search it, i mean you dont have anything to hide do you?

Get over it.

[Seumas]

Whatever your "expectation" may be, you have a right to jack shit. That's just life these days. Any pretense of privacy, presumption of innocence, independence and so forth is misplaced outside of a historical context.

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.

[Ian Wolf]

The NCAA protects free speech? Is there a BCS poll for the constituional ammendments?

Re:Get over it.

[Anonymous Coward]

Freedom, jackass.

Re:Get over it.

[Ian Wolf]

Wow, two morons who think the NCAA is out to protect America from injustice, etc.

The only thing the National Collegiate Athletic Association has done recently has been to tell some colleges they can't use Native American names and mascots even if it was designed and endorsed by a local tribe.

I believe the parent was referring to the NAACP, but decided to have a little fun.

Re:Get over it.

[Kevin DeGraaf]

see the EFF, ACLU, NCAA and other organizations [...] as "communist hippies" at best and "terrorists/sympathizers" at worst

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...

Re:Get over it.

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, at least you're not being defeatist or anything.

Re:Get over it.

[Anonymous Coward]

What do Niggers, Alligators, Apes, Coons and Possums have to do with anything?

Re:Get over it.

[bheerssen]

You are so correct. Our rights have been stolen and there's nothing we can do about it. Therefore, we shouldn't try. From now on, I'm going to huddle in fear every time a policeman walks by, every time some bigot insults me, and every time some faceless corporation steals my money. Standing up to that sort of thing only provides cover the terrorist anyway, so it's all for the best, I suppose....

Wait, you know what? Fuck that. You're an idiot. Freedom must be fought for, and I intend to do just that. Through my words, my fists, and, if need be, through the barrel of a gun. Apologists like you might want to step back. Wouldn't want your precious personal safety to be threatened, now would we?

Re:Get over it.

[Seumas]

I'm pretty sure most people figured out that what I meant to type was the NAACP. :P

Re:Get over it.

[Seumas]

Okay, I'll tell you what - go pick up a gun and start a revolution. I'm sure everyone will be right alongside you. Wait - what? You're not willing to do that? Right - and neither is anybody else.

The only sure defense against a tyrannical government is a population that is willing to fight for what they believe in. You can only fight for what you believe in as long as they let you. Remember the "free speech zone" at the RNC? Was that in violation of a right to free speech and assembly and a right to demonstrate? Most likely. Did anyone do anything about it that made a different? No.

The fact of the matter is that if the powers that be decided, tomorrow, that there would no longer be a right to vote - for anyone - there's not a god damn thing you can do about it. Some politicians might try to fight it, but that's about it. What are you going to say "but it says I get to vote in the constitution!". So what? They're the ones with the politicians. And the money. And the military. And the police. And the guns. And the media.

Unless people are willing to stand up and fight in whatever way necessary and with whatever costs are necessary, they only have the freedoms that the government allows them to have. Anyone who thinks otherwise is deluding themselves. Look at Kevin Mitnick, for example. Was he denied his right to due process? Absolutely. Could he do anything about it? Nope. Did anyone care? Nope.

So unless you want to be the one voice out of a million that understands the situation and is willing to physically fight for it if push comes to shove, you're all talk. 95% of people couldn't fucking care less. In fact, a lot of them think that the measures limiting our freedoms are just great. Out of the other five percent, how many do you think actually would do anything more than send a check to the EFF or ACLU and spend their time chatting about it at the bus stop or in the office to people who either don't care or already agree?

Those who give a fuck are a vocal minority and this is not an age where the minority can afford to be vocal. You're a loud voice that's easy to pick out of the crowd. And when they come to your door to make you stop doing whatever it is they don't like that you're doing - what are you going to do about it? Are you going to some how stop the FBI or the CIA or your local police force from doing whatever they want with you by reciting amendments that mean dick to anyone but a handful of us?

Re:Get over it.

[vishbar]

"...people see the EFF, ACLU, NCAA and other organizations that have anything..."

I knew that the Man was attacking free speech and rights to privacy...but college athletics?

This is a new low for the oppressive forces of society.

Re:Get over it.

[TheoMurpse]

EFF, ACLU, NCAA

Were you going for "NAACP"?

reasonable vs legal

[spooky_nerd]

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 real-world analogy for a second. When the cable guy comes over, I don't expect him to poke around in my dresser. But at the same time, I don't leave a bong out on the coffee table either.

Re:reasonable vs legal

[Trigun]

Dude, that's how I got free cable!

Re:I've said it before...

[Anonymous Coward]

So you won't mind me videotaping you when you're on the loo? After all, you have nothing to hide. Also, I guess you don't mind if I shoot you in the head a few times when you try to run away from the police. If you didn't have anything to hide, you wouldn't have run.

EFF makes me happy.

[E14577441]

The EFF is a light in a dark wilderness. How amazing that a group of people so talented, experienced, and dedicated to digital liberty can come together and accomplish so much. Episode #74 of This American Life features EFF co-founder John Perry Barlow's touching account of a romance that blossomed between him and a wonderful woman he met at a convention. (Computer geeks take heed... play this story for a girl you fancy and see if it softens her heart.)

You're being paranoid

[BlackCobra43]

While I am 100% against video cameras in the PUBLIC space I am not against video cameras in a private space (i.e. dressing rooms of a store). My feelings for personal privacy have no weight in a privately owned store that is using video cameras as a theft prevention mechanism. I do however have an equal weight with regards to my feelings about public spaces being spied upon.

Oh come on. When you're outside, PEOPLE CAN SEE YOU. Imagine that. You have NO expectation of privacy outside of your property. Public MICROPHONES I could understand, as it allows people to understand what they normally couldn`t - i.e. a private discourse between two people. But cameras? Ridiculous.

Re:You're being paranoid

[Com2Kid]

• Oh come on. When you're outside, PEOPLE CAN SEE YOU. Imagine that. You have NO expectation of privacy outside of your property. Public MICROPHONES I could understand, as it allows people to understand what they normally couldn`t - i.e. a private discourse between two people. But cameras? Ridiculous.

The key here is other PEOPLE, the populas as a whole. If I, or a group of people, is doing something that the populas as a whole does not find offensive, and if heck, any local police officers viewing it do not find offensive, then darnit, they do NOT deserve to be able to BS with me!

Cameras in public places let the government go after people after the fact.

Hmmmm...

[Bimo_Dude]

This is probably going to be a close call. If a cop pulls you over for speeding and sees your stash in the back seat, then he has every right to search the rest of your vehicle and arrest you (according to the law, anyway).

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.

Re:Hmmmm...

[madman101]

"It was not his responsibility to call the police, nor was it Gateway's"

WRONG! If you see a crime being comitted and do not report it, you can be charged with a crime. It was his responsibility as a a citizen to report it.

Re:Hmmmm...

[Bimo_Dude]

Please provide a link to the law you mention in your argument. There is a difference between ethics and law, and the "right" thing to do may not be the same as the ethical thing to do. Just because you witness something which may or may not be a crime, it does not mean that you have committed a crime yourself. The exception may be: if somebody voices their intent to break the law, then breaks it, with you as a witness.

All that being said, it is still not likely that the tech "accidently" stumbled across these files. How does the tech know the intent of the customer, and the law? If the tech were a qualified attorney, do you think he would be working at Gateway fixing pcs?

Re:Hmmmm...

[Holi]

True, the cop was responding to the report of a crime and thus should have been prepared with a warrent.

Re:Hmmmm...

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder if the technician was just looking for some good pr0n or maybe warez that he could copy.

It won't be long now until we are reported to the BSA, MPAA and RIAA...

Re:Hmmmm...

[Ixitar]

It is called accessory after the fact I am not sure that it would ever be applied to the technician, but you never know.

Re:Hmmmm...

[stinerman]

It would be interesting to find out if private parties violate your 4th amendment rights, wether or not the evidence is admissible in court.

I recall an episode of Law and Order that dealt with this question. If life imitates art, then the evidence will be admissible.

Re:Hmmmm...

[nmos]

All that being said, it is still not likely that the tech "accidently" stumbled across these files.

What makes you think that? The majority of computer repairs these days involve removing malware and much of that malware comes in through programs and web sites offering porn. Although I've never run into kiddy porn I've run into lots of normal porn and every one of those machines was infested to the point of uslessness with malware.

Re:Hmmmm...

[fallen1]

If a cop pulls you over for speeding and sees your stash in the back seat, then he has every right to search the rest of your vehicle and arrest you (according to the law, anyway).

This is an incorrect analogy for one MAJOR reason: If the cop stops me and sees my stash in the back seat of my car then he sees it because it is IN PLAIN SIGHT. If the files in question above are not on the desktop and are not in a directory that a technician would need to be in (/win, /win32, /winnt, etc) then the files were NOT in plain sight and the technician was "fishing" around in my system without my authorization. The technician probably had NO business being in the folder he was in and was _tresspassing_ on my private property. If I drop off my computer to a technician to fix, I expressly grant him permission to my operating system and those file necessary to fix the issue - AND ONLY THOSE FILES. Period. That technician has no business whatsoever for tresspassing on my private files on my computer and he certainly has no reason to do searches for .jpg files, .wav files, .mov files, .wmv files, or ANY OTHER frigging filetype along those lines since 99.999 percent of the time those filetypes are not involved in fixing a computer issue.

On the rest of your statements, I pretty much agree - it was not the person who found the pics responsibility to call the police and it was a bad move on the police's part to not get a search warrant based on the "tip". As for the files not being in plain view being moot, I don't think it is. I would argue this case based on the fact the tech was clearly looking for information outside of his job function (tresspassing on private property) as well as the fact the police screwed up by not getting a search warrant (fourth amendment violation). As usual, the IANAL applies to this post... but I'd still argue it that way and argue with my lawyer to argue it that way ;-).

Re:Hmmmm...

[AK Marc]

Also, the fact that the police officers searched his entire hard disk based on heresay likely will be a big issue too.

It is not hearsay. Hearsay is a judicial term that only has meaning in court. Since they were not in court, it can not be hearsay. Additionally, it was not someone recalling statements of a 3rd party, but a 1st party recount of a possible crime to the police. They have a witness statement who saw something, not having heard someone talk about some crime that may or may not have actually occured.

If the clerk heard the customer say "don't look for the child porn" and immediately called the police, it would have been a hearsay type statement, but that is not what occured.

Re:Hmmmm...

[Bimo_Dude]

That's a good point. The people whose systems I work on must remove their porn before I get there ;)

eff computer privacy case

[r1_97]

"This ruling could threaten to 'turn your friendly neighborhood computer repair technician into a government informer' "

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...

[ajiva]

The only way to stop this decrease in privacy is to fight for it. If we ignore this, there will be even more issues and privacy violations.

They look at EVERYTHING!

[Anonymous Coward]

My friend runs a computer service company and they always look in temp internet and my pictures. You'd be surprised how often naked pictures of the clients show up. Also ran into some disgusting child porn once. They hemmed and hawwed, but did call the cops, same way they call the cops when someone tries to dump a cheap laptop or someone comes in with what looks like stolen gear. Works both ways. I think he already states that you should assume EVERYTHING on your machine may be viewed as part of repairing/migrating/backing up a computer. We would never dime out a doper or naked adults, but you can bet child porn is getting reported, privacy policy or not.

Re:They look at EVERYTHING!

[m50d]

So your privacy policy is worthless? You're putting up a document that you have no intention of following?

Re:They look at EVERYTHING!

[KillShill]

welcome to the real world.

a privacy policy isn't worth the paper (or ram/disk space) it's written on. once your data leaves you, expect that it will fall into the wrong hands and be misused. of that you can be assured.

Re:I've said it before...

[Daniel_Staal]

That is only true until they redefine what needs to be hidden. (Or, more correctly, what they want tob be able to hold against you.)

Informing vs. Investigating

[Prospero's Grue]

I think this is one of those subtle cases that baffles.

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 same token, if I drop off my car for maintenance, and the mechanic thinks he found drugs - the police need a warrant to search my car. If I leave my house while an exterminator fumigigates, and the exterminator finds a cache of illegal weapons - the police need a warrant to search my house.

The general notion of privacy, and the legal notion are actually different. The guy was boneheaded to leave the stuff where someone else could find it; but the police can't just go in and start peeking.

As for technicians being informers - there's nothing to prevent that either way.

Re:Informing vs. Investigating

[nzkbuk]

The police then had a right to investigate,
The police have an obligation, not a right. They only get the right with a warrent

Re:I've said it before...

[Anonymous Coward]

That is still true except in this case now the person has to prove how the child porn got on the computer in the first place.

This is a stupid discussion. In ANY situation, if you find something illegal is going on you report it.

There is no gray area here.

Re:I've said it before...

[Qzukk]

If you havn't got anything to hide then you don't have anything to worry about

Then, frankly speaking, you are a very boring person. I'm not even a CEO or anything, and my computer has some pretty sensitive data that may or may not be a boon to an insider trading. A down-on-his luck whiz programmer turned PC repair dude might be able to beat someone's product to market having seen the code. Let's not forget the seedier side of things, especially if you want to see your girlfriend/wife/daughter ever again... if you're paying for a technician to repair your PC, they've got a pretty good idea how much money you've got, and there's probably some file on there thats got the address that goes with your wallpaper photo.

Next Stop Encrypted Files

[gcatullus]

While no one will argue that if something is in plain sight the law shouldn't be able to react, this case is scary because it appears the suspicious files were NOT in plain sight. Still if you want privacy, encrypt things. The slippery slope that allows a technician to snoop on a pc, will eventually lead to criminalizing personal encryption tools.

