Slashdot Mirror


Supreme Court Declines Case Over Techs' Right To Search Your PC

An anonymous reader writes "A few years back, a guy was arrested for possessing child pornography after techs at Circuit City found child porn on his computer, while they were installing a DVD player. The guy insisted that the evidence shouldn't be admissible since the techs shouldn't have been snooping through his computer — and a lower court agreed. The appeals court, however, reversed, noting that the guy had given Circuit City the right to do things on his computer — including testing out the newly installed software (which is how the tech claims he found the video). The guy appealed to the Supreme Court, who has declined to hear the case, meaning that the ruling stands for the time being. So, basically, if you hand your computer over to someone else for repairs, at least in some jurisdictions, they may have pretty free rein in terms of what they're allowed to access on your computer."

28 of 485 comments (clear)

  1. Reading comprehension by Schraegstrichpunkt · · Score: 4, Informative

    So, basically, if you hand your computer over to someone else for repairs, at least in some jurisdictions, they may have pretty free rein in terms of what they're allowed to access on your computer.

    No, but whatever they find is admissible as evidence in court.

    That something is admitted as evidence in court does not mean it was legal to obtain that evidence. Similarly, if something is inadmissible as evidence in court, it could still be legal to obtain that evidence.

    1. Re:Reading comprehension by Nursie · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yeah, the real message is that you just don't hand you collection of illegal images over to anyone if you don't want them found.

      Like, if you have to go to the police station to bail out a friend, leave your drugs at home. These things are common sense.

      Also this guy should rot in jail.

    2. Re:Reading comprehension by diskis · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'd say it's more like the mechanic would rip open the door or dashboard to find drugs, when he was supposed to replace the brakepads.

      Dead guy in the trunk is like putting child porn as the desktop wallpaper.

    3. Re:Reading comprehension by QCompson · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yeah, the real message is that you just don't hand you collection of illegal images over to anyone if you don't want them found.

      You're assuming that "illegal images" is a cut and dry term. Not anymore. Have some myspace photos of your young looking friend in just her underwear? A "jailbait" inspirational photo in your picture folder as a joke? Manga which might be considered obscene?

      No matter how innocuous you may think your hard drive is, if you are a heavy internet user there's a chance there's something on there that someone might consider child porn.

    4. Re:Reading comprehension by StormReaver · · Score: 4, Insightful

      > Yeah, the real message is that you just don't hand you collection of illegal images over to anyone if you don't want them found.

      There's a secondary message in this story, and it doesn't apply just to computers. If you're going to use a piece of equipment for illegal activities, you'd better be able to maintain that equipment yourself. Every time someone else gets access to that equipment, you run the risk of getting caught.

    5. Re:Reading comprehension by Ephemeriis · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'd say it's more like the mechanic would rip open the door or dashboard to find drugs, when he was supposed to replace the brakepads.

      Dead guy in the trunk is like putting child porn as the desktop wallpaper.

      I know nothing about the case. I know even less about car repair. However...

      The fine summary is a little vague on the work that was actually done. It says they were "installing a DVD player."

      If they were simply installing a piece of software to play DVDs, they probably wouldn't need to go snooping through his HDD to test it. But lots of media playback software tries to do friendly things like scanning your drive for media it can play. So the DVD player software might very well have done just that, and come up with the movie in question.

      If they were installing a more general-purpose piece of software for playing back all sorts of media - VLC for example - they might very well have gone looking for a movie on his HDD to test. Depending on the hardware/software used to create a movie it can be in all sorts of different formats... And I've had clients come back and complain because we didn't associate the right filetype for their specific videos. So I always make a point of taking a quick look in My Documents to make sure everything is associated correctly.

      If they were installing hardware, like a DVD drive, then they might very well have tested its burning capabilities. I'll routinely do that here at work. I've got a CD-R/W and a DVD-R/W that I carry around for just that purpose. I'll pop the disc in, grab something random off the desktop or My Documents, and try to burn it. Again, a good opportunity to stumble across something unsettling.

