Slashdot Mirror
Appeals Court Rolls Back Computer Privacy Guidelines
Last year we discussed news of a court ruling that established a set of guidelines for how investigators can enact search warrants involving electronically stored data. Essentially, it required authorities to specify the data for which they were searching, and to take precautions to avoid the collection of unrelated data, whether it was incriminating or not. Now, a federal appeals court has thrown out those guidelines despite agreeing with the conclusion that investigators must only collect data specified in a warrant. Instead, the ruling (PDF) leaves us with a plea for "greater vigilance on the part of judicial officers in striking the right balance between the government’s interest in law enforcement and the right of individuals to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures."
yes, let's leave it to law enforcement to strike a proper balance. that sounds like it will work. uh huh.
Excellent point.
WHAT. THE. FUCK?
I know a lot of officers in various branches (police, *BI, sheriff, etc.) and count several as close friends.. but I wouldn't trust a single one of them to not go beyond the mandate of the warrant without something official binding them. The egos of most officers I have met have all been "I _am_ the law" style of bullshit that leads to people being hanged before their guilt has been proven and then "Whoops, we made a mistake. Oh well. I'm sure s/he was guilty of something." Meanwhile, the innocent person has been vilified in the news and can't do business where they live anymore.
We either need strict rules that our police officers have to follow, or we need psych evaluations to weed out the overzealous people who go too far, too fast, without consideration that someone is innocent until PROVEN guilty.
I don't have anything on my computer but music, email and movies. I don't break the law. I am a average citizen in this respect, and I have nothing to hide. Let them look at my computer if they like.
Nice to know our latest appointee to the Supreme Court is looking out for our privacy rights.
From TFA:
Perhaps the synopsis is biased but did a judge really say the law doesn't matter we should just rely on the good will and judgment of government officials? There is an unfortunate tendency for government officials and workers to view outsiders, that is ordinary people as as somehow evil and ignorant while citizens view government officials as evil and corrupt. Of course both views have an element of truth.
What balance is there to be struck between an 'interest' on the one hand, and a 'right' on the other? Is there a different legal definition of 'interest' to the one the rest of us use? Because I have an (entirely peurile) interest in seeing every attractive woman that crosses my vision starkers - but that's not an even slightly convincing argument for why I should be allowed to do so.
I think the idea behind the rules was that this couldn't happen:
"Yes sir, we have reason to believe you have terrorist training manuals on your hard-disk"
*search*
"Nope, none found, but we did find some music which the RIAA might be interested in, some videos the MPAA might be interested in, a particular movie Voltage might be interested in, also you said a rude joke in a chatroom which was not properly filtered and marked for adults only"
*lawsuits to death*
But now it can :)
It's time to go data fishing! Get those John Doe IP probable cause subpoenas ready, because they're gonna find "evidence" on any computer they want if they dig deep enough!
IANAL, but I would think part of the problem with incriminating data for a completely unrelated crime being found might have something to do with the proper steps required for the discovery of evidence.
Do any real lawyers or law professors want to weigh in on this?
The law of evidence is there for a good reason.
People have a right not to be harassed by flimsy tissue thin accusations without substance.
The reasoning for departing from same is not stated
Sure, let them say we are looking for a-z + anything else that might be incriminating - it will be overturned accordingly, remembering a-z searches has precedent saying exactly that is intolerable.
Which is why you have to write it down beforehand, and not make it up AFTER the search. Normally people who have completed primary school level education have the ability to say what they want.
If Fed's or the Police are dumber and more confused than an 11 year old - we have problems.
Overturning these laws is a dilution of natural justice and equity.
Those criminals or suspects with well heeled lawyers and deep pockets will now get off on a technicality. No matter how it is twisted 'fishing' is not allowed, and if they were not specific before the warrant was issued, then admissibility can be challenged later.
The opinion of one will be overturned on appeal , and those old pesky guidelines - well they were put in to stop automatic appeals, so I guess the court system is asking to be bogged down further.
I read "Apple rolls back computer privacy guidelines".
Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
All the more reason to start using TrueCrypt now if you haven't already.
Until the cops in the US get the authority to legally compel you to divulge passwords, your computer will be safe from prying eyes.
Whole disk encryption needs to become mainstream. There are many approaches. Here are a few useful links.
If you want your OS to encrypt everything, Fedora makes it easy. So does Ubuntu.
If you want an add-on software package, PGP works well. In a slightly more involved way, so does Truecrypt.
If you prefer a hardware solution, you can adapt regular, off-the shelf drives with an encryptor such as the Deskcrypt. Fully-encrypted hard drives are available from most vendors, too, but the ones I've found most generally useful (as in, "compatible with every other sort of hardware") are the Eclypt models from Stonewood.
I have owned and used all the products above and like them very much. If you feel different, feel free to Google things like "Momentus FDE" or "WinMagic" or "Guardian Edge Hard Drive" for other vendors and approaches. Take whatever path seems most reasonable and logical to you.
But for God's sake, would everyone please start encrypting your drives? That's not everything you need to do. It's just a minimal first step toward personal security. But it's a start.
The whole point of civil rights is to make the legal system more reliable by protecting people from unjust and wrong prosecutions. They're a check and balance against human error, laziness, incompetence and career ambitions that would taint the results of the legal system. Judges screw with them at the peril of our legal system because once the public starts to question whether the legal system is reliable, the attitude "well hell, they're no better at enforcing the law than the next guy" becomes mainstream and suddenly vigilantism becomes a defensible alternative since the legal system's results are basically about as good as mob justice.
'nuff said
FOX NEWS.com should be BANNED from television and internet. Have the Congress take it over and give us Truespeak.
The feds were getting mad because they had to pass up all the pronz they were finding.
Why should your PC/hardrive/NAS/thumbdrive/laptop/iPhone be more or less protected than the metaphoric filing cabinet?
Invenio via vel creo
We should let law enforcement decide what the 'proper balance' should be. After all they are 100% objective and have no ulterior motives....RIGHT?
The stated goal "striking the right balance between the government's interest in law enforcement and the [constitutional] right of individuals to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures" is invalid. There can be NO COMPROMISE between an "interest" and a constitutional right, at least not one that can be established by a court directly.
If the government wants to establish a compromise, they can try passing a law and if THAT is not unconstitutional then the courts can start "balancing it" within the existing framework.
It seems that the state has all the power of search, jail, torture by transport to Syria, and much more. Your constitution and laws don't mean a pinch of coonshit.
...once the public starts to question whether the legal system is reliable...
I wasn't alive when the starting happened. I don't know anyone who thinks that it is reliable. I have long ago stopped staring at that spot on the horizon where that crossed line used to be. Hopefully it'll make it all the way back around before I die. I'm looking east now. It's too late to fix what's broken, but just because you can't stop the dark from coming doesn't mean that the daylight won't return.