Judge: No Privacy Expectations For Data On P2P Networks

An anonymous reader writes "A federal judge in Vermont has denied a motion to suppress evidence filed by three defendants in a child porn case. The three had alleged their Fourth Amendment rights were violated when police used an automated P2P query-response tool to gather information from their computers. That information subsequently led to their arrest and indictments. The judge held (PDF) that the defendants had either inadvertently, or otherwise, made the information available for public download on a P2P network and therefore couldn't assert any privacy claims over the data."

Comments

Hold on

[Hatta]

If you run a service on the internet, you have no expectation of privacy of the data you serve. That sounds reasonable enough. But why then was weev imprisoned for downloading data from a publically facing web server?

If weev can be imprisoned for computer hacking by using a publicly facing server in ways not intended by the owner, why aren't the police here facing similar charges?

Re:"Available for public download" - AT&T and

[Hatta]

In this case they implied consent of making their information public by using that network, an AT&T customer did not imply consent of their information being made public.

AT&T implied consent of that information being made public by not implementing any sort of authentication. From TFA:

"The evidence overwhelmingly demonstrates that the only information accessed was made publicly available by the IP address or the software it was using," Reiss wrote. "Accordingly, either intentionally or inadvertently, through the use of peer-to-peer file sharing software, Defendants exposed to the public the information they now claim was private."

Could you not say exactly the same thing about AT&T's "private" data? Substitute "peer to peer" with "web server" where appropriate.

In other news...

[sirwired]

In other news, the Police also do not need a warrant to attend your public meeting. They don't need a warrant to read the book you published on the rack of the local bookstore. They don't need a warrant to browse around your open store in the local strip mall.

And they don't need a warrant to download data you offered up to any member of the public and browse through it to find incriminating evidence.

Re:"Available for public download" - AT&T and

[Hatta]

Are you even aware of the particulars of the script kiddie attack that Weev did to get that data?

Weev wrote a script. In this case the police used "an automated P2P query-response tool". What's the difference?

By your logic just because someone has something on a web server they are sharing it with everyone

If you fail to put any authentication on it, then yes. How else is the web supposed to function?

Let me guess, you think credit cards and health records are fair game too?

If you post your credit card number on a public website, then yes it's totally fair game for me to download that information. Using that information to commit fraud is still illegal of course.

Re:well, of course

[Runaway1956]

"2) Going down the eugenics and forced sterilization route is a slippery slope straight to hell. Look at what we used to do in the 1930s. It's the stuff of nightmares."

Sorry - I have to disagree.

By that logic, all firearms should be outlawed, because some firearms have been used to commit crimes. A LOT of people will latch onto that, and clamor for stricter gun control - but the logic doesn't stop there. Since some automobiles have been used to commit murder, then all automobiles should be outlawed. Knives have been used to murder, so all knives should be outlawed. Rocks have been used to commit murder, blah blah blah.

Horrible things have been done, in the name of science, and specifically eugenics. Does that necessarily mean that any studies into eugenics is evil? I say, "Not only NO, but HELL NO!"

While I will readily admit that eugenics can be pretty damned scary, it has the POTENTIAL of weeding out a lot of hereditary diseases and conditions. If scientists announced tomorrow that they could screen for cystic fibrosis, with greater than 99% confidence, and abort the fetus early in the first trimester, would you object to that? Or, even better for those who oppose abortion for any reason: Mother could take a prenatal supplement that would guarantee that she couldn't conceive a child subject to cystic fibrosis. She simply rejects any sperm. Yes, I'm pulling this out of my ass, it's entirely from dreamland - but IF it were possible, would you object?

How 'bout if we could prevent elephantiasis, or mongoloids, or any number of deformities and conditions? Would you object to weeding out alcoholism?

Eugenics isn't evil in and of itself. I feel that we have a responsibility to take reasonable actions to make future generations healthier. Or, smarter. Or stronger.

Forced sterilization? If we got so far along that we could screen for all the many conditions that make people's lives so miserable, sterilization wouldn't be a necessity. Instead, Mother can pick and choose traits, simply rejecting any and all number of undesirable traits.