      Again, I don't know anything about this case. Maybe the guy was just snooping. But maybe he wasn't. I know I've stumbled across some images on client drives that I wish I hadn't... Nothing illegal, that I noticed, but some stuff I really didn't need to see.

      --
      "Work is the curse of the drinking classes." -Oscar Wilde
    6. Re:Reading comprehension by WCMI92 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You're assuming that "illegal images" is a cut and dry term. Not anymore. Have some myspace photos of your young looking friend in just her underwear? A "jailbait" inspirational photo in your picture folder as a joke? Manga which might be considered obscene?

      No matter how innocuous you may think your hard drive is, if you are a heavy internet user there's a chance there's something on there that someone might consider child porn.

      Have any naked baby photos of your kids? Remember the mother who got arrested at Wal-Mart after taking such photos to be developed?

      This sort of thing isn't nearly as black and white as it is made to seem. Child pornography is a really HORRIBLE thing, and people who create it should be castrated, and people who DESIRE it need to be put into an asylum for psychological treatment. But I just pointed out something that could be subjectively called "child pornography" that probably in in the possession of the majority parents out there...

      Hell, I always HATED it when I was a kid and at the family gatherings my mom and grandparents would inevitably drag out my baby pictures... To me, that was annoying. To some freak in law enforcement who's out there trolling the `net trying to entice people to download his government sanctified stash of child porn so they can "bust" them, they were guilty of creating and disseminating child porn...

      --
      Corporatism != Free Market
    7. Re:Reading comprehension by iamhassi · · Score: 4, Informative

      "Have any naked baby photos of your kids? Remember the mother who got arrested at Wal-Mart after taking such photos to be developed?"

      link: "a WalMart worker in Pennsylvania reported 59-year-old Donna Dull to local authorities after Dull dropped off some film that included shots of her three-year-old granddaughter in and just out of the bath. Dull was arrestedâ"roughly, she saysâ"and charged with producing and distributing child pornography. The charges were dropped 15 months later..."

      --
      my karma will be here long after I'm gone
    8. Re:Reading comprehension by Tanktalus · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The OP did say "arrested" and not "convicted." I don't know about you, but my life would be hell on earth for those fifteen months. And probably for a long time thereafter, too, as idiots remember the arrest, and not the dropping of the charges for being stupid.

      The power to arrest comes with some very serious responsibilities. The police, evidently, aren't aware of that. What I'm wondering isn't why the officer in this case arrested the woman ("stupidity" explains that in a population size of one), but why his/her superior was okay with it. Someone wasn't doing their job, and BOTH of them should be fired with extreme prejudice for simple incompetence.

      Of course, I'm also wondering why it took the prosecutors 15 months to drop a case that 30 minutes of investigation could show was inept (drive to her granddaughter's house and verify the girl there matches the picture). There should have been heads rolling in the prosecutor's office, too, though I'll admit to not knowing if this was the case (I doubt it, though - I just don't trust the gubmint to get this right).

    9. Re:Reading comprehension by QCompson · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Wow. It was a picture of a kid in a bathtub. You think all bathtub photos of children should be investigated by the police? People like you frighten me more than "creepy neighbor #4".

  2. "Allowed to access" is a bit strong by pthisis · · Score: 5, Informative

    There's a difference between what they're "allowed to access" and what's admissible in court once they've seen it. The techs aren't the government--things they've seen don't automatically get excluded because they shouldn't have seen them.

    If a private citizen breaks into my house and sees something illegal, they can usually alert the cops and have knowledge of that thing be admitted in court, even though they themselves can still be prosecuted for trespassing and breaking and entering.

    --
    rage, rage against the dying of the light
    1. Re:"Allowed to access" is a bit strong by Corbets · · Score: 4, Interesting

      No, you've got it right, though I don't see much of a difference between what you wrote and what the GP said.

