Federal Court: The Fourth Amendment Does Not Protect Your Home Computer (eff.org)

An anonymous reader writes: The EFF reports that a federal court in Virginia today ruled that a criminal defendant has no "reasonable expectation of privacy" in his personal computer (PDF), located inside his home. The court says the federal government does not need a warrant to hack into an individual's computer. EFF reports: "The implications for the decision, if upheld, are staggering: law enforcement would be free to remotely search and seize information from your computer, without a warrant, without probable cause, or without any suspicion at all. To say the least, the decision is bad news for privacy. But it's also incorrect as a matter of law, and we expect there is little chance it would hold up on appeal. (It also was not the central component of the judge's decision, which also diminishes the likelihood that it will become reliable precedent.) But the decision underscores a broader trend in these cases: courts across the country, faced with unfamiliar technology and unsympathetic defendants, are issuing decisions that threaten everyone's rights.

Comments

We need a penalty for retarded judges

[erapert]

Bringing frivilous lawsuits will get you slapped down hard.

What we need is something to be applied to judges who make blatantly subversive rulings like this. They're literally ruining our government and our country.
Anyone else want to see these judges spend twenty years in federal prison?

Does Windows 10 still seem safe to you?

[ilsaloving]

Another slashdotter argued that I was being paranoia over the idea that Windows 10 grants Microsoft carte blanche access your computer without needing your permission or knowledge.

Well well well, look at that other shoe that just dropped! Now all the gov't needs to do is give the word and Microsoft can/will hoover everything and anything they want off your machine. This brings dragnet spying to a whole new level.

Re:No, that's not what the court ruled.

[jasnw]

That's how I read this. Clearly a technique that bears watching, but it seems to me that the courts were watching over this pretty carefully. Of course, if you do not at all trust the courts or anything to do with authority, this is a run-around-screaming problem. However, the police/FBI will want to be able to track anonymous perps through the Internet, and I'd rather having them do this in ways that the courts are watching and we find out about (as in this article) than operating outside the court's control. Not a perfect system, but nothing really is. Make it as good as we can, and watch it closely.

Re:I'd say my computer is an extended part of my b

[wisnoskij]

You can be sure that when they invent the scanner that can read your memories/thoughts, it will be legal to use.

Re:The message is clear:

[gweihir]

Forget it. Encryption protects you against the computer being stolen while off, and that is it. Unless you want to encrypt each file individually and then decrypt each one when used? That not much better: Whoever criminals hack your machine just need to wait until you unlock a file and then can record your password.

Re:I'd say my computer is an extended part of my b

[Kaenneth]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... is used by the courts already.

Re:You missed a couple of sections

[dgatwood]

Then on page 47 see the section headed "Defendant Has No Reasonable Expectation of Privacy in His Computer", which STARTS with a bit about IP address, but then goes on to cover other information retrieved from the computer. The reasoning (excuse) given is that because your computer could be hacked, you have no reasonable expectation that it won't be. Per well-established precedent, no "reasonable expectation of privacy" means no fourth amendment protection.

What it actually said was that the defendant, by intentionally going on a kiddie porn website, should have been aware that getting hacked was a possibility, and should have been careful enough to avoid getting hacked. Because the defendant was not careful, the defendant had already effectively given up any expectation privacy on that computer, and the government's further intrusion was akin to looking through a broken window shade. Although I don't agree with that sentiment, the ruling is far narrower than you're interpreting it to be.

Also, it's a district court, so it doesn't create binding precedent. It literally affects only this one case. If we start to see more and more rulings making such claims under different circumstances, it might be worth getting concerned over, but this is barely even peaking above the court system's noise floor.