We still have a chance...

[2$ Crack Whore]

Have you joined the EFF? I have. And now I am considering ways to let those that haven't joined, or that aren't even aware of issues such as these, to become informed. My frustration is that it seems 99% of the general public is content wallow in ignorance. Not by choice, but simply by virtue of the fact that they don't read sites like /., or EFF, or attend conferences, or try to do anything that is "non-standard" with digital devices or content. They just have no interest, and so they don't realize that eventually this spills over into everyday life.

The reaction to my telling friends and associates about these things is that they look at me like I'm a nutcase (yeah ok sometimes I *am* a nutcase :p). I wish I could transform that reaction into interest.

Re:We still have a chance...

[utopianfiat]

Then again, the parent might have a point, without actually stating it.

Without a privacy policy, your technician is under no obligation to either report or withhold the contents of your hard drive.

Re:We still have a chance...

[informed_opinion]

99% of the general public is content wallow in ignorance

And a portion of the remaining 1% prefer to adopt the trivial attitude that "caring is uncool" and feel superior because of it. Of course many of them seem to lose their cool long enough to criticize those who work to change things.

OK my turn.

[MrCopilot]

I spent some time as a PC tech, both corp and retail.

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 documents and ask you to rearrange them alphabetically, my expectation goes out the window doesn't it.

Now, do they have reasonable cause to get his ISP records, I dunno, forbidden fruit & all.

Re:OK my turn.

[nzkbuk]

As for expectaion of privacy, hmm. If I give you a folder full of sensitive documents and ask you to rearrange them alphabetically, my expectation goes out the window doesn't it.
Arrange then by file name, or first letter IN the documents ?

Re:OK my turn.

[Artifakt]

Now, do they have reasonable cause to get his ISP records, I dunno, forbidden fruit & all

Did you mean "fruit of the poisonous tree"?

Technician Did The Right Thing, Police Erred.

[EzInKy]

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.

Re:Technician Did The Right Thing, Police Erred.

[Phred T. Magnificent]

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.

Bzzzzzt. Wrong. If I drop off my car and hand the keys to a mechanic, he is given permission to look at those parts of the car that are related to the work I've asked to have done. If he's supposed to be replacing the water pump, he has absolutely no business and no permission to be looking in the trunk, or in the glove box, or under the seats. Now, as it happens, he wouldn't find anything illegal in my car anyway, but that doesn't change the fact that it's neither his responsibility nor his right to look.

Re:Technician Did The Right Thing, Police Erred.

[EzInKy]

Well I'm definitely not a lawyer but a Google search lead me to [URL=http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase .pl?court=us&vol=466&invol=109]United States-vs-Jacobsen[/URL]:
"The initial invasions of respondents' package were occasioned by private action. Those invasions revealed that the package contained only one significant item, a suspicious looking tape tube. Cutting the end of the tube and extracting its contents revealed a suspicious looking plastic bag of white powder. Whether those invasions were accidental or deliberate, 10 and whether they were reasonable or unreasonable, they did not violate the Fourth Amendment because of their private character."

So, it appears that if a private party finds illegal material all expectation of privacy is out the window as far as the found items are concerned. As for the mechanics, or computer techs, there are any number of reasons why they may be looking in areas not directly related to the repair in question. Jacks are located in trunks, software that runs hardware is located on computer hard drives.

Re:Technician Did The Right Thing, Police Erred.

[EzInKy]

Dang, mixed up my html and php. The proper caselaw link is here.

Re:Technician Did The Right Thing, Police Erred.

[nzkbuk]

Jacks are located in trunks
You'd expect the mechanic to have his own tools / jacks etc.

If I had a file called windows-xp-keygen.exe on my desktop I'd expect it to be reported. If the same file was in C:\Games, clearly the tech has no reason to be in that directory (assuming that wasn't my "windows" aka %systemroot% directory)

Re:Technician Did The Right Thing, Police Erred.

[EzInKy]

You'd expect the mechanic to have his own tools / jacks etc.

That doesn't mean he won't use yours if yours are more efficient for the job at hand. Suppose all his lifts are busy and all he needs to finish your car is inspect the brakes?

If I had a file called windows-xp-keygen.exe on my desktop I'd expect it to be reported. If the same file was in C:\Games, clearly the tech has no reason to be in that directory (assuming that wasn't my "windows" aka %systemroot% directory)

Software can be executed from any directory.

Re:Technician Did The Right Thing, Police Erred.

[samj]

Perhaps, but if I leave a body in the boot of my car then it's a lot more likely to be found than a file by a technician - unless the technician were browsing through files of course, which begs the question: why? Were I not capable of fixing my computers myself then I would certainly not expect a technician to be looking at anything but what they need to look at to carry out the task assigned. If in the course of doing that task however, they do discover something illegal then by all means report it - just like if I get you to service my car and forget to take the body out first.

IT people, it seems, tend to have a penchant for looking at (or at least wanting to have the ability to look at) things they shouldn't... maybe they're not unlike anyone else, only with more privileges?

Re:Technician Did The Right Thing, Police Erred.

[EzInKy]

How many articles and comments do you see here about viruses and spyware being the cause of most computer problems? Executable files can be anywhere on a hard drive and can disguise loadable libs as anything.

Re:Technician Did The Right Thing, Police Erred.

[Suppafly]

i dont thin [url] would work in php either

Not This Tech Support Guy!

[Master of Transhuman]

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 others? I'm not a cop and I don't help cops.

Tech support people who report to the cops are fucking rats, nothing more. And if you're a rat, don't ever end up in the joint where people know - you won't have a good time. (Of course, about ninety percent of the people in the joint are rats, but that's another story.)

Re:Not This Tech Support Guy!

[Anonymous Coward]

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 others? I'm not a cop and I don't help cops.

Way to be a caring citizen of society. "Crime is somebody elses problem, unless it affects me then I'll just go vigilante." Nice to know you'd rather tacitly condone horrendous acts of violence (except maybe serial killing) than to rat somebody out
I'm not saying techs should play amatuer detective and go around poking through people's files. If there is something illegal you come across though your normal work should report it.

Re:Not This Tech Support Guy!

[Shkuey]

You're quite the boon to society, Jackass.

Re:Not This Tech Support Guy!

[Master of Transhuman]

Who wants to be a boon to a society of jackasses?

Re:Not This Tech Support Guy!

[geekoid]

Thats right, because it's none of your business that they guy has evidence of children that have been kidnapped and enslaved for porn...well, until it's your kid.

And if you think this sort of thing will happen like it does in hollywood so you'll have a chance to shoot the guy, yoiu live in a fantasy world.
"Did you break in and steal my stuff? I'll hose you myself, not turn you in."

yoiu an idiot, and the type of person who causes societies to errode.

OTOH, it's nice to know your ethics have a price.

Re:Not This Tech Support Guy!

[Master of Transhuman]

I'm not the kind of guy who causes societies to erode.

They don't need my help, they're doing great all on their one. Mostly because of self-righteous dickwads who think they're better than anyone else - in fact, HAVE to think they're better than anyone else because they're fucking primates.

What I am is a guy who wants human societies to fucking totally self-destruct - just so long as I get the technology I want first. And if they don't self-destruct, once I get the tech I need, I'll make sure they get burned down.

You monkeys have had your time and fucked it up. Stand aside for the next wave or get left behind.

You want to get rid of kiddie porn? Go bust Bush and his cronies - there are plenty of rumors about Bush's old man and the REAL kiddie slave ring operated by senior Republicans whose main operator WALKED from prosecution some years back and it is still in operation.

Not to mention that Bush and his cronies have killed more fucking kids in Iraq in the last two years than every sex slave ring on the planet.

So take your self-righteous horseshit and shove it.

I demand private sector privacy

[TiggertheMad]

I cannot possibly control what a private company does with their property...

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

[garcia]

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.

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 need to do, if you don't like something, is to stop going to that store and to tell others not to go there either (and why). If enough people agree that the benefits don't outweigh the negative aspects then they go out of business.

Problem solved w/o more time wasted in the courts creating unnecessary legislation for something that we shouldn't be attempting to control.

Re:I demand private sector privacy

[dnoyeb]

Sometimes we need these things. If everyone could do what they wanted with their own property it wouldnt be much of a union. Thats why federal government takes control of certain things, to ensure consistency across the nation.

Othertimes there are discriminatory practices that the public has decided as a whole should not take place, but in general I think those were supported with existing clauses in the constitution/bill of rights.

David Asimov

[HotNeedleOfInquiry]

Son of the late Issac Asimov was busted for child pornography the very same way. http://www.newsmakingnews.com/asimov3,29,01.htm

Not really news

[Douglas Simmons]

If we're talking Supreme Court tweaking of the Constitution and precedents, there is a very low legal threshold of what cops can get away with insofar as using informants with any quid pro quo to procure information that would otherwise be priviledged. However, a photo developer who discovers a customer's roll of kiddy porn or some busybody soccer mom reporting my solicitation of prostitutes is free to tell the cops whatever they want, voila, cops have probable cause.

Otoh, according to Law and Order and HBO's The Wire, cops seem to get away with paying criminal informants cash money for in addition to lighter sentences for leads that may lead to discovery of "fruits" of evidence, all of which cannot be admitted into court, so who knows. So this is the same deal, same kind of freedom/privacy issue (btw the 4th does not offer "privacy" protection), just with geeks and computers. Again, on the other hand, maybe I'm missing something from not having read tfa.

Uh, if you were able to do all that...

[p3d0]

...why would you need to send your system to someone else for servicing?

Re:Uh, if you were able to do all that...

[Pig Hogger]

Uh, if you were able to do all that why would you need to send your system to someone else for servicing?

It doesn't take a degree in I.T. to follow the simple instruction "remove disk from caddy whenever the power is off"...

Or it could be for your gay brother who could see his life destroyed because an overzealous cop decided he was fair game because of the gay pr0n on his system, maybe?

There's always a choice

[QMO]

Start your own store? (The prices will have to be higher, because someone will have to pay for the shoplifting.)
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 longer socially acceptable, thus decreasing the likelyhood that that cameras in dressing rooms save more than they cost. (That would be extremely difficult, but would have a LOT of side benefits.)

Re:There's always a choice

[mikiN]

Just put 2 ASD's (anti-shoplifting devices) like EM or RFID labels in the item, one very large, visible and obvious, the other very hard to detect by humans.
As soon as the client tampers with one of them, the larger one sends out a signal to set off a silent alarm to warn security to be extra alert. If the client pays up, both ASD's get deactivated and the larger one gets removed. If the client tries to leave the shop without paying and at least one of the ASD's is still functioning, the sirens go off. If both are dead, it is up to security to spot suspicious behaviour.

Re:There's always a choice

[falconwolf]

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.)

Because most cloths don't include all size info it doesn't much matter if you know your size. When I get long sleeved shirts I have to try them on usually because the sleeves aren't long enough even if they otherwise fit. Or they are long enough in length but the waist is too big.

Falcon

Re:There's always a choice

[Fulcrum of Evil]

Just put 2 ASD's (anti-shoplifting devices) like EM or RFID labels in the item, one very large, visible and obvious, the other very hard to detect by humans.

If it's so hard to detect, how will the checkout clerk find it? If they can't find it, won't that lead to lots of false alarms and the ensuing complacency when they occur? Wouldn't that lower security?

Re:There's always a choice

[wasted time]

Clerks don't need to know where RFID tags are in a garment. Radio frequency turns them on and off.

Re:There's always a choice

[Fulcrum of Evil]

Clerks don't need to know where RFID tags are in a garment. Radio frequency turns them on and off.

RFID tags are passive. Are you suggesting that the security scanners query the inventory every time it sees an RFID to see if it's marked sold?

Re:There's always a choice

[wasted time]

There are both passive (Gen 1) and active (Gen 2) tags. Active tags are now being sold as a means to protect high value items from shoplifting since they can have data written to them or be turned off.

http://www.rfidjournal.com/article/articleview/178 3/1/128/

The mindset behind Gen 1 was for it to be a replacement for bar codes. In Gen 1 systems, you can read a tag just like you would a bar code. In Gen 2, though, you also have bidirectional communication; not only can you read a tag, but you can also turn around and lock it, kill it or write new data to it.

touch but don't look

[moviepig.com]

Will a service technician now feel like an Islamic physician who must treat his female patient but mustn't look at her? And will courtroom witnesses soon be citing 'geek-consumer privilege'?

Just a pet peave

[spun]

Why do people always use the "What if it was your whatever?" argument. It's as if they think we are all incapable of empathy until reminded.

"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 customer repairs. Never found anything weird on customer computers, but I did find some very distrubing pictures of actual violent gang rape scenes on a company laptop brought in for repair. Needless to say, the boss was notified.

Re:Just a pet peave

[waynegoode]

You are right that it should not matter whether it is your child or someone you don't know. However, it has been my experience that most people are not this altruistic and have a double standard. It is useful for people who form an opinion about things like this to also consider what their reaction would be if it was their child and if they have a different opinion, to ask themselves why

Re:Just a pet peave

[spun]

Maybe I just overestimate people. It makes me sad to think there are really adults out there who need to be reminded of this.

Re:Just a pet peave

[utopianfiat]

I was going to mod you down, but then I thought:
What if it was my karma?

Re:I've said it before...