      Police and agents of the state are prevented from obtaining evidence illegally; doing so makes it inadmissible in court. However, information collected by private citizens can be used in court regardless of how it is obtained, though the private citizen can of course be prosecuted for any crimes committed during the collection of that evidence.

      Look at it this way: the laws regarding collection of evidence are not designed to protect criminals, they are designed to protect individuals from an overreaching state. But if the state is handed information without doing anything wrong (which includes asking private citizens to illegally obtain evidence, mind you), then it has the right and obligation to act upon that information.

      IANAL, though I did just read the chapter on forensics in my CISSP study guide.... :)

  3. Shoulda remembered the 11th commandment by ultraexactzz · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "Thou shalt not get caught"
    This is right up there with handing the cop your beer or dimebag as you get your driver's license out after being pulled over - if you have something illegal, don't give it to people who A) know that it's illegal, and B) know who you are.

    --
    Never underestimate the potential of Human stupidity. -Heinlein
  4. How to beat a Child Pornography Charge... by stewbacca · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You know, you could always choose NOT to have child pornography on your computer.

  5. From a different perspective by MichaelSmith · · Score: 5, Insightful

    A month ago a friend of my nephew was killed by a driver in a hit and run collision (I won't call it an accident). My brother in law told me that the way the police found the driver was that her boyfriend took the car to a repair place to be resprayed in a different color. Staff at the repair place looked at the damage and called the police.

    If you see evidence of a crime you have to call the police. Thats the law where I live.

    1. Re:From a different perspective by MichaelSmith · · Score: 4, Funny

      that may be. but you live in australia; which is entirely populated by criminals, as everyone knows

      Not only that but we also have rodents of unusual size to contend with.

    2. Re:From a different perspective by dkleinsc · · Score: 4, Funny

      Well, the way I've usually heard that:

      Australian immigration official: "Have you ever been convicted of a felony?"
      Traveller: "Is that still a requirement for getting in?"

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
  6. In other news... by Drakkenmensch · · Score: 4, Funny

    ... RIAA dumps Mediasentry in favor of new sweeping deal with Circuit City. Details are currently kept silent, but if you've been downloading music and your computer breaks down, you'll know.

    1. Re:In other news... by Drakkenmensch · · Score: 4, Interesting

      If you can't see that difference you ought to seek help quickly.

      Missing the point entirely. I wasn't implying that child porn is on the same level as ill-gotten downloads, rather that if the supreme court allows tech support to gather evidence usable in court, what's stopping the MPAA and RIAA to pay tech shops to tear through their customers' hard drives for any evidence of downloads, and report to them directly their findings along with the culprits' names and addresses?

  7. Another cause for concern... by Mistshadow2k4 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It would be almost brain-dead easy to put anything you want on a computer and then change the file properties to look like it was there before you gained access to the machine. I could do it on any given morning before I've even had a sip of coffee.

    --
    I dream of a better world... one in which chickens can cross roads without their motives being questioned.
  8. what kind of defense is that? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "the techs should have not snooped" is a defense that implicitly admits the guy had downloaded the video. He get jailed, that's the spirit of the law.
    What's troubling is that a pc which is tampered with by a third person, that is the tech repair guy, is then admitted as proof.
    A random technician is elevated to the rank of police forensic tech! but how can you trust him not making mistakes (restoring somebody else's partition) or him being corrupted into intentionally downloading illegal stuff to a client PC? nevermind child porn, all you need to ruin a person are a bunch of mp3s, in this brave new world.

     

  9. Re:If it wasn't child porn by CajunArson · · Score: 5, Interesting

    No they wouldn't have been, because there is nothing about this case that is legally novel or particularly controversial. The techs were not state actors (meaning working for the government either officially or at the direction of somebody from the government). Therefore, the 4th amendment rights to protection from unreasonable search & seizure do NOT apply (notice how I'm NOT talking about expectation of privacy... you don't even get to that issue when there's no state action).
          There have been cases in the past where criminals have broken into people's houses and stole items that prove crimes (like say papers proving bank fraud or something like that). Later when the cops bust them and recover the items, those papers were completely valid as evidence against the original owners of the papers, even though the police would have needed a warrant to get the papers if they had conducted a direct search & seizure. If a criminal breaking into your house doesn't count as state action, then voluntarily handing over your computer to techs who are supposed to know how to fix the computer is not the brightest move.

