Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Appeals Court Rolls Back Computer Privacy Guidelines

Posted by Soulskill on from the let's-shoot-from-the-hip-instead dept.

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."

5 of 88 comments (clear)

  1. fp? by jefe7777 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    yes, let's leave it to law enforcement to strike a proper balance. that sounds like it will work. uh huh.

    1. Re:fp? by berashith · · Score: 4, Interesting

      agreed. There was a reason that the original rules were so strict. The founders could have requested that the powerful should just be nice in their handling of the masses, but they instead chose to be explicit. Sorry to the coppers if that gives them a little extra work, but it is nice to avoid a witchhunt.

  2. Re:Not sure what the big deal is by Darkness404 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Yeah, then somehow your computer contains CP or something. Digital evidence with technologically illiterate lawmakers and judges is a bad thing because it can be manipulated very, very easily.

    --
    Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
  3. Re:Not sure what the big deal is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Dear Slashdot Community,

    Please take 45 minutes minutes to watch this video:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc

    From the video:
    "Did you know it could be a federal offense for being in possession of a lobster?" ... 6:45 mark.

    And why this court ruling is significant...

  4. Re:A few useful links for disk encryption by BenEnglishAtHome · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I'm not looking for a free ticket from the feds. I've been a victim of a burglary, one of those things where they throw all your stuff on bed sheets and drag it out. I mean, cleaned out to the walls. Once you've been through that, your attitude toward personal security and privacy changes. At minimum, if someone gets my computer, I don't want them to have access to anything on it.

    If this protects me from malicious prosecution, too, then all the better.

    As for the overhead, yes, it's an issue. But for normal people, computers (including the I/O) are already plenty fast to do whatever we need. For 99% of folks, the overhead would be unnoticed. I admit you have a point, though. I work in an environment where every machine has full disk encryption and I've been able to test extensively. I have found a few cases where the encryption noticeably slows a machine. But even in those cases, just spec'ing slightly zoomier hardware would have rendered the issue moot.