Slashdot Mirror
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."
nothing has ever been private on the internets.
So when AT&T made their iPhone subscriber list "available for public download" that implicitly gave people on the internet permission to access this private information? Oh wait, they sentenced Weev to jail time for that. I'm so confused.
And no, I'm not defending child porn users. Well, I guess I sort of am. But not... Darn it, you guys know what I mean.
Silly peasant, aristocracy have their own set of laws and courts.
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?
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
The ruling is on, "made the information available for public download on a P2P network" there are plenty of private p2p services. If you make your information available to everyone then of course the police don't need to go through red tape to get that information. Non-story
/* TODO: Spawn child process, interest child in technology, have child write a new sig */
And no, I'm not defending child porn users. Well, I guess I sort of am. But not... Darn it, you guys know what I mean.
Kiddie porn pirates are not the problem, the problem are all the people involved in the production. If you believe the MAFIAA's rhetoric the pirates are the solution since they are destroying the jobs of all the hard-working people in the kiddie porn industry.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
my privates have been on the internet.
It would potentially mean it could be used as evidence against people without a search warrant. It certainly mean it could be used as evidence against AT&T if it showed evidence of a crime since they were the ones who made the mistake.
If you believe the MAFIAA's rhetoric the pirates are the solution since they are destroying the jobs of all the hard-working people in the kiddie porn industry.
I was gonna say the same but couldnt come up with a way of saying "think of the children and download kiddie porn" without it coming across the wrong way.
Yeah, I don't see what the issue is. They were sharing these files, or left them in folders their P2P software would automatically share.
The article shows the police went ot of their way to deliberately not download the files, presumably for 4th Amendment search reasons, though why even that would be a problem I don't know. They were deliberately and knowingly sharing those files.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
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:
Could you not say exactly the same thing about AT&T's "private" data? Substitute "peer to peer" with "web server" where appropriate.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
I was gonna say the same but couldnt come up with a way of saying "think of the children and download kiddie porn" without it coming across the wrong way.
I think the take-away here is that the MPAA and RIAA are steadfast in their support of kiddie porn producers.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
It's a goose/gander precident thing. Now, when Disney puts its movies on a P2P site, they can no longer claim an Oops.
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
IANAL, but there comes a point when every law reduces to some arbitrary judgment call. If I leave a box of donuts open in my closed (but not locked) office, I might expect coworkers not to eat any. On the other hand, leaving the same box of donuts in the break room makes that assumption unreasonable. In both cases, there is absolutely nothing stopping coworkers from getting to the donuts; society has decided that putting the donuts behind a door makes them my property, whereas putting them in the break room makes them everybody's.
Making something available via a Web server with no authentication is a bit like leaving the donuts in my office. Unless you checked, you wouldn't know they were there; I wasn't advertising their whereabouts. And even if you somehow knew they were there, the fact that I'm not advertising means that the social contract prohibits you from going and getting them without asking. The P2P network is a lot more like the break room - maybe you didn't know the social convention, but that doesn't suddenly mean you're entitled to complain about it. Learn from your mistake and move on.
all sorts of things would become legal.
(Un?)fortunately no, your government overlords are not held to the same laws you are. As an example, you'd be arrested if you went around looking in open windows. Cops can do that all they want.
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
IANAL, but there comes a point when every law reduces to some arbitrary judgment call.
A public, unauthenticated internet service is a public, unauthenticated internet service. There is no justice whatsoever in treating them differently.
This discrepancy only demonstrates to what degree justice is lacking in the US. Justice is blind, but in the US corporations like AT&T get special treatment under the law.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
False analogy. This case is not controlled by copyright law. This is a fourth amendment case. Those two bodies of law have almost nothing to do with each other substantively (yes, there may be fourth amendment implications to how police investigate copyrights, but that's separate from the substance of copyright law). The question here is whether the defendants had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the data, not what they subjectively hoped people would do with it. If you grow weed in an open field, with a sign that says, "Cops don't look!" it doesn't matter that you subjectively intended to exclude police from seeing what was in the field. Your expectation of privacy, if you had any, was not reasonable.
Today's Sesame Street was brought to you by the number e.
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.
Another opinion is that these are two different kinds of services intended for two different kinds of uses.
What exactly is the meaninful difference between the two services? Functionally, they are identical.