    --
    AntiFA: An abbreviation for Anti First Amendment.
  10. Re:This is SO going to get abused by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 4, Informative

    If the government required the IT shop to look for that stuff and report it, I am pretty sure the Supreme Court would intervene and rule any evidence so obtained inadmissible. Such a law would move the IT shop from private citizen to government agent. The "loophole" you are referring to has existed for quite some time.
    It has long been accepted that if someone breaks into your house and finds evidence that you committed a crime, that evidence is admissible in court, as long as they were not asked to do so by the authorities. If the person was asked to do so by a government official, courts have ruled that they become a government agent and illegal search and seizure rules apply.

    --
    The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
  11. It's a huge barrel of worms by hacker · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Years ago, I worked for $BIG_PHARMA, and in one of the labs, there was a shared printer and some shared PCs. Each PC required a user to log in, using their own credentials.

    One day, one of the female scientists walked over to the printer to retrieve some print jobs, and found full-color pr0n prints sitting on the printer that someone had printed from one of the shared PCs in that lab.

    An investigation ensued, and they found the offending machine, but couldn't pinpoint who had actually browsed to the site or printed the images. What they did find, was a VERY organized local directory of pr0n on the machine.

    When they were looking through the upstream proxy and web logs, they found the site that the images were sourced from, found the date and time they were viewed and requested, etc. They finally figured out who the culpret was... and terminated him.

    HOWEVER , they also found hundreds of other PCs across the company visiting the same site all over the logs, including some VERY high-level directors.

    So now what do you do? Do you just fire the one person who was caught because of the reported incident, or do you start firing everybody because they're guilty of the same "offense" (browsing restricted content on company resources).

    I don't know how it ended up, but I do know a lot of people were talked to and put on probation/had their public web browsing rights restricted or removed (only internal/intranet allowed).

  12. Re:Yup! by hairyfeet · · Score: 5, Interesting

    As someone who has worked PC repair for ages (as my oldest says "when dinosaurs roamed the earth) allow me to enlighten the childrens here. First i have been buds with some best buy guys over the years, and I have known a few that kept external drives with .BAT files that would trawl your drive for .jpg, .avi, etc. Are you gonna trust that guy not to fuck up and drop something off of said drive while he is looking for files to steal? It is like asking the guy robbing your house not to drop crumbs on your carpet.

    Second, I can tell you from experience working on clients computers that there is some seriously nasty malware out there that will do all kinds of nasty shit to your PC, including leaving nice backdoors where Mr. Malware writer can go in and pretty much do anything he wants. I have also seen clickjack bugs that will open up 20+ windows at a time to many different topsites INCLUDING those that advertise child pron. Now according to the law that person could be rotting in jail now for having a bug. Now you may get cleared later but after how much money? What if you don't have the cash for a good lawyer?

    That is why my customers can bring their PC to me without fear. Because unless they tell me to go into the My Documents folder I ain't going there. I am working with the desktop and the system32 folder and that's it. That "I needed data to burn" bullshit is just that. The geek squad guys have piles of CDs and flash drives lying around just like I do. When I need to test a burner I simply use the software CD that came with it, or drag my repair tools folder off my flash. But trust me, anybody who has worked PC repair for any length of time knows that story is bullshit. I have known so many guys with porta drives filled with other folks stuff that it ain't even funny.

