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."

15 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. I'm going to go with... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  3. Well... we're boned. by AltairDusk · · Score: 4, Informative

    Nice to know our latest appointee to the Supreme Court is looking out for our privacy rights.

    From TFA:

    Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan, as solicitor general last year, had urged the court to reverse itself amid complaints that federal prosecutions were being complicated, and computer searches were grinding to a halt, because of the detailed guidelines.

    1. Re:Well... we're boned. by rotide · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Meet the new boss?

  4. 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.
  5. Abusable by Haedrian · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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 :)

    1. Re:Abusable by Cornwallis · · Score: 3, Funny

      So. Ahhhh....

      Hmmm..... Errr......

      Where *can* I find "MyGirlfriendThreeMenSomeMudAndABaseballBat.avi"?

    2. Re:Abusable by Lloyd_Bryant · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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 :)

      No - the rules were intended to prevent a repeat of what *did* happen:

      1. Feds get a warrant to obtain drug testing records of 10 specific baseball players (based on actual evidence against those 10 players).
      2. Judge specifically limits them, saying that they have to separate out the records of everyone else, and only keep the records on the 10 specific players.
      3. Feds ignore judge's limits, getting records on hundreds of individuals (not limited to just baseball players). No attempt is made to separate out the records on the specific players.
      4. Feds then use the info on other players (that they previously had no reason to suspect) to issue supoenas for evidence against those additional players.

      What's really scary about this whole mess is that the government is relying on the "in plain sight" doctrine, which basically states that if an officer observes something that is in plain sight during the course of a legal search, whatever the officer observes can be seized and used as evidence even if it wasn't listed on the warrant. For instance, if they're searching your house on looking for stolen goods, and they see your stash of pot, they can seize it and charge you with possession.

      But once you have access to a computer, pretty much anything on it is readily accessible (unless encrypted). So applying this doctrine to digital searches ends up being analogous to getting a search warrant for a specific set of (dead tree) files, and then claiming that *all* of the files in the file cabinet are now "in plain sight", and as such they can browse them to their heart's content.

      The court *did* uphold that the supoenas, and any information resulting from them, were invalid. But by removing the specific guidelines the earlier court had created, they've opened the door to a repeat performance of this whole mess. Which you can bet *will* happen fairly quickly.

      --
      Don't tell me to get a life. I had one once. It sucked.
  6. Re:Not sure what the big deal is by captainpanic · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    I don't have any weapons or drugs in my house, I still don't want a police officer to come in unasked and search the place, or look through my windows to what I have inside, or what I am doing. My computer, and the data on it, are just as much in my house as the stuff in my drawers and closets.

    And anyway, I wouldn't be so sure that you don't break the law. The fact that you don't know that you break the law does not mean you don't actually break it.

  7. Re:Not sure what the big deal is by jefe7777 · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Parent post almost sounds like sarcasm. But if it's serious, here are a few points you might consider:

    .

    Do you really know the laws? There are thousands on the books, and thousands created each year.

    Do you really know what's on your computer? If you're the average citizen, then there's a high probability that your computer has been or will be compromised at some point. "Hello Mr. Smith, we have some bad news for you. After forensic examination of your hard drive, we found evidence of money laundering, child pornography, and several thousand instances of copyright violation. But don't worry. We're going to make you an offer you can't refuse.

    And you would not be able to rely on the common sense of law enforcement and the criminal justice system. You see, this is an adversarial process. It's not "Innocent to proven guilty". Law enforcement is tasked with making convictions, among other things. Numbers count. There's also this other little problem, the one of "low hanging fruit", ever heard of it? It's a reference to the fact that people tend to do as little as possible, and when that expresses itself in agents of the state, e.g. law enforcement, what you end up with is the majority of their efforts are expended on two bit criminals, and unlucky stupid people that are of no real threat to any one.

    Here in the U.S., if I'm not mistaken, we're at the top of the list for the number of people imprisoned as a percentage of population. This leads me to believe that we incarcerate people for a lot of petty bullshit, especially the poor.

    Here we go: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_incarceration_rate

  8. 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...

  9. Re:Not sure what the big deal is by Hylandr · · Score: 3, Funny

    You have *NO* Idea how badly I want to cross state lines with poultry on my head again.

    Oh those were the days...

    - Dan.

    --
    ~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
  10. Re:Not sure what the big deal is by ScrewMaster · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Do you really know the laws? There are thousands on the books, and thousands created each year.

    It's hard to control a free man who is innocent of any wrongdoing. He'll just tell you to fuck off. But if you make that free man a criminal, even if he doesn't know it yet, you've got him by the balls.

    --
    The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
  11. A few useful links for disk encryption by BenEnglishAtHome · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.