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_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!

[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!

[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!

[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!

[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!

[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!

[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!

[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!

[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!

['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!

[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!

[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!

[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!

[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!

[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!

[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!

[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!

[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!

[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!

[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!

[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!

[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.

How about encrypting your important files...

[joelparker]

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

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?

[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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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: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: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".

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.

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: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.

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.

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.

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: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: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.

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.

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.

[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: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?

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.

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!

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: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.