[Domo-Sun]

If you havn't got anything to hide then you don't have anything to worry about

The whole "We have nothing to fear" argument is dumb. We always have something to fear.

One hour photo labs have dealt with this already.

[bigtallmofo]

As of a few years, many one-hour photo labs have had a clear policy to report potentially illegal things they see develop on film dropped off.

Photo labs develop porn-reporting policies

Well where do you draw the line?

[Sycraft-fu]

Is it ok for the tech to report files that are on your desktop in a folder call "Illegal stuff in here"? Ok, how about if the files are hidden in a folder, in an area that in no way relates to the service they are doing? How about if they are in an encrypted volume, the password which he gets by cracking it stored by another program withweak, reversable encryption?

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 .jpg that has any relivance to fixing a broken system.

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.

In plain sight

[Specks]

Law enforcement has a rule. If its in plain sight its fair game. If a technician saw the files and the files were in a folder that wasn't encrypted or locked from him and it was brought to the attention of the law and it wasn't a police officer who went in and found it then it might be considered that the evidence was "in plain sight".

Re:In plain sight

[RatBastard]

If you have to open a door in order to see something it's not in plain sight. If you have to open a folder the contets thereof are not in plain sight.

Having your computer rifled by some tech looking for porn for his own viewing is as much a violation of provacy as is having the plumber rifling your wife's panty drawer.

The fact that the panty drawer wasn't locked means nothing. Your wife's panties were not the problem that needed fixing. The dripping shower was the problem. The plumber has no business looking anywhere but at the plumbing. Period.

The tech has no business looking in folders. His job is to fix the problem. To remove the virus, replace the video card, whatever. Not to snoop around in folders.

Let me ask you this: if this case was about downloaded music would you be so blase'? How is it any different because it was kiddy porn? Does the fact that there might be child porn an each and every computer out there mean that techs have the right to inspect every computer for it? What about downloaded music? Movies? Or anything else YOU might like to look at / listen to that someone else objects to or might be illegal where you happen to reside right now?

hmmm

[meatbridge]

it doesn't sound like you need a computer repairman. if you can outsmart these watchful eyes than you probably don't even need a service like these. what about those who don't have any idea about how to go about creating knoppix disc, or have to send their computer to a repairman to install a second harddrive.

well...

[greenskyx]

"Don't suspect a friend, report him"

Re:well...

[Anonymous Coward]

And remember "Suspicion breeds confidence"

People never cease to amaze me...

[MindPrison]

...when it comes to stupidity.

If you're dim enough to bring your kiddieporn filled computer to the repairman (or lend it to someone) then you deserve jailtime just for being incredibly stupid.

Let's face it - most of us would HATE to find kiddie-porn on someone else (or our own) computers, so why should a repair-tech be any more tolerant? Because it's yours? BAH! It's still kiddie-porn and should be reported.

Imagine if your're a parent and happen to be a pc-service tech and come across this stuff...imagine the thoughts that run trough your brain when you see such disgusting stuff. It could be YOUR CHILD that was abused...your friends child etc...

I mean... the likelyhood of the childporn-collector of some day becoming an child-abuser is VERY high. And furthermore.. that collection CAME from SOMEWHERE...someone who was abused! It's just not about your privacy alone...it's about our childrens safety.

MOD UP as Definitive Answer!

[Ingolfke]

This is the correct answer to this question. Good post!

In an effort to fix a lot of problems...

[Anonymous Coward]

personal data on a client's pc is often shuffled around. If the drive needs re-imaging or there is a peasky virus that is attached to some personal information, then the tech see's the clients personal files. He has to if the problem is going to be resolved. Anyone who has worked on a pc knows that. When I used to work in a small computer repair store, the first thing out of our client's mouth is usually "Make sure my data is safe." The client can't hold the tech responsible for what data he/she sees (on the other hand a good tech should'nt go out hunting either). With that being said, focusing on the question at hand, does the tech have the right to call the police if he sees data in connection to illegal acts? Absolutely. If you do not, then you are responsible for allowing the client to repeat his offenses until he is cought by someone else.

As a technician

[Anonymous Coward]

I really don't care about what's on your PC. If it's blatant, like a kiddie porn desktop. I fix 4-15 plus computers a day, I don't have the time nor do I care about what's on your pc.

Re:I've said it before...

[2$ Crack Whore]

If you havn't got anything to hide then you don't have anything to worry about

Why do I need to have something to hide in order to want privacy? Can't I simply desire to prevent others from gathering unnecessary information on me?

How it should work

[Monty845]

It should work like this:

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?

Re:How it should work

[hacker]

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?

Two words: Patriot Act. Warrants are no longer necessary.

The Legislative Branch makes laws, and the Executive Branch enforces them, but since enforcement of the law essentially deprives the accused/convicted of Constitutional Rights, the Judicial Branch is involved in the process, both in warrants and in judging and sentencing. The Patriot Act significantly weakens the Judicial Branch's participation in the warrant process.

The Patriot Act has made it possible to do end-runs around the Judicial system, one of the core parts of our country's checks-and-balances system, a system that has been in place for 4 centuries.

Re:How it should work

[Brandybuck]

What the EFF is upset about is that they skipped step #3

What about probable cause? In this particular case there was evidence that a crime was current and continuing, as the mere possession of child pornography is illegal.

Why should this computer owner be treated any differently than a someone who had his stash of child pornography discovered by the automobile technician who opened his trunk?

No expectation of privacy

[D3]

I support the EFF with $s but the way this is presented I disagree with them. Like others pointed out, you drop of a roll of film, your car, your suit (dry cleaning), etc. to a 3rd party, you have ZERO expectation of privacy anymore. If you are doing something illegal, someone else finds out about it and narcs you out, you have given up your expectation of privacy by not protecting your privacy.

The same goes for credit-cards, shoppers discount cards, TiVo, etc. If you want to deal with them then you give up privacy. If you want privacy more, you don't do those things (get MythTV, pay higher prices, grow your own vegetables, etc.)

Re:No expectation of privacy

[StrongAxe]

Like others pointed out, you drop of a roll of film, your car, your suit (dry cleaning), etc. to a 3rd party, you have ZERO expectation of privacy anymore.

If I drop off a roll of film, of course every picture on it is "in plain sight". But if I drop my car off to rotate the tires, I don't expect them to go through my locked glove compartment.

If I drop off my computer to the shop for them to repair my DVD drive, I don't expect them to be looking through every file on my hard drive. They shouldn't need to go through any of it other than enough to boot up and see that the device works.

Otherwise, people have to get into the habit of removing their hard drives before ever taking the computer in for servicing. For one, this is not feasible for certain monolithic case designs, or for people who are not computer-savvy. For another, if the problem is "it won't boot", the hard drive itself may be necessary for diagnosing the problem.

Re:No expectation of privacy

[Anonymous Coward]

I think that the true issue was wether the technician was acting in an appropriate manner when he discovered the files. Earlier a poster stated he would not leave his bong out for the cable guy, but what this tech did is more comprable to the cable guy going through your sock drawer while he is supposed to be fixing your cable and claiming to have found your bong accidentally. The last thing I knew we were supposed to be protected from unlawful search and siezure and to my knowledge I don't remember anything about from "cops only" anywhere.

Re:No expectation of privacy

[D3]

A "locked" glove box is considered different than an unlocked part of the car, regardless of if there is a "need" to access it for repairs. Look at the example of dry cleaning. You have no expectation of privacy since it is part of the normal job to look through the pockets for loose change, etc. On a PC, a technician may look around for large files causing a file system problem (I have to do this every time my file systems reach 90%). A "locked" compartment in the case of a PC is an encrypted file. If a dry cleaner finds a sealed envelope in your pocket they would be wrong to open it. If they find a gram of crack cocaine in a clear plastic bag, they should be responsible and report you.

Just because you bring it in for one problem doesn't mean they won't go looking for other problems as well. This protects them and you. If you bring a car for an oil change but you also have squealing brakes or bald tires they are obligated to check it out and give you an idea of other problems. Same with a PC. You bring it in for one problem but they may go poking around the system to check for other things. I used to do PC support and if we had the system in-house we made sure the customer wasn't going to come back the next day complaining of something else that we'd "missed". Therefore we had to be thorough about checking it out. Certainly they shouldn't check every file, and they won't since it would take too much time for the money they get. However, if they check a few files and find lots of porn, they should suspect there may be malicious ad-ware, viruses, etc. that should be cleaned before returning it to the customer. If in the process they find something obviously illegal they should call the police, which they did.

At that point, the police do not have to obtain a warrant to search since you have given up the resonable expectation of privacy. More specifically with the 4th amendment you have allowed a search and seizure by turning over control of the system.

Check out
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/am endment04/04.html#1

Additional issues arise in determining the validity of consent to search when consent is given not by the suspect but by a third party. In the earlier cases, third party consent was deemed sufficient if that party ''possessed common authority over or other sufficient relationship to the premises or effects sought to be inspected.'' 85 Now, however, actual common authority over the premises is no longer required; it is enough if the searching officer had a reasonable but mistaken belief that the third party had common authority and could consent to the search.

If you gave them the PC with admin rights (gave them the password or the OK to access at that level) then they have 'common authority' over the system.

Re:No expectation of privacy

[StrongAxe]

Admin rights are a bit problematic. On systems like Unix, a user would have to be a reckless fool to run as root. Unfortunately, under Windows, so many programs require administrator access to install (and some even to run), and don't work properly if installed by one account and used for another, that most Windows users actually use accounts with administrator privileges day to day. Should this mean that Unix users are entitled to greater levels of legal protection than Windows users?

A homeless man living in a cardboard box in Central Park is entitled to privacy, even though the technology he is using (i.e. cardbord) does not give him the ability to put a lock on his front door (even if he does, in fact, have one).

Reasonable Suspicion

[Anonymous Coward]

Someone made the comment earlier that if you were to replace "computer" with "car" and "illegal porn" with "body" and "hard disk" with "trunk", one would side with the technician in notifying the authorities when one saw blood tricking out of the trunk while performing an oil change.

Problem with this is that the blood there constitutes reasonable suspicion - Blood coming out, someone is in danger of dying or being seriously injured. This comes to searching under probable cause.

Last I checked there was no real reliable "trail of blood" to follow via computer that would not otherwise require the application of a specialized skill.

I'd liken this case more to having a cleaner come over to your house and see that you have illegal pariphinalia out in plain view (Sure, you hid the bong behind the couch, but having a couch sticking out 1 foot from the wall makes viewing there not too much of a problem).

My own view - if the techie had a reason to be looking near those files, and to come across it during a normal work session, then it'd be fair game to notify the authorities.

Either way, illegal pron is illegal pron and the guy ought to get tagged for it.

Re:I've said it before...

[utopianfiat]

Depends on what you want to hide and who you want to hide it from...
If you waive privacy rights when you bring your computer into a technician, then anything's fair game,
from reporting that child porn in the folder marked "college essays" to giving your email address to spammers to doing a search on your hard drive for anything that looks like a credit card or social security number, username and password, the possibilities are endless.

It seems to me

[QMO]

To me, if you see evidence of child abuse, you report it.

As far as I can tell here, the real problem is not that the technician saw something and reported it, but that the police didn't get a warrant once they had probable cause.

It's hard to tell, because the flames being fanned in the article doesn't see to go along with the meager facts in the article. It makes me wonder what was left out.

Re:It seems to me

[BaronVonServers]

I with you, the tech had a duty to report. The Law Enforcement Types have a duty to follow the law. The 'owner' had duty to protect himself. If you want to avoid indecent exposure laws, make sure your close your fly!

It's not the Tech at question, it's the Police

[jevvim]

The Fourth Amendment limits the powers of the Government (aka, the Police), not of private individuals. The decision on appeal is that the Police erred in not obtaining a warrant before following up the lead received from the Technician.

This is quite correct, in the limited scope - Police should not be allowed to search through data on your computer without a warrant, as this data is as private as papers in a closed filing cabinet. Even when the cabinet is in transit, a police officer cannot decide to open it except when duly authorized, usually by a warrant. This is a position that needs to be defended, even if the individual at question isn't someone who we feel is entitled to the defense.

On the question of the Tech... well, that's a matter between the customer and the technician. I doubt any laws were broken by the Tech's report to the police - but, then, you would also be open to the "well, prove the data was there BEFORE it came into your hands, Tech" question - the computer didn't come right from the accused's hands, leaving a wide opening for "reasoanble doubt" when/if it came to trial.

Re:It's not the Tech at question, it's the Police

[KillShill]

seems like a perfect opportunity to recruit citizens to do things the police are by law not allowed. i mean it worked so well for the USSR and the pre-ww2 germans.

I am the local computer repairman

[nukem996]

I fix computers all the time and I NEVER look at my clients personal files. Infact the only time I even go near them is when I have to back them up to do a reinstall. That guy at Gateway should be fired for snooping around a customers files. Im not sure what kind of illegal files they were talking about but just yesterday I ran into a customer who had an illegal copy of XP and Office, all I told him was that I could not get upgrades for him and that he should get a legal copy by contacting Microsoft.

Homeland Security

[HomerJayS]

This I disagree with. While I am 100% against video cameras in the PUBLIC space

Even if the public video camera can identify oh say someone who blew up a bus.

I do.

[RatBastard]

It's none of the tech's business what files are on my computer. Unless I specifically say "Hey, I can't open BackDoorSluts9.avi" the tech has no business looking at that, or any other file. Their job is to fix the computer, not to root through my things looking for porn for their private collections.