That's a valid opinion, but possibly not a widely employed social convention.
You know what is a widely employed social convention? That unauthenticated web services are free to use by the public.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
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.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
No, because the copyright holder didn't put the material out there.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
They were deliberately and knowingly sharing those files.
The "knowingly" part is the only question in my mind. From TFP:
had either inadvertently, or otherwise, made the information available for public download on a P2P network
"Inadvertently" is a big word. Does the same apply if there is a crack in your curtains through which the papers in your home can be seen? Or, as others have pointed out, does the same apply when a well-connected corporation inadvertently exposes their data to the public?
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
Intention seems to be the definitive factor for you, so riddle me this: did the kiddie-diddlers intend to expose incriminating evidence? If not, then this is a discrepancy in the application of the law -- not entirely unexpected, but still worth pointing out.
Whoever this AC arguing with you is, they should really consider reading the summary before digging any deeper.
Specifically, the last sentence, where the judge states that intent has nothing to do with the ruling (admittedly fucked up, but it does technically legitimize weez's access of the files AT&T made public-facing).
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
RFTS, dude:
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.
"inadvertently made public" == "did not intend to make public."
Intent has fuck-all to do with the ruling; per the judge, what these pervs did and what AT&T did are exactly the same thing.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
WeeV had to lie in order to gain access to the information.,
That's the difference.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
A public, unauthenticated internet service is a public, unauthenticated internet service.
Weev did not make a standard query to a server and get information. He had scripts that sent millions of possible imei's to the server to get information for that specific user. He was convicted because he use IMEI's that did not belong to him and therefore masqueraded as the owners of those phones to download the information.
Weev was convicted of identity fraud
Weev was unjustly convicted.
he was lying about who he was to get access to data he was not authorized to access
He wasn't lying about who he was, any more than I'm lying about who I am when I access "http://slashdot.org/~bws111"
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
In cases like that the courts will use a 'reasonable person' test.
I don't see how any reasonable person can determine that a publicly facing web server without any sort of authentication is not free to access. Authentication is how authorization is implemented on the internet. Any other policy will break the internet.
If there was a link off of att.com
How do you know you are authorized to visit att.com in the first place? You submit a query, and see if you get a response. Exactly what weev did.
The police do not need authorization to access data that has been exposed, intentionally or not.
The police need a warrant supported by probable cause to access anything a private individual can not. If it's illegal for weev to use a script to access unprotected files on a web server, it's illegal for the police to use a script to access unprotected files on a P2P server.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
I think the notion that CP somehow extinguishes a fire in a pedo, preventing harm, is groundless.
How can you be so sure?
It goes against common sense
Come on, common sense only goes so far... should we kill the witch because she does/doesn't float? Some centuries ago the common sense answer would be "kill her either way".
and 60+ years of pr0n research.
Would you care to point me to this research?
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. my claim is reasonable and rooted in the common human experience. it is prima facae true.
Sure, your claim is reasonable, but I'm not so sure it is true. I didn't claim anything, I just raised a question, which is reasonable as well, not extraordinary at all.
`echo $[0x853204FA81]|tr 0-9 ionbsdeaml`@gmail.com
Thanks to the power of precedent, not any more.
Child porn is very handy for setting a precedent, because judge and jury alike will usually so loathe the victim they'll do anything to see a strict sentence happen. If you've a defendant you can prove had child porn, you could probably charge them with regicide and conspiracy to blow up Pluto - and still have a chance of a conviction.
Use of the porn leads will lead to an actual victim at some point if the porn user lives long enough and gets the opportunity.
I can spew forth unprovable, nonsensical statements, too. Must I?
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
There have been acquittals for CP, but those are cases that never should have been in court in the first place. Kelly Hoose is the big one that comes to mind (I think from 2006) because he spent four years fighting in federal court on CP possession charges over pictures that were watermarked by a legit site and had a model that was well over 21 in them. They used something called the "Tanner scale" to claim that the girl in the photo was probably 14 or so (exact number escapes me) and he was going to burn. He flew in the girl in the photos to testify that she was in her 20s and that's the only thing that stopped the prosecution in their tracks. Even though they knew it was legal, they tried to bury him for having it. That's the only type of acquittals I've heard of thus far. Everyone else seems to be convicted or plead out.