Slashdot Mirror


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' "

3 of 564 comments (clear)

  1. Re:I demand privacy but not in the private sector! by Alex+P+Keaton+in+da · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

    --
    And All I Ask is a Tall Ship And a Star to Steer Her By
  2. What's the old saying? by saskboy · · Score: 4, Interesting

    "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.

    --
    Saskboy's blog is good. 9 out of 10 dentists agree.
  3. Re:I demand privacy but not in the private sector! by Master+of+Transhuman · · Score: 4, Interesting


    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.)

    --
    Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!