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.

[Avohir]

you say you worked as a tech... did you ever do anti-virus work? Ever find a worm running out of a Kazaa downloads directory? I go to the folder to fix the problem and delete the file, and in the same directory is kiddie porn. What then?

Re:I do.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's simple.
Unless it goes by the name of "heretherebekiddieporn.jpg" or some variant thereof, you LEAVE IT ALONE!
How would you know it iwas kiddie porn unless you opened it, and why would you open it if it weren't the problem? Unless you have no ethics.

Re:I do.

[Alex P Keaton in da]

You may be right, but anyone who is relying on the professionalism and ethics of others to stay out of prison, is likely going to prison....

Re:I do.

[RatBastard]

Why are you opening files? You kill the process and remove the infected executable. The jpegs, gifs, pings, mpegs, and whatnot are none of your concern. How do you know nickyage9_01.jpg" is a kiddy porn pic or a family snapshot? And what business is it of yours?

It isn't. You do your job and you leave the data alone. It's not your job to be an informant for the police.

If you can't respect other people's property rights then you need a job where you never touch anything that belongs to someone else.

Re:I do.

[ad0gg]

Its like going to a doctor for a physical and having him perform some routine tests, but doctor decides to drug test you without your consent and report the findings to the police.

Re:I do.

[PlusFiveTroll]

You may not have noticed but Windows XP has thumbnails enabled for different media content, I believe KDE does this too. Current desktop operating systems love to show off your files content in the name of usability. If you have anything 'illegal' on your computer, ENCRYPT IT. Your just asking for trouble if you dont.

Re:I do.

[JNighthawk]

"Hey, I can't open BackDoorSluts9.avi"

You forgot to download the latest DivX codec. I had a simi...

Nevermind.

Re:I do.

[Anonymous Coward]

Doesn't that make CrotchCapers3 look like NaughtyNurses2?

Communist

[Anonymous Coward]

You may not sully the God of the Free Market in that way. Prepare for re-education.

Re:I've said it before...

[LunaticTippy]

I find it terrifying that data could lead to serious prison time and a lifelong pederast label. Many people don't secure their computers and don't know what others have stored there. Many people are rude to the techs. Data can be planted out of spite.

Re:I've said it before...

[multiplexo]

In Soviet Russia....you would be correct.

Innocent until proven guilty still applies in this country? Whatever happened to always presuming a man's innocence?

You're behind the times. As soon as you mention "kiddie porn" or "terrorism" then all of your rights go out the window as these are such horrible crimes that anyone accused of them should be immediately sent to Gitmo without a trial or any due process. Or at least that's what the government and the media and sadly enough a lot of ignorant fuckers on /. would have us believe.

It's called Probable Cause.

[nlinecomputers]

The parent poster is exactly correct. The computer owner looses the right to privacy when he invites someone to view and repair my computer.

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.

[slavemowgli]

No, the parent poster is not correct - his analogy is flawed. IANAL, so I don't know the technical terms, but I think that the difference is that a technician looking at random files files on your computer is actively looking through things that are not his business - he's not "stumbling across" things. Things would be different if you had a child porn picture as your desktop wallpaper, for example, and the technician sees it when he turns on your computer again to see if it works.

The car example would be more accurate if the mechanic found your diary while repairing your car, and decided to open it and read it and *then* found out about a crime you committed and wrote about in your diary.

Re:It's called Probable Cause.

[nlinecomputers]

So?

You don't have the right NOT to have nosy people snoop through your things. The 4th amendment only stops the government. If you left your diary in the car there's nothing illegal about looking through it. Plenty of immoral reasons but nothing illegal about it. Don't want your diary read then don't hand it over to a stranger.

Re:It's called Probable Cause.

[Tim C]

You don't have the right NOT to have nosy people snoop through your things.

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:It's called Probable Cause.

[nzkbuk]

If I invite guests over to my house and serve cocaine to my guests
You can't expect the cops not to come.
However if the cocaine was in the top drawer of your night stand, you'd have every expctation of privacy and not expect them to search your draws then call the cops.

Re:It's called Probable Cause.

[Anonymous Coward]

So when I'm invited into a store, the storeowner loses all expectation of privacy? If I'm in an interview and I'm waiting in the HR department, I can look through the desk drawers?

In both cases, I was invited in and I was not asked to sign a waiver or agree to conditions.

Besides, someone there could be hiding kiddie porn.

I might even discover the next Enron..!

Re:It's called Probable Cause.

[Anonymous Coward]

The computer owner looses the right to privacy

Watch out, he's loosing his right to privacy! It's on the loose!

Learn to spell, asshole.

That's very genderist.

[Anonymous Coward]

"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 ..."

Does this mean only men for men and only women for women? What about homosexuals? Do you think they have a right to require a test of sexual orientation for this job? What if they're bisexual (as most people are)?

I'd much rather have stop light cameras.

Back in the day...

[DysonSphere]

We handled this gracefully. "Sorry Sir... Your disk failed during servicing, and we couldn't recover the data, but for a small fee we can install a fresh copy of Windows 95 for you." Actually that should have been "Father" not "Sir", and no I'm not kidding or trolling... It's amazing how informative IE's cache folder is, and how for once "findgifs.bat" was disturbing instead of entertaining.

4th amendment?

[Anonymous Coward]

The tech finds the info. He can tell the authoritys if he wants about what is on the computer, but they have to get a warrent.

The question is. When you give your computer to the tech, are you expecting reasonable privacy?

I would think so! Would you imagine 5 tech guys sitting arround laughing at what you had on your computer? Its bouned to happen every so often but most of the time you think they will just do their work and get out of there.

You were expecting privacy so the police needed a warrent to look at the content on that computer. Case closed, illegal search and seisure. Doesn't matter what the tech told them.

so...

[coolGuyZak]

So in an effort to dispute the disclosure of the article, you commit the same act?

It seems I did not detail the conditions under which the EFF thinks the information should be kept private is not characteristic of full disclosure.

Oh, horseshit.

[RatBastard]

Don't give me that crap. Unless the problem is data file specific the tech has no reason to look at anything other than teh hardware and the OS directory.

I used to do tech work and while I never searched other people's machines (because I value my proprty rights and I respect other's property rights) I know a lot of techs that did. And they did it for one reaon: to get new stuiff for their collections. They'd copy off all of their porn, MP3s, etc... and add it to their collections. Their searches had nothing to do with fixing the computer and everything to do with data theft.

Warrant Be Damned...

[Anonymous Coward]

When I was a repair tech, I noticed some suspicious file names scrolling by as I copied a failing hard disk to a good one... I called the police. Did they get a warrant? Nope - They got the FBI, who staked out the shop until the guy returned for his computer...

From Some of the Posts Here

[Master of Transhuman]

this is already true. No ruling required.

"This ruling could threaten to 'turn your friendly neighborhood computer repair technician into a government informer' "

Your average human is a rat because every human wants advantage over every other human. Ratting somebody out is an easy way to get advantage.

These /. posters are the same rightwing punks who BOHICA every time George Bush opens his mouth. Pathetic wannabe cops. And we all know cops are pathetic cowardly bullies hiding behind a uniform and "backup".

Analogy

[vettemph]

their Fourth Amendment rights don't disappear when a computer is delivered to a technician for servicing."

  And what if I bring my blood covered machete in for sharpening?

Re:I've said it before...

[computational super]

That's an interesting point... I wonder how many unsuspecting people have trojans running in the background, hiding illicit data on behalf of illicit people. I wonder if that's even considered a valid defense in court? Scary thought...

No *searching* without cause.

[Chagrin]

The footnote in the brief reveals why the EFF's case has (IMHO) merit:

• Appellants assert that the technician was required to actually view the files on the hard drive in the course of performing the requested services; however, this assertion is not supported in the record

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...

[Holi]

Well if the pics are in a hidden directory and the directory structure is convoluted and includes dirctory names that are not normally allowed, you should have a very valid defense, if they are sitting in your my pictures folder, or a folder including other photos obviously yours, have fun in prison.

Bad alternators don't put bodies in the trunk.

[MacDork]

Your analogy does not work for one simple reason. This is computer repair. You know, viruses, root kits. These things could have been used to place the illegal files on the drive in the first place.

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.

[servognome]

Your analogy does not work for one simple reason. This is computer repair. You know, viruses, root kits. These things could have been used to place the illegal files on the drive in the first place.

And people can break the lock and put a body in the trunk, hide drugs under your seat, tape a handgun underneath the car, use the car to commit a crime.

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.

What you are describing is a legal defense argument. It doesn't change the fact that illegal material was found on the computer.

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.

What if he does fix the problem, but the person actually was a criminal, continues to download, is caught. After poking around the cops find that the tech had infact serviced the computer and seen the illegal material. They accuse him of covering up the crime, and his life is ruined, etc. etc. Would you risk going to jail over somebody who couldn't properly maintain their computer?

Re:Bad alternators don't put bodies in the trunk.

[Anonymous Coward]

What you are describing is a legal defense argument. It doesn't change the fact that illegal material was found on the computer.

Perhaps, but in cases of child pornography (real or alleged), the news of the charge is publicized before the trial. The accused may be completely innocent, have his day in court, and prove his innocence. The public, however, will remember the charge; fewer will remember that the accused was exonerated.

Not to mention that relationships between the accused and family/friends may become so strained by the time the case goes to trial (and they finally believe the accused to be innocent) that those relationships may be strained beyond the point of repair.

Re:Bad alternators don't put bodies in the trunk.

[MacDork]

And people can break the lock and put a body in the trunk, hide drugs under your seat, tape a handgun underneath the car, use the car to commit a crime.

Compare the number of those events to the number of Windows exploits in a year. Furthermore, if I'm having a problem locking my trunk, I'm probably going to notice the body and call the police myself.

What you are describing is a legal defense argument. It doesn't change the fact that illegal material was found on the computer.

It also doesn't change the fact that simply being an accused child pornographer is enough to thoroughly ruin your life in this country.

Instead of fixing the problem, he instead turns you in to the cops as a kiddie porn wanker.

What if he does fix the problem, but the person actually was a criminal, continues to download, is caught. After poking around the cops find that the tech had infact serviced the computer and seen the illegal material. They accuse him of covering up the crime, and his life is ruined, etc. etc. Would you risk going to jail over somebody who couldn't properly maintain their computer?

If the files were not related to the problem, then the technician had no excuse looking at them in the first place. The technician was hired to fix a problem, not snoop. If the files WERE related to the problem, then we're back to square one of my assertion.

If you don't agree, then don't make a peep when the next Window's virus of the week drowns the internet in a crapflood. You can't expect users to fix their problem if doing so results in them being framed up on child porn charges. Also expect a lot more child porn websites, child porn spam, and innocent people in prison as users are reluctant to fix zombied boxes serving up child porn for the real traffickers.

You can't have it both ways. In the long run, your way will result in a lot MORE child porn on the internet. Happy now?

Re:Bad alternators don't put bodies in the trunk.

[Anonymous Coward]

And people can break the lock and put a body in the trunk, hide drugs under your seat, tape a handgun underneath the car, use the car to commit a crime.

Yeah, but you'd probably notice those things. Besides, why would anyone leave their drugs in your car? Are you saying you know several people who've been framed? Well, I've seen several hacked systems with loads of warez and porn.

If the tech fixes the problem and the customer's system was 0wned, his repair log will show that he removed the files related to the breakin and has patched it up to help prevent future breakins. The tech does NOT go to jail, his life is NOT ruined because he did his job properly and had no reason to suspect the customer of any actual wrongdoing.

Can we get over "get over it"

[informed_opinion]

I agree with most of your comment, but I'm bothered by the pairing of the title and conclusion:

Get over it

We already lost. You rights couldn't be any more flatlined.

Are you suggesting we just give up? And that anyone who doesn't is naive? Do you apply the "get over it" wisdom to yourself?.

Re:Can we get over "get over it"

[Seumas]

Are you suggesting we just give up? And that anyone who doesn't is naive? Do you apply the "get over it" wisdom to yourself? [slashdot.org].

No. I'm stating that walking around with a sign or a bumper sticker or a lapel pin or paying $50 to the EFF or ACLU means dick. The EFF and ACLU won't even stand up for a lot of people in many cases (think Mitnick for example). They're just a political machine like anything else. And if someone in this administration decided to do away with them by fabricating some connection to terrorist funding to shut them down, what are you going to do about it? What are they going to do about it? Take up arms? Or just whine and moan and nod to the talking heads on CNN and FNC?

You have precisely the freedom your government allows you and no more. What it says in the constitution means very little. If you have a population that is willing to take action at whatever cost to prevent or overthrow tyranny, that's great. But you don't have that in America. The almost exclusive majority is far more concerned with the price of gas, the cost of babysitters, violent videogames and Paul Abul's American Idol controversy. Even when you bring up issues of civil rights and protected liberties, they are glass-eyed and uninterested.

Are you going to form your own gun-toting Arizona Minute-Men to keep the power-grabbing arbiters of "freedom" from wresting it from us? Unlikely.

** WITHOUT A WARRANT **

[Anonymous Custard]

The EFF should emphasize that their problem is not with a witness reporting suspicions to the authorities, but with the authorities not consulting a judge and obtaining a warrant before conducting a search.

When a technician, or anyone, notices something he suspects is illegal, then he should report it to the police. But the police still need a warrant to search the person's personal property. Otherwise, it would not be admissible as evidence should the un-warranted investigation come to trial.

