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

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.

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.

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

[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: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!

[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.)

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.