    Have I worked on somebody's PC in the past that may or may not had kiddie porn? Probably but I wouldn't have known because I don't go looking for stuff to steal. To me it is like the guy that comes in to spray your apartment looking through your underwear drawer. It ain't my job to be an undercover for the cops. I just fix the box and hand it back, which is what the geek squad guys SHOULD be doing but I can tell you from talking to quite a few ain't the case. And I think that is the heart of the matter. You know the geek squad guy was stealing, I know the geek squad guy was stealing, hell I'm sure the cops knew it to. letting the geek squad guys steal whatever they want as long as they are good snitches is bullshit and we all know it. But as long as the courts let them get away with it they'll keep right on loading their hard drives. It isn't like Best Buy corp is gonna give a fuck if they help themselves as long as your check clears.

    --
    ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
  13. Re:Justice... by Darkness404 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The problem is there is a mass global rebellion to copyright laws. You saw that over in Sweden where a previously unknown and niche party managed to get EU representation. You see it on /. on TPB, all over the internet. Its about as unpopular as prohibition was.

    --
    Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
  14. Re:Justice... by TheRaven64 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    You have something in common with many lawmakers today; you are completely missing the point behind this law. The obvious reason for not allowing evidence found illegally is that it is not trustworthy; if someone is willing to break the law to find evidence, how do you know that they are not willing to break the law to plant evidence? The more important issue, however, is that it undermines the police. If you report a crime, and there is a good chance that the result will by your conviction for some other crime, are you going to report the crime in the first place? Probably not. This is already happening in the US, where high-profile lawyers are recommending that you never talk to the police because everyone is guilty of something, and it's easier for the police to find what you are guilty of than it is to solve the crime you reported. Enforcing the law in such circumstances becomes increasingly difficult.

    --
    I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  15. Yet more perspective by BenEnglishAtHome · · Score: 4, Interesting

    First job out of college, I was an apartment maintenance man. Commonly, people would call in problems and I'd go into their place to fix things during the day while they were at work. I saw all manner of illegal stuff and it never occurred to me to call the police. I've seen coffee tables literally heaped with a kilo of weed in a very neat pyramid, but I'm not a cop and it's not my job to tattle on other folks, so I just forgot about it.

    The only time I did anything to change the status quo was when someone was taking action that damaged the property. I was an agent of the property owner, so if you painted your bedroom black (It takes gallons of expensive Killz to cover black well enough to rent the place after you move out) or if you wallpaper your bathroom with porn (I wonder what kind of impression that made on any female houseguests?), it was my job to report and take action.

    Sometimes, the action was pretty simple. For example, someone stole most of the furniture from around a pool. A few days later, I got a ticket to fix a leaky faucet. When I went into the apartment, there was our pool furniture, covered with towels, being used as a living room suite. I didn't say anything to anybody; I just put the furniture back out by the pool. Resident was a little sheepish after that.

    Nowadays, I fix computers for a living. When I see something dodgy on an employer-owned computer, it's my job to report it. But on those occasions when I've done work for friends, even when I see something that might be dodgy, I don't take the time to look. It's none of my business. I'm not a cop and outside of work, it's not my job to tattle on you.

    Now, here's where I get twisted up. What's the legal obligation of someone who sees something on your computer? I would imagine some jurisdictions have tried to make it illegal to look away when you accidentally stumble across something that might, at first glance, seem a bit to young to be doing what they're doing. In fact, wasn't there a law proposed in Texas that would have required all computer repair shops that do file recovery to have an investigator's license issued by the state just so that they'd hove some idea how to maintain a chain of custody and some legal obligation to actually report what they see rather than ignore things (like I used to do?

    I'm not sure what the law is, so I don't work for friends ever since my sisters best friends sons computer needed help and I found, in addition to multiple virus infections and no anti-virus software, a large collection of sexually explicit webcam vids he'd made with his contemporaries. (I'm sure they were all over 18 years old, of course. They may have all been freshmen in high school but I keep telling myself that there were all over 18.) I simply don't want to deal with that stuff so I no longer help people who come to me with "My kids computer is really slow; can you help?"

    Likewise, if I worked at Best Buy or some such repair depot, there's flat out no way I'd look at anything on the drive I didn't absolutely have to to get the job done. I just don't need the drama in my life.