Here, it's easy:

Policeman: Judge, a technician at Gateway has reported that a computer he is servicing contains files that may constitute child pornography. We request a warrant to search this computer to verify the technician's claim, and begin an investigation if deemed necessary.

Judge: Granted; go right ahead. See the clerk for the warrant papers.

See how easy that was?

LordOfTheRings.divx

[MacDork]

As I was queueing the files for DVD burn, I saw a lot of... interesting file names go acrosss. I showed my boss, he showed the manager, we called the cops.

Do you also call the cops when you see LordOfTheRings.divx? If the file contained a rip of the movie, that is evidence of a felony offense. By making a copy, you may also be committing a felony. At the very least you may be an accomplice to the crime. Would you turn people in more frequently if the MPAA paid a bounty? <devil's advocate />

Re:LordOfTheRings.divx

[LamerX]

Perhaps while legally you should turn the person in for this, morally that would be retarded. How do you know the person doens't own a copy at home and has his copy on his hard drive for a media center system, or even *gasp* a backup?

The fact is, child porn is completely illegal. You don't know for sure whether or not the person has the copyright to the software (or media) on thier system. That would be like saying because someone has an MP3 player, you should turn them in because those .MP3s are illegal.

Re:LordOfTheRings.divx

[maxpublic]

The fact is, child porn is completely illegal.

Assuming it's actual child porn involving real children, and not a bunch of photoshopped fabrications. For instance, I have a hilarious picture of Jessica Alba slurping down some guy's juices with a big ol' grin on her face, but I'm fairly certain that Ms. Alba never posed for such a picture. You wouldn't be able to tell it from the photo, though; it's very well done.

Max

Re:LordOfTheRings.divx

[MacDork]

Perhaps while legally you should turn the person in for this, morally that would be retarded. How do you know the person doens't own a copy at home and has his copy on his hard drive for a media center system, or even *gasp* a backup?

The fact is, child porn is completely illegal.

No, ripping LordOfTheRings.divx is a felony under anti-circumvention clauses of the DMCA. How the user came to have a copy might be called into question (Strangely, ripping a backup of a movie you own carries greater penalties than downloading a copy of a movie you don't own) but having the file itself is completely illegal.

Re:LordOfTheRings.divx

[Fulcrum of Evil]

Assuming it's actual child porn involving real children, and not a bunch of photoshopped fabrications.

Hence the investigation. Replying to the upthread guys, you could ignore LOTR.divx if you like. It'd be morally precarious, but you have no obligation to report any illegal activity, not even kiddy porn. Most of us would be happy to do so, however.

Re:LordOfTheRings.divx

[EndlessNameless]

:::Do you also call the cops when you see LordOfTheRings.divx? If the file contained a rip of the movie, that is evidence of a felony offense. By making a copy, you may also be committing a felony. At the very least you may be an accomplice to the crime. Would you turn people in more frequently if the MPAA paid a bounty?:::

In that situation, you are required by law to report the incident. Anyone who sees or suspects any activity related to child abuse (and child pornography does count for these purposes) *must* report it to law enforcement officials. This applies to everyone working in an official capacity at their place of employment. Even doctors and nurses, who have the most restrictive privacy guidelines, must report this information. The only possible exception is someone who is a lawyer, and that would only apply to clients who are protected by attorney-client privilege, and even then I'm not sure how it would work... I'm not aware of any cases involving this specific situation.

Long story short: no matter how he came across it, he was obligated to report it once he did. If the actual discovery occurred as a result of violating someone's privacy, then that can be handled separately as a civil matter between his employer (the "responsible" agent) and the client. With the combination of jury sentiment and the dirty hands doctrine, however, I rather doubt there would be any recourse for the computer owner.

Please shut up

[BlackCobra43]

Your right to free speech stops when you try to jam this propagandic and fallacious crap down my throat. It's NOT about the children, it`s about DUE PROCESS. Without due process, "justice" becomes just a word and YOUR life goes down the drain - just because you wanted to "save the children". The police botched their job and they deserve to be called on it, no matter how heinous the crime is. Nobody is trying to defend child pornography or encourage hiding it. NO ONE. So drop this bullshit.

Re:Please shut up

[Anonymous Coward]

I WAS abused. Nobody believed me; my GRANDMOTHER saw my father sneaking in and out of my bedroom, and treated me with contempt and disguist, never saying a word about it, instead of helping me. I got over it; a lot of other abused kids grow up really messed up or kill themselves. It's not a cliche, it's not a joke. So in your rush to defend your precious privacy, maybe it wouldn't be such a terrible thing if you stopped and thought for a minute about what this IS doing to the children involved.

Straw Man Argument

[katharsis83]

You've set up a straw man argument in this case. Of course no one is going to support child pornography, but that's not the issue at all in this case. The EFF is saying that we have a reasonable expectation of privacy when we go to get our computers fixed.

The unpleasant consequence of concept of this "privacy" is that some child pornographers may get away, but we as a society find this to be a justifiable risk/harm in order to maintain a free society. If we applied your argument to the 4th Amendment, we should also void that, since it's very probable that some child molestors/exploiters have gotten away because the police searched their property inappropiately. Hell, we might as well throw away freedom of the press too, since it undermines our government's ability to conduct foreign policy at times. The negative consequences of a law don't automatically justify removing that law, if the law serves to maintain a higher principle. There are literally thousands of criminals who were almost unquestionably guilty, but have been let go, because procedural steps have not been followed properly.

The erosion of civil liberties start when we start denying equal protection to individuals charged with some of the most vile crimes. A man accused of child pornography possession deserves just as much protection under the law as the next guy.

Attacking the EFF for supporting child pornography is a nice try, but is an entirely specious argument.

I demand private privacy sector

[TiggertheMad]

Excuse me? I'm stupid?

Yes, you are stupid. That we have resolved. Mostly because you attacked my tangental observation about the final results of what you deem to be acceptable, on the grounds that 'I didn't read what you wrote'.

Also, you are stupid for assuming that I advocate more legistation. I simply stated that if *you* want to change the status quo, that *you* could lobby to change that. It's a fact, not an endorisment of doctern.

Finally, you are stupid to assume that an individual has unlimited rights to 'do as they fucking please with their OWN property', or that the idea that such a thing would be in any way good for society. Are you advocating an Anachist approach to property rights?

I simply pointed out that if government survelance is abused, then the same thing will happen (or is happening) in the private sector.

MOD PARENT UP

[Anonymous Coward]

"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."

That last paragraph says it all. Being uspet about this case is not about condoning child pornography; rather, it is about not condoning policemen circumventing due process.

Remember the old saying attributed to Voltaire, "I may not agree with with what you say, but I will defend to death your right to say it?" This is the same principle; I don't agree with a child pornographer doing what he does, but I will defend his right to be secure in his papers absent a search warrant to the death.

Questions of "right and wrong" are easy when you're talking about people doing stuff you agree with. They're harder when you're talking about people doing stuff you DON'T agree with. But if you are truly a moral, principled person, you will defend the principle you say you stand for regardless of whether the person hiding behind it is (in your view) a good guy or a schmuck.

The child pornographer is a schmuck. But the principle is "search warrant first, police seizure after" and so even if they catch a nasty schmuck by going against this principle, I have to stand up for the schmuck...

Because I appreciate the fact that if I'm not doing anything illegal, I'm more or less secure against the police coming in and randomly searching me "just in case." The general principle of "search warrant first" is more valuable to me than the specific case of "catch the schmuck kiddie porn guy." We have to look at the general principle, not the specific case.

Only 8 words

[waynegoode]

I admit it. I did not include all the details in the 8 word title. I also admit that I did not quote the entire Slashdot article in the post and so omitted details that were in the article. I assume anyone reading a comment has at least read the Slashdot article. If that is being inaccurate, then 99% of all posts are inaccurate.

You said my title is misleading. I still say it is not. Even though I did not include every possible detail, nothing in the title or my post is incorrect.

Re:Only 8 words

[coolGuyZak]

I assume anyone reading a comment has at least read the Slashdot article. If that is being inaccurate, then 99% of all posts are inaccurate.

You must be new here...

Not that hard

[Anonymous Coward]

I do have an expectation of privacy in my own home.

If I invite an electrician into my home, and he sees evidence of a crime, it is his civic duty to report that. Once he reports that, the cops would have to get a warrant, and enter my home.

In the same manner, if I give a child porn laden computer to a technician, and he comes across the offending material, and he reports me, the police should get a warrant. If they got a warrant based on the testimony of the technician, then there is no foul here. If they didn't, throw the evidence out.

Now, if the evidence of a crime is my meth lab in the attic, and the electrician was only asked to look in the basement, that isn't the state's problem, unless they asked the electrician to look in the attic, and then he is the states agent, and the state would have had to have a warrant first, or would lose the evidence. If the state didn't ask the electrician to go upstairs, you'd have to take your complaint up with the electrician, same as the Geek Squad that shouldn't have been looking at your files.

This isn't as black and white as it first appears. I think he shoudl sue Gateway for civil rights violations; of course, from jail.

Potentially a related case involving SCO

[Thagg]

There's a SCO case hanger-on named Jeff V. Merkey (who tried to buy a commercial license to the Linux kernel for $50,000, a long story) that is trying to use subpeona laws to find the names of people posting to the Yahoo SCOX board. He's a nutball, but he's trying.

Anyway, there was a hearing in court today to hear his attempted expedited subpoena request, and it was found to be deficient in many ways. Interesting story. You can read a brief eyewitness report of the hearing Here on the Yahoo! board.

Thad Beier

Not so unreasonable

[agent0range_]

"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," said EFF Staff Attorney Kurt Opsahl.

Let's pretend I'm an american.. if you took your car to a mechanic it still can't be searched without a warrant. If the mechanic, in the course of his duties, finds your coke... then you're in trouble.

The lesson for pedophiles: put your kiddie porn on an external drive before taking your computer to the shop.

Re:I've said it before...

[The Sigil]

And as has been said before...

"If you have nothing to hide you shouldn't mind" is a strawman when it comes to privacy.

When I go to the bathroom to poop, I'm *not* hiding. That doesn't mean I want everyone watching.

More FUD from the EFF

[wsanders]

>>> "'turn your friendly neighborhood computer repair technician into a government informer'"

More FUD from the EFF - they don't get those contributions unless they keep their fan base nice and paranoid!

Even if the EFF is right, which they are, why wouldn't EVERY citizen be a "government informer"? If someone sees child porn or a bomb workshop or any crime in progress, they should call the police. Whether anyone's so-called civil rights are violated is up to the authorities, it's their job to follow the law, and - guess what! - they usually know exactly what's legal and what's not.

Re:More FUD from the EFF

[Anonymous Coward]

>> More FUD from the EFF
and
>> Even if the EFF is right, which they are, ...

Why do you call it FUD if you feel they are right?

Re:More FUD from the EFF

[wsanders]

They may be right in this instace, but the EFF is just another bunch of lawyers trying to make a buck. They get no respect from me.

Re:More FUD from the EFF

[geekoid]

There is a difference between reporting a crime, and requiring people must report a crime.

Sure, sometimes it may be obvious, usually it is not.

So what does a bomb workshop look like? do you expect barrels with red sticks in them labels 'TNT'?

It is a bad thing for the clay person to ahve to interpet a crime. And when they do, law enforcment must stick to a goof precedure. Becasue a lot of reported crimes aren't crimes at all.

Jail!

[UlfGabe]

snitches get stiches!

stolen was the word of the day.

Kiddie Porn aside

[techwrench]

I owned my own PC repair business for 2 years, and looking into anything other than what was on the trouble ticket is highly discouraged. The litagation alone is not what bothers me about this issue, its the fact that the customers personal privacy has been compromised. This becomes a downhill spiral, because the reputation of not only the shop has been damaged, but the industry as a whole.

How about this slight variation?

[alispguru]

0. Computer Repair Technician puts something illegal on your computer (and diddles the file date and time appropriately).

I.e, what if the tech isn't a disinterested third party?

Re:How about this slight variation?

[dustmite]

Good question. (Although it doesn't really have any bearing on the issue of whether or not the police got a warrant or should have gotten a warrant, because the outcome would be the same, and you'd probably go to jail and be labelled a paedophile anyway.) Scary thought.

If you know that much about computers...

[colin_young]

I've seen a few responses here suggesting that before you take your computer in for repair you should encrypt your files, move them to to a removable drive, etc. (or should be doing so as a matter of course). My only question: if you know how to do that, why are you taking your computer to Gateway to get it repaired? Fix the damn thing yourself.

Re:If you know that much about computers...

[erveek]

I've seen a few responses here suggesting that before you take your computer in for repair you should encrypt your files, move them to to a removable drive, etc. (or should be doing so as a matter of course). My only question: if you know how to do that, why are you taking your computer to Gateway to get it repaired?

Warranty?

what if...

[socreets]

All you people who are so happy to report others for their crimes because of moral issues should be more than happy to have their own children call the police whenever the parents have commited a crime.

For example, dad and mom are cheating on their income taxes and jr. overhears them so he calls the cops like a good "citizen".

How about this one, you the parent steals stuff from your employer (nothing expensive just small time things) and your little angel has been told at school that this is a crime so he calls the police.

Just a couple of examples why the state has no business having it's citizen sqealing or reporting on each other for their own good. I hear this prctice was encouraged and became really popular in the USSR and Nazi Germany.

