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' "
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...
We have more to fear from the bungling of the incompetent than from the machinations of the wicked.
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?
...before you hand over your computer and login to a complete stranger?
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
"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.
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.
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.
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
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.
Evil people don't think they're evil. - George Lucas, Making of Ep III
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?
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!!!"
And All I Ask is a Tall Ship And a Star to Steer Her By
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.
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.
"Teleporting Rodents with D-Cell Battery Displacement" theory -- IgnoramusMaximus (692000)
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.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
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.
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.
"There are a dozen opinions on a matter until you know the truth. Then there is only one." - CS Lewis (paraprhase)
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
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.
Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
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?
.jpg that has any relivance to fixing a broken system.
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
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.
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-".
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!
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?
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.
There are 11 types of people. Those who understand binary, those who don't and those who are sick of this lame joke.
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.
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!
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
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.
Boobies never hurt anyone. - Sherry Glaser.
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.
Slashdot, home of supporters of free software, free music, and free speech.Except for Moderators that disagree with you.
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.
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.
What part of "A well regulated militia" do you not understand?
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!
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.
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
Should there be a Law?