Re:what if...

[TheoMurpse]

Yes, because we all know having witnesses is a bad thing. We should never have citizens squealing on each other. Especially not in a court of law!

The police are the ones in the wrong here. If I witnessed a murder, you're fucking right I'd report it. Are you saying that I shouldn't?

how do you know?

[phorm]

1. Don't shop at (those) stores at all.

How would you know which ones do it? They can make pretty damn small cameras nowadays, not to mention the old camera-behind-the-mirror trick.

You sound like...

[Anonymous Coward]

...the voice of experience

Re:You sound like...

[Anonymous Coward]

And you said exactly like the folks he's talking about--the very hint, not even conclusive, just the mere suspicion, and you've already made a judgment and misleading statement.

btw, I have been falsely accused before, although usually not in a legal situation.

The most socially pointed was when I passed a girl with a group of her girl friends on a busy DC street corner one (September I believe) weekend in Georgetown (SW corner of M and Wisconsin if I recall right). I'm one and a half steps passed the group, and the girl closest near the back turns around and goes utterly ballistic. I turn to see what the ruckus is about, I'm met with one really PO'd person, who apparently thinks I did something to her; I was taken back at getting screamed at for no apparent reason so I suspect she believed I had felt her up. I did nothing of the sort. I had simply weaved my way through her group getting past a crowd. There were also at least 1 other guy that walked around her on the other side at the same time, and I didn't see him (although I wasn't paying attention) do anything either, and I think there was another small group north of her as well.

Nonetheless, I got screamed at for half a block and got accusing stares from the other folks on the street the entire time. My suspicion afterwards was that she was a freshman or sophomore college new in town, vaguely pretty (hard to tell when you're trying to figure out what's going on in the first place in that mill of people) shopping with friends who had been getting hit on or felt up that entire afternoon and just thought someone had groped her or run into her on purpose, and she directed her verbal assault on the nearest person.

I gave up shortly trying to figure out what was up and eventually just walked away. Staying was just making things volatile and escalating something bad was going to get directed to me, and she and her friends were of no mind to really figure out what happened much less actually saw or knew themselves. All I knew was that I hadn't done anything.

Re:You sound like...

[Nasarius]

Cute, but wrong. The closest I've come to anything like that was when my girlfriend was 17 and I was 18, but the age of consent in New York is 17 anyway.

Pete Townshend. What do you think of, right after "The Who"? He was cleared of all charges, but he still carries the label.

Michael Jackson. A freak, yes, but never any real evidence that he committed any crimes. Still labeled as a child molester.

evidence

[phorm]

Indeed, because according to the article the repair dude found what 'might' be illegal material, and passed it onto the police. Maybe it was girls that were about 19... but he wasn't sure. The police then investigated without a warrantee to secure evidence for a warrant.

For the grandparent's car analogy... if the mechanic saw white powder in a trunk (hey, maybe from groceries and some flour leaked), reported to the cops that the user *might* have transported cocaine, and they went over your car with a fine-tooth-comb to find some evidence that drugs of some sort had been in the vehicle, perhaps... would you be fine with that?

Bad analogies

[Mr Guy]

Body parts aren't allowed in the drain, ever. At the very best it's improper disposal of hazardous waste.

However, if a mechanic sees an extremely large pile of money in a briefcase, in your car, he shouldn't call the cops because it could be drug money.

It may be that the odds of it being illegal are very high, but he's got no business looking anywhere but under the hood, and there are legal reasons to have large sums of money.

Re:Bad analogies

[imsabbel]

Child porn is also NEVER allowed on computers, ever.
Your point?

Re:Bad analogies

[Mr Guy]

Without more details, you can't apply that label. Child porn is never legal, but not all naked pictures of children is child porn, even though I'd like to see Anne Geddes stopped as much as the next guy.

Cache

[phorm]

I've had some pretty racy popups show up in my time, not to mention the crapola that tends to surprise unwary newgroup visitors.

There's this thing call "temp files" and another called "cache." Guess what, you can have some pretty nasty stuff in there without knowing it, or ever having gone looking for it. The law applies to everyone, so if somebody who *does* have such content by intent can be nailed on it, the same precedent applies to those who can later be railroaded on similar charges despite being innocent.

Of course you told your boss

[Overzeetop]

You found that material on a company computer. There's probably a company policy on that type of content, and the computer belonged to the company. Sort of like going through your file cabinet at work and finding a playboy. Not appropriate for the workplace.

Personal stuff is different, imho.

Re:Of course you told your boss

[spun]

Yeah, I was going to note that specifically. Having never found anything really awful on a customer's computer, I don't know what I'd do. Generally I'm of the opinion that, as a tech, I should not pry into areas that aren't necessary just because I don't want to have to deal with the consequences of what I might find. I know that if I was working on a customer's computer and found pictures of him doing it with, say, a guy, or a woman he isn't married to, I would quietly close the file and pretend like I never saw it. Illegal stuff, though? I just don't know.

You are missing the point

[Anonymous Coward]

What was on the hard drive isn't the point. Whether the tech should have been looking isn't the point either.

The point is they need a bloody warrent. Simple as that.

It depends

[gremlins]

For example you don't have a resaonable expectation if someone was to go through you trash and find something because you willing gave your trash away. Or if say the police walked along and you shooting herion in your apartment throught he window that was in plain view. I think what it comes down to is if in the normal corse of doing their job a tech finds something then you don't have an expectation to privacy. But however if they were just snooping through your files then I think you do.

Re:It depends

[Miscreatn]

You are correct, and proved my point. If an officer of the law, or anyone for that matter, sees you shoot heroin through your open window, then you have openly givin up your right to privacy by leaving that window open. Same thing with the "throwing out the trash" example. This is a grey area because the trash is still yours untill the garbage man takes it away. If it was an officer he would have probable cause to come and arrest you for commiting an illegal act. However if your neighbor sees you and reports you the police, they must investigate the incident, and if needed obtain a warrant.

The best example that I can think of are Hollywood Superstars, most of whom have little or no privacy. I agree that sometimes this is wrong and sometimes cruel, but they have given up that right to privacy when they are out in the open. Paparazzi (sp?) are some of the most, IMHO, inhumane people out there. But when a star checks themselves into a rehab clinic, and the camera goes off, then the whole world knows about it.

As for the tech, it's hard to say what he was really trying to do. When it comes down to it it's all about honesty. If he finds porn on you box and your ass is on the line, but was snooping (which is against company policy), he is going to hang you out to dry and come up with a reasonable explanition of how he found it.

Oh, please

[artifex2004]

If you pay someone to house-sit, and he or she discovers literal skeletons in your closet, do the police have to get a search warrant if the sitter invites them in? It's the same thing, here. The repairperson is acting as your agent.

Actually, I don't know, maybe they do have to get a warrant, so an alternate argument is that the repairperson, at least when the computer is at his or her place of business, has the right to alert the police to investigate something suspicious on his or her property. If you leave the country in a hurry and ask someone to store your belongings for you, and he or she drops a box while trying to put it in the attic and sneezes from all the white powder coming out when the box tears, he or she certainly has a right to call the cops and have them investigate if it's drugs or anthrax or just plain foot powder. So a repairperson should be able to call the cops and say "I was fixing this box this customer left, and ohmigod, disgusting, come over here, k?"

Should repairpeople go snooping? No. Neither should your house-sitter. But that's a separate discussion.

Re:Oh, please

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

the repairperson, at least when the computer is at his or her place of business, has the right to alert the police to investigate something suspicious on his or her property.

They need a search warrant to search your home because the fourth amendment says you have the right to be secure in your home. They need a search warrant to look through your personal files because the fourth amendment says you have the right to be secure in your papers. The location is irrelevant.

Re:Oh, please

[tokabola]

If you pay someone to house-sit, and he or she discovers literal skeletons in your closet, do the police have to get a search warrant if the sitter invites them in?

Yes, the Police have to get a warrant to enter the house. Only the property owner and/or legal resident (paying rent with signed lease) can allow the Police to enter your house - a house sitter, or other guest (doesn't live there full time) cannot. The proper proceedure would be to get a warrant based on the testimony of the house sitter.

There are legal exceptions to this in the case that it poses a danger to somebody, for instance the house sitter finds a homeless person you've kidnapped, tied up in your basement, and haven't killed because you'ld rather torture and rape them repeatedly since it's re-run season so you're bored.

While IANAL, I am a criminologist and have worked in federal law enforcement.

Tommy

What to do?

[jcnnghm]

I do on-site computer support for a living.

Occasionally, it is requested that I do data transfer and backups from one system to another. The trouble comes when a user doesn't know *where* all there files are, just what programs they use. (e.g. I need all my MS Word and limewire files moved over)

It is never my intention to go rooting arount their filesystem to uncover their midget porn collection, their warez library, or anything else. However, what the hell am I supposed to do if, in transferring their files I came across something that goes way beyond my personal line, such as a DV capture directory full of kiddy porn. Should that be reported? If you report that, should you report their MP3 collection? Where do you draw the ethical line?

Fortunately, I have never experienced anything this extreme, but at the same time on quite a few systems I encounter large MP3 repositories and a bunch of porn. Doesn't freak me out, I have just as much porn and just as many MP3's, but what the hell are you SUPPOSED to do if you stumble upon your amatuer kiddy filmmaker? Where is the line between exploitation, decency, and privacy? Anyone care to fill this in. Enlighten me.

Re:What to do?

[Anonymous Coward]

As many have pointed out, how do you know it's kiddie porn unless you open it? Is there any good reason to be opening video and picture files on a stranger's computer?

Re:What to do?

[Anonymous Coward]

Windows XP will default to the "thumbnail" or "filmstrip" view for folders with a signifigant number of pictures in them. I was in exactly this situation, a customer brought in a computer beacuse it was too slow. Turns out the hard drive was full, no space for the swap file. I ran an app that graphs the disk usage by folder, and there was one folder in the root of c:\ that measured 13GB. I opened the folder (named "_") to be greeted with a ten-year-old boy sucking a man's dick, tears streaming down his face. Other pictures showed that the dick belonged to my customer. In total, 13 GB of child porn, not all of it of him.
Should I have let this go? I didn't. I called the cops, who told me to call the FBI, who came to get the computer, waited in the back for the guy to come get his computer, and took him.
Was what I did unethical? Immorral? A violation of trust? Maybe, but I don't lose any sleep over it.
That said, when I catch my techs snooping through peoples systems they get one warning, if I catch them again, they're gone.

Bad position to be in

[Madoc Owain]

I've done some PC tech support work on the side over the years. I'm aware of the many ways files can get onto a PC without the owner's knowledge or consent. I'm also aware that there's some things I simply don't want to know about people. I don't have any intention of browsing through caches or looking at their browser/document history. However, you can't avoid seeing at least some portion of a user's directory structure when you're updating their software, installing drivers or removing spyware.

      Norton Antivirus and AdAware will show directory and file names as they are being scanned, and the locations of files that are infected. If I have to open a browser and type in an URL, if AutoComplete is turned on I may see some interesting things as well. If I have to delete infected files, I may see actual photos if the Explorer settings show thumbnails instead of filenames by default. I'm exposed to a lot of potentially damaging information just by sitting at the keyboard. Assuming something grabs my attention during my work, I may have to make a decision whether PeopleIveKilled.doc warrants further investigation or if a folder called toddlersex could possibly have an innocous meaning. I have to weigh my customer's right to privacy versus my conscience.

      So I ask my customers, "Don't put me in that position." Remove anything you wouldn't want your wife or daughter or dear sainted Aunt Gertrude to see. I won't go looking for anything but if I run across it, and it violates the laws of the land, I have no choice but to report it. It's better solution than to stare into the face of our current society's vices and let them pass.

      I imagine less scrupulous techs could use things they found as blackmail material to extort a larger fee, or create a sub-service where they would charge exorbitant amounts for data-retrieval but with complete privacy guaranteed.

      Why haven't we heard of a case where a computer owner finds pr0n on his system then accuses the PC tech who worked on it last of putting it there?

Re:Bad position to be in

[base3]

How about you just do what any other professional should do--make it a point not to notice, and not to snoop. I think technicians who rat out users for what they find when in a position of trust working on their machines should be publicly blacklisted and to the extent possible prevented from ever working in a position of trust again.

Re:Bad position to be in

[Madoc Owain]

Did you bother reading my post before hitting 'Reply'? I said quite plainly I don't snoop, and it's not possible to "not notice" since the output of anti-virus and spyware-removal programs show paths and filenames. If you "don't notice", you're suffering from a failure to convert short-term memory to long-term or you're simply failing to do your job properly.

Re:Bad position to be in

[Anonymous Coward]

You deliberately "don't notice." If you don't need to be poking at a file, you don't see it. You don't act on the information, unless it has to do what doing the job you were hired for.

That's professionalism. Not "Oh, if I happen to see it, it's fair game. And I might happen to see it, because, well, the anti-virus software scrolls path names by and I might notice an interesting one while I'm not looking."

If only they'd get widow, orphan and puppy cases

[geekotourist]

The EFF doesn't get to choose sympathetic posterboy cases, much as it would help them out. The EFF people are probably entirely squicked out and disgusted by the guy.

I'm sure they'd have rather defended the 4th Amendment and Computers on any other case. Say where the technician found reverse-engineered AIBO and XBOX code, or P2P software, or the Anarchist's cookbook, or growing instructions for Peyote, anything other than child porn. But this is the guy they got.

The EFF's major "bug that's really a feature" is that they attempt to work on major issues long before most people would recognize that the issue exists. In 1989, how many people knew what BBS's were, let along why it isn't constitutional to seize an entire server to check out one person's email? The EFF is fighting the equivalent of Physical and Link layer issues, while most people can only really get worked up about Application layer issues.

When you're working that early, you take the cases as they come. With the recording industry, much as the EFF would love to get a "RIAA threatens to eat babies at the widows and orphans facility" case, the XXAA never gave them that- its never going to give them one: it'll always be the rowdy college students first. They get 2600, not the NYTimes. They get Hamadi, not the girl scouts. They get Bernstein for the encryption case, not 'Nobel Prize winning Dr. Wonderful with her malaria-solving encryption device.'

The rich and sympathetic people getting arrested or sued aren't the people the EFF exists to help. They started off helping a gaming BBS, not Atari (and in the big picture let the gov't understand that seizing an email BBS is just as bad as seizing an entire post office). They helped Bernstein (led to a better environment for hundreds of US encryption companies: if you work for one, make sure your company has donated). Not that they aren't helping professors, but it is more likely to be students who get thrown into jail.

When you choose your principles first, you don't get to choose the cases.

New Math?

[CyberSp00k]

> The Patriot Act has made it possible to do end-runs around the Judicial system, one of the core parts of our country's checks-and-balances system, a system that has been in place for 4 centuries.

2005 (now) - 1787 (U.S. Constitutional Convention) = 218

218 mod 100 = 2

2 =/= 4

Just FYI.

Re:New Math?

[Anonymous Coward]

Wrong.

218 (mod 100) = 18

They DID get a warrant

[TekGoNos]

Yeah, they did.

Actually, the sequence was :
1. Computer Repair Technician finds something he believes is illegal on your computer.
2. Tech calls the cops

3. Cop comes to see tech
4. Tech shows cop what he found

5. Based on the claims of the tech and the cop the cops apply for and get a warrant
6. Cops search your computer
7. You go to jail, cops profit

Basicly, what EFF is upset about is 3&4, that the cops verified the evidence before getting a warrant.

The analogy is a handyman in your house, fixing the toilet, snooping in your bedroom, finding kiddie porn, calling the cops, who then come visiting to verify it is really kiddie porn, then getting out, applying for a warrant, then coming back and taking the kiddie porn.

Personally, I dont have that much of a problem with the act. However, if this passes through a trial, it might becomes a precedent : police can snoop on your computer without a warrant if they think they have enough evidence. And this opens up a whole lot of abuses. A whole lot of abuses the introduction of warrants was supposed to fix.

If I was the judge, I would let it pass (as they would have gotten the warrant based on the testimony of the tech alone), but make it clear that they should have gotten the warrant based on the testimony of the tech alone before any police officer looks at it.

The company likely HAD to report it

[Frank T. Lofaro Jr.]

Possession of child porn is a felony - no matter what.

So when Gateway took possession of the computer - they were possibly technically committing a felony of possession of child porn.

Reporting it was something they could do which would reduce their risk of prosecution.

my opinion

[AxemRed]

"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."

I see this as two different issues, and conventional laws can apply to them both with little modification.

For the first part that involves the tech finding potentially illegal things on the computer... Inviting a repair person to work on your private computer is like inviting a repair person to come into your private home and work on something. They have a right to work on what you tell them to, but they can't snoop around without your permission. If you invite someone to come and work on your stove when there's a meth lab in the kitchen, they have every right (more like obligation) to report it. However, if the meth lab is in your bedroom, they don't have any business there in the first place. If a repair person was caught snooping through your bedroom, they would get fired and possibly charged with trespassing. The cops may still want to get a warrant and look around, but the situation wouldn't arise very often because of the personal risk to the repair person. The same thing should happen to a computer tech looking through "My Documents" when he's supposed to be installing more memory. If he will get fired for snooping on a person's hard drive, he probably won't do it.

For the next issue with the cops looking through the computer without a warrent after being called... If someone calls the cops and reports seeing a meth lab in someone's house, they can't just break down the door and look. They will ask the owner of the house if they can look around, and if he refuses, they will get a warrant if they think it's necessary. The same thing should apply to a computer. If the techs find something incriminating on the computer, the police should still should have to get a warrant to search it. This is the part that needs to be clarified in the laws.

your daughter in the bathtub?

[Anonymous Coward]

stop taking pictures of your kids in the bathtub! dont you remember how embarrasing it was when your parents whipped those pictures of you out and showed them to all of your friends :)

This is a Fourth Amendment Case

[My_guzzi]

This is a Fourth Amendment Case...

"..against unreasonable searches and seizures.. ", What unreasonable is has been argued in front of courts ever since the ink dried on the constitution in the first place. Hover it is a dividing line. If I worked in a Automotive repair shop and vacuumed every crevice of each car, taking the contents of my vacuum cleaner and analyzing it in a Gas Chromatograph looking for illicit substances, no matter what I found it would most likely not be usable in a court of law. However If a customer brings in a car and there is blood dripping from the trunk and I hear moaning, I would be negligent as a citizen of our great nation not to act.

Now What I don't know is exactly what happened at Gateway. Did the technician randomly search lots of files, deleted files etc. Or did the idiot owner bring in a locked up computer when restored booted with some real vile picture set as his desk top Windowz wall paper.

In the end the EFF (and others) are looking for cases that will some day wind up in front of 9 old? men? to define just what kind of privacy one gets with their computer. This is going to take a wile .. how long ? you are not going to like it ..

CSI: The Matrix

[CyberSp00k]

A very interesting topic and one that reveals how much mythology and folklore there is about US Constitutional Rights, police procedures, and technical/professional ethics.

IANAL, however ...

I did RTFA and from what was presented there, the police blew it on this one. Gateway's privacy policy and the tech's morals/ethics may have required them/him to notify the police. Police procedures and legal guidelines SHOULD have mandated a warrant, once the "probable cause" evidence was shown them by the tech and before they so much as touched the machine to adjust the viewing angle. That's the way it's SUPPOSED to work (in most U.S. jurisdictions, YMMV).

Computer forensics 'sperts come in like the CSIs from the TV shows, with all sorts of techie gizmos and gimmicks. They can, and do, create a bitwise, forensic clone of the hard drive, take photos, make notes, and maintain a chain of evidence. For them, it's routine. Some of the toys they have are enough to make you drool with envy. It doesn't sound like any of that happend here - instead the locals came in like the guy in the Swiffer commercial.

Computer forensics cuts both ways. A good defense expert CAN show that the bomb-making instructions ended up on the computer without your consent or knowledge, just as a good prosecution expert can demonstrate that you really did keep two sets of Quicken books for your money-laundering home business.

But as has been noted here before, when it comes to drugs, taxes, terrorism, or kiddie porn, it's guilty until proven innocent. A computer forensics consultant I know had to obtain "Get Out of Jail Free" cards from the State DAs in two states to carry evidence back and forth across a state line for one case he was involved with. Had he been stopped, and his evidence bag examined, without them, he could have ended up incarderated for "possession" of kiddie porn. Talk about mindless, knee-jerk situations.

Oh, well, if you want to experience a wild life of techno-crime, consider a career in computer criminal forensics. The pay is great, you get to play with neat toys, and if you are really unlucky you'll get to meet a lot of VERY interesting people.

Re:CSI: The Matrix

[geekoid]

"A computer forensics consultant I know had to obtain "Get Out of Jail Free" cards from the State DAs in two states to carry evidence back and forth across a state line for one case he was involved with. Had he been stopped, and his evidence bag examined, without them, he could have ended up incarderated for "possession" of kiddie porn."

thats exactly as it should happen. What, if some guy gets pulled over and has kiddie porn, he can just say "I'm just transporting it for trial"?

I'm a tech and I see all sorts of stuff

[Anonymous Coward]

MOST of it is business secrets. I could care less about 99.999% of the things I see.
I see things on PC's in networks that I would PRESUME to be employee abuse of the resources.
I have to ignore it, as much as I would like to report them to their superiors, I have to bite my tongue because it's not my job..

I have seen stuff on my friends computers that I find offensive and have a serious problem with (gay). Nothing illegal but things I have a serious moral objection to.
If I had known these things about these people before hand I doubt we would have ever become friends.
Now, they know I've seen it but nothing is said.
It strains the friendship and I've distanced myself because I am strongly offended by what they are into.

Now if I were to find KP on someone's machine that I was working on, that's a tricky question.

If it was someone I know I would tell them that I saw it and that they better erase it and stop. I would tell them that I found and FBI trojan horse on their computer (a lie to encourage them to quit).. And at that we would part ways. I'll not be friends with anyone that is into KP.. That's the most despicable thing anyone could ever do and I personally believe that the only cure for child molesters is LETHAL INJECTION..

Now, on the other hand. If I was working on a strangers PC and in the course of doing so I stumbled upon KP on the machine, I would call the police and let them deal with it.

Whatever the police would do about it would not concern me. The number one thing is that the child molesters are STOPPED by what ever means it takes.

Of course if I found any terrorist stuff I would drop a dime on them in a heartbeat. If someone brings in a PC that boots up with the twin towers on fire as the wallpaper and has Arabic writing all over it, that's a pretty good indication that they MAY not be "good neighbors"....

Free Peltier

[falconwolf]

"Free Pelletier"

Thanks, I don't recall hearding this though I know Susan Sarandon supports Leonard Peltier in his appeal of being falsely conficted of murdering two FBI agents. I'm thinking she also support Mumia Abu Jamal another political prisoner.

Falcon

Re:Free Peltier

[Master of Transhuman]

Yes, there are photos of Ryder wearing the Peltier button on the Net - I've got some on my hard drive in my babe collection.

Ryder was also recently involved in lobbying for some murder case review in southern California.

She needs to chill out before the cops find a more permanent way to get rid of her than shoplifting.

She's the god-daughter of Tim Leary and she should remember how he got framed into prison.

I hadn't heard about Sarandon being involved with Peltier but I know she does a lot of political stuff so it's no surprise.

When I was at Leavenworth, I worked on Peltier's Unicore furniture factory crew for a couple days. We had a discussion about Web sites (this was late '90's). He had a lot of sites discussing his case but he was interested in getting up some sort of
"official" site, it seemed, and he was asking me about how to promote a Web site.

Waste of time - he's never getting out ever. If he did, the FBI would have to go down, so it isn't happening.

Well part of the equation is, or at least should b

[Sycraft-fu]

How the person came to find what they found. I don't think that people should have a right to invade your privacy randomly just because you hired them to work on something. If I hire you to fix my fridge, that is not an invatation to walk in to my bedroom and start rifiling through the drawers. Likewise if I hire you to repair my computer, that isn't an invatation to scan all my files, read my e-mail and personal documents and so on.

This is precisely the reason I don't let anyone touch my computer is because of this persasive attitude of many geeks (you can see plenty on /.) that they should be allowed to just look through my shit. No, not at all acceptable. I'm not worried about something illegal being found, but I have plenty of personal stuff on my computer. You have no right to look at it just because you happen to be repairing or using it.

Proof consumer put files there

[onehotvintage]

My question is, where is the proof that the files were even put there by the consumer? What is stopping a techie who, say, doesn't like the guy or is feeling particularly vindicative, from 'planting' supposed pornographic images and then calling the cops? The police should definitely have gotten a warrant, and then, of course, there'd have to be the proof that the files were put there by the owner of the PC. You could argue that once your PC left your possession, you have no control over what is on it.

Your freindly neighborhood comp tech

[Molochi]

1) Don't ask me to break the law. a) you ain't getting a free copy of windows b) I ain't gonna unlock your cable c) I'm not going to hack your neighbor's wifi. 2) I'm not paid to be a cop a) the cable company has no buisness this side of the cable modem. b) you are entitled to fair use of your copyrighted software. Bottom line is I'm your advocate, not your fall guy.

My experience with this..

[Anonymous Coward]

I was the lead technician in a computer store from 1994 until 2000. Around 1998 a guy brought his computer needing help with getting AOL connected. I was working on it and misclicked "open" instead of something else on AOL's menu and in his "file cabinet" I saw a ton of image files. The first one was "11gngbng.jpg" - I will remember it always. Yeah maybe I shouldn't have but I opened it. When I saw what it was - a minor engaged in an act with 3 fully grown men - I was disgusted. I mentioned it to the owner of the store, who told me to just finish the job and not to worry about it. That night I got a call around 9pm from the owner. He was standing in the store with a FBI agent and a local policeman. Apparently the owner went back to the machine and looked at it finding tons of kiddie porn. They wanted me to image off his drive, which I went back to the store and did. Three days later and he was arrested. He was sentenced to 55 years in jail. Do I regret it? No.

It's a simple case.. if you took your car into the garage with a kilo of coke in the trunk you can expect to go down. Same with this.

Hot stock tip.

[victorvodka]

Now might be a good time to sell any remaining Gateway stocks. My guess is that to the extent Gateway remains profitable, it's entirely due to its repair service, for which this story provides very bad PR.

I wonder

[geekoid]

if someone can bring suit against the technician for looking in areas that have nothing to do with the problem?

I invite a plumber to fix my plumbing, that doesn't give him the right to go through my underware drawer.
Or does it?
hmmm.

Re:I've said it before...

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, at least you're not afraid to hide the fact that you're a total douchebag.

Not true.

[geekoid]

WHat happens if the guy there to fix someones home goes to the garage to to inspect it, and find illegal activities going on?

Similiarly, what happens when a ech goes to a directory, and a bunch of thumbnails pop-up and show illegal activity?

I agree with your point, but it's not that cut and dry.

two points

[geekoid]

1) in realaity, when the police got there warrant and looked at the pictures, it would end there. At worse, the DA would put a stop to it.

2) unless you want picture of your daughter ending up on the internet, and possible not in a positive way, back them up before taking your PC to a technician.

Re:two points

[Anonymous Coward]

1) in realaity, when the police got there warrant and looked at the pictures, it would end there. At worse, the DA would put a stop to it.

Sorry. I knew someone who took photos of his kids playing with some other kids at the beach. All under 5, and wearing swimsuits. The guy at the photos processing place called the cops. After 3 years of going through the courts, he was convicted of producing and posessing child porn. He appealed, the appeal judge asked to see the original photos, and threw out the charges.

I'm not giving details, because the guy doesn't want anyone talking about those 3 years of hell, ever again.

Ever hear of integrity?

[thesnarky1]

I for one would never look at any folders I didn't have to, because I have no reason to. If I tell someone I'll do X to their computer, I do X, and no more. It's like writing a proposal for a real contract, and if you need to do an additional Y, you ask permission first. If I found out you fixed my box, and happened to go look to see if I had porn, I would fire you immediatly, and, if we'd signed a contract about what you'd work on, sue you for breach of contract. Would you like it if the machanic took apart MORE of your car in hopes that you had spare weed int the hub caps? I'd like to think that most computer techs out there would have the same decency to leave someone else's stuff to them. As for the tech finding stuff, well... if it was in plain sight (and I mean on the desktop, or in a folder he had good business being in) and IF it warrented the police, not "oh, this might be juicy", but another 9/11 or kiddie porn or whathave you, then sure, call 'em up. He'll tell 'em what he saw, they'll get a warrent (because of the extreme nature) and everything'll be nice and legal. However, going to the cops when it turns out it's nothing, and not even a legal nothing, this is again dispicable. I'd want to know that a warrent was served, just as much as if they searched my house while at home, because that's how the legal system is supposed to work. Oh, and next time you wanna see pr0n of his 'wifey' why don't you just ask? Oh, that's right, because you know he'd kick your butt. How about growing some balls, and acting mature?

You must have been crappy at it.

[geekoid]

I can think of several perfectly good scenerios why you would be looking in people computers.

espcially since most OS's will give you thumbnails of images.

Re:You must have been crappy at it.

[finkployd]

I eagerly await this problem this "master tech" solved by looking in an images folder, or better yet, one called "porn".

Finkployd

Backup before going to technician?

[Trinition]

2) unless you want picture of your daughter ending up on the internet, and possible not in a positive way, back them up before taking your PC to a technician.

Often times, when people take their computer to a technician, its because it was in an inoperable state which would preclude backing up.

or

[geekoid]

4) They will stalk her and kill you. in which case you wife gains insurance money.
5) Loss of Dignity.
6) and of course, Loss of privacy.

For me, It is not about being seen undressed, it's the idea that you have to prove your innocent of a crime.

case law

[Anonymous Coward]

is against the EFF. If you transfer your secrets to someone else, you have no further expectation that your secrets will remain secret.

Tech Support Policies and Attitudes

[Anonymous Coward]

I've done tech support for over 7 years. Honestly we don't care whats on the machine, and we really don't want to know. If the customer says his "wifetakebig1.mov" won't open, nobody really wants to look at it.

The company policy is you work with our files, they are ours after all, The OS files, affects everything, and garbage files, trash and temp needs to be cleared occassionally. If you start poking your nose into some ones PRIVATE files, you are gonna get it cut off and thrown out the door permanently. It's not just ethics. The companies tend to legally feel that files they don't have to interact with that they didn't write, they have no legal cause to access them. It would be computer tresspass.

Oh yes, IANAL, I'm a techie.

No it's not

[Sycraft-fu]

But I'll bet you that the tech didn't just happen to accidentally see these. I bet he went looking. I am a computer support guy, and I basically never run across people's files when fixing a system. I'm not looking where those might be kept because that's not what is causing the problem.

My bet? He did like some of the /.ers here were saying. He went scanning for JPEGs and MPEGs hoping to find porn to add to his collection. He found some, but they were kiddy porn, so he called the cops. That's just wrong to me. A tech shouldn't be going through your shit.

Also, I find a situation like this to be extremely problematic as it could have easily been planted by the tech. I mean the tech had unrestricted access to the guy's computer. I certianly know that I could easily put files on a system and alter the dates to make them appear to be older.

I just find the whole thing really problematic. If the pictures were in plain view (like somewhere the tech should be looking in an attempt to fix things) and if the police properly got a warrant, and if there was sufficient evidence to prove the tech didn't plant them, then fine. But this sounds extremely thin to me.

Its implicit in Amendments IV, V, IX, and XIV

[Skjellifetti]

Amendment IX,

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

coupled with IV,

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

V,

No person shall ... be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law ...

and XIV,

... No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law ...

add up to a Right To Privacy. Between them, what the Framers were saying was that if the state wants to invade your personal space, they had better be able to show a pretty compelling reason.

Oh, and when the Feds institute that system of internal passports that some folks are worried about in connection with the new driver's license law, remember that the Constitution guarantees no explicit Right To Travel either.

Sure it does...

[Anonymous Coward]

"btw the 4th does not offer "privacy" protection"

sure it does, let's take a look...
FOURTH AMENDMENT [U.S. Constitution] - '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.'

"secure" means I have it, Gvt. doesn't, I can look at it/have it, they can't w/o a warrent. just what do you think "secure" means here?

"persons, houses, papers, and effects" means Stuff, My PERSONAL Stuff.

"shall not be violated" and "but upon probable cause" means Gvt. had better have a Damn Good Reason.

"Warrants shall issue" and "Oath or affirmation"
means a Judge must OK it because Gvt. has shown good reason...

This all means this: My Stuff can be seen/had by me only, and only looked at or taken by Gvt. after a Judge has been convinced that good reason exists to believe I have/will do wrong.

Why don't you see the word "privacy" in the constitution? "Privacy" at that time meant "using the restroom" as in I need some "privacy" or a person's "private" parts.

I hope your not one of those that believes "sure they can search me, I have nothing to hide".

We ALL have *something* to hide. Would you want everyone to know what you did with Bruce for your Fraternity prank? didn't think so.

none are so wise as Seneca...and his witness.

That's not the problem

[Anonymous Coward]

If the technician sees child porn piccies, he should report them to the police. Then the police should get a search warrant on the basis of this report. Then the police should go search the computer "officially" and bust its owner.

The problem here is that the police missed out step 2 - they didn't get a warrant. That's the breach of privacy.

Privacy, shame and justification

[QuestorTapes]

Sorry, your logic is seriously flawed.

> The loss of people's right to privacy is a scary thing, but what scares me more is that our society
> hasn't progressed beyond this idea that skin is somehow shameful, wrong, or private.

First off: you're assuming the reason -why- people don't want to be viewed in a dressing room. No one but -you- said shameful and wrong.

Second off: anything I reasonably -can- choose to view as private in my life is mine to keep private. Anything.

If I choose to keep my skin private, that's my business. If I choose to keep my email private, that's my business. If I choose to keep my opinions on Leo Tolstoy, Woody Allen, or Hillary Duff private, that's my business.

I don't need to justify it to anyone in order to have an expectation that this privacy be respected, as long as I take reasonable actions on my part to retain that privacy.

Going into a closed dressing room is, in itself, a reasonable action to maintain privacy.

> But, why is it a private matter?

Irrelevant. The reason we talk about a -right- to privacy is to get past the whole "justify yourself" argument. Rights aren't granted by government or society; no one needs to explain why. If they choose to, that's their business. A lot of people have, and if you google, I'm sure you can find a number of reasonable arguments.

There is cause and effect relationship between rights and society, but you've confused the cause (rights) and the effect (society).

> but when it comes to privacy (another mythical construct).

Sorry, just because you wish to declare something "mythical" doesn't make it so. If you believe privacy to be a myth, that's fine; just don't expect that -saying- it's a myth someone requires anyone to agree with you or prove you're wrong. Many people still believe that there is an natural moral law that exists in -reality- that forms the basis for many of our laws and customs.

And, again, I am -not- saying skin is shameful, wrong, or even private if you don't want to view it as such. It doesn't make me uncomfortable.

What makes me uncomfortable is the willingness of some people to blithely demand that society turn itself upside down, and revoke laws and customs explicitly, in the law, based on their desire to reject those customs. Reject them all you wish; just don't expect everyone to agree with you or support your views in law.

Quagmire

[kalirion]

Oh my God! That one's having a heart attack!

Re:Quagmire

[Kevin DeGraaf]

What the hell is CPR? :-)

Sarandon and Peltier

[falconwolf]

I hadn't heard about Sarandon being involved with Peltier but I know she does a lot of political stuff so it's no surprise.

Yeap, here's a list of some of the vips who've signed petitions in support of Leonard Peltier.

When I was at Leavenworth, I worked on Peltier's Unicore furniture factory crew for a couple days. We had a discussion about Web sites (this was late '90's). He had a lot of sites discussing his case but he was interested in getting up some sort of "official" site, it seemed, and he was asking me about how to promote a Web site.

Some years have gone by since then but there is an "offical website" on Peltier's behalf, Free Peltier.org that's rather extensive. However I used to be active in a Peltier group at Yahoo!, Freedon for Leonard Peltier, and I seem to recall reading something about a fallout over the website so I'm not sure if Leonard is involved in it.

Waste of time - he's never getting out ever.

I hope he gets out but without something dramatic happening I don't see it. I'd say I thought the best chance he had of getting out was if Slick Willie, er Bill Clinton, had given him a pardon but while he gave out some to his cronies he couldn't give one to an innocent man.

Falcon

Re:Sarandon and Peltier

[Master of Transhuman]

I remember that pardon frenzy in the last minutes of Clinton's office. I think Mark Rich got a pardon, too - and the cops have been after him for years. Yeah, that probably was Leonard's best and only chance - unless somebody slightly less crooked than Clinton gets in and actually does it.

Naah, never happen - unless that President REALLY wants to piss off the FBI - not a good move, since who knows whether the FBI was involved in one or more of the Kennedy assassinations...:-) I remember watching the British spy show, "The Sandbaggers", and they had an episode about US assassinations - and the script was worded as if everybody in the world already KNEW the FBI assassinated Kennedy. It was interesting to see the take from a foreign country on that - they just assumed it was the FBI straight up.

And everybody everywhere assumes the FBI was behind the Martin Luther King assassination.

Super late, but...

[cr0sh]

There is no such thing anymore as "plain sight". When it comes to drugs and the way cops act, all bets are off. All a cop needs to search your car is "probable cause":

Scenario 1: You are driving down the highway out in the desert doing the speed limit, but one of your tail lights is busted. You get pulled over by a cop. You are driving an older volvo sedan, you have long hair and a beard, and are wearing a tie-dye t-shirt. You are 40 years old, a successful unix sysadmin, but you don't flaunt shit. The last time you smoked pot was in college, and that was a long time ago and you have better things to do now. The officer gets up to your window, and says "I am stopping you because you have a busted tail light...what is that funny smell?" - BAM! - probable cause right there, whether you have something or not. He is then free to proceed to look all over your vehicle. Hell, your car could be brand new from the factory, and that "funny smell" is simply the new vinyl - but no matter about that...your time is wasted, and if you do have something, you are hosed.

Scenario 2: Same a scenario 1, except this time you have single bud and a pipe in the trunk because you are on your way to having a good time at the lake (or whereever) - you are a normal law-abiding citizen, you don't drive stoned, but you do think that our so-called "War on Drugs" is a crock of shit, no better than Prohibition in the 1920s. But you don't keep the shit out, you have in a bag, inside of a small sealed cannister stuffed in a picnic basket. No where near in "plain sight", and no way to get to it while driving, certainly. Last time you smoked anyway was two weeks ago (you just spent the last two weeks pulling 14 hour days doing a system rebuild or something)...

Cop doesn't pull the "smell somthing funny" trick, but he doesn't like the way you look, you longhair hippy (never mind the fact that you are nowhere old enough to be of that generation), so he asks to search your car. You tell him no, get a warrant. He holds you there, and calls in a K9 unit. The dog sniffs your car, hits on the trunk, and BAM - probable cause. You are HOSED.

Hell, you could even play that last scenario slightly differently - you have just bought the old volvo off an old hippy couple up in Oregon and are driving it back home, not knowing about the busted taillight. You have your hippy look, you get pulled over, you refuse, and the K9 unit is brought in. Unknown to you, buried in the trunk behind a loose flap of carpet is a 30 year old joint from a happy time too long ago to remember - and the drug dog hits on it. BAM - probable cause, you are HOSED!

In none of these situations did the cop really have probable cause due to "plain sight". It really makes me wonder why a drug dog would be brought in at all, there was no real indication other than you looking like a longhair hippy for any such thing to be thought of. In the best case scenario, a lot of your time it wasted, and the cop will probably try to find everything wrong with your car to ticket you on just for fucking with him. The worst case scenario, you go to jail (or maybe a fine, or a couple of days, or something) for something you weren't even aware of, or something you WERE aware of, but in the grand scheme of things really shouldn't have been any different than an old can of beer or a bottle of wine in the trunk...