Slashdot Mirror
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.
Encrypt all the files!!!
No exceptions.
Full Scale Assault on personal liberties.
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." - Franklin
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
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?
and therefore, it needs super extra protection. Its forbidden to open someone's skull to look for info as well, as should be the analogon for computers.
The invasion of privacy and constant violations of basic and human rights in the US, and around the rest of the Western world for that matter, are starting to have a lot in common with what George Orwell wrote in Animal Farm. The irony is of course that what he described in his book was Stalin-era Soviet Union.
-SR
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.
Stop calling it a PC. George Orwell should get credit for naming this surveillance tool.
If this was upheld by SCOTUS then about all you could do anymore is keep anything important or sensitive on an external drive that is only connected when you need to access it. For those of you who are super-paranoid, I guess it would be time to have no internal HDD in your computer, and boot from a DVD, so your system is 100% read-only.
Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
This was an open-and-shut search with a warrant, arising out of the FBI running a kiddie porn site after taking control of it. The warrant authorized the deployment of malware disguised to look like kiddie porn that, when opened, would cause the target's machine to identify its IP address, operating system, etc. This was then followed by a search warrant for the residence, during which the computers were confiscated and their contents searched. That search was covered under the residential search warrant, so no additional warrant was needed to search the contents of the machine that was confiscated.
The defendant has no prayer unless he can show reasonable cause for the jury to believe that someone else was using or controlling the computer in question at the time, or unless he can convince the judge to throw out the warrant based on the investigative technique itself being illegal in some way (fruit of the poisonous tree).
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
The part of the decision regarding a warrant not being necessary relates to the defendent's IP address, not searching his computer. The Court found that "one has no reasonable expectation of privacy in an IP address when using the Internet," therefore a warrant was not needed to obtain the defendent's IP address. The deploying of software on the defendent's computer was done with a warrant.
I live ze unknown. I love ze unknown. I am ze unknown.
Because if there is no expectation of privacy, than all those people who have gone to prison on computer crimes related to accessing information without permission have probably committed no crime.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
There was a warrant, the fight was whether or not the warrant was legit,and the ruling was 'Yes'. From the PDF on EFFs site: The Court held hearings to address these Motions on May 19, 2016, May 26, 2016, and June 14, 2016. The Court FINDS, for the reasons stated herein, that probable cause supported the warrant's issuance, that the warrant was sufficiently specific, that the triggering event occurred, that Defendant is not entitled to a Franks hearing, and that the magistrate judge did not exceed her jurisdiction or authority in issuing the warrant
(If at first you don't succeed, do it different next time!)
No, they didn't. The court ruled that there was a warrant, but even if there hadn't been, there was no need for one, since there was no expectation of privacy on an Internet-connected computer. See the section starting at the bottom of page 47.
Sure hacking my computer might sound Orwellian. However, in this case it was a Child Porn Tor site that had been busted. The site was left up, but with malware on the site. This is the equivalent of the cops allowing an illegal drug shop to stay open and just put GPS devices in all the Weed they sell. Doesn't sound like the Cops are allowed to hack you just because you have a PC once your read a bit of the story past the summery.
They had a warrant to search the house, based on probable cause, and they confiscated the computer. The perp knowingly downloaded something that he thought was child porn and opened it (which turned out to be malware that reported his location). And even the distribution of that malware was authorized by a warrant.
At no point was this a warantless search of a computer. At no point was due process violated. This is solid constitutional law. The summary is just a ridiculously alarmist, factually inaccurate analysis of the case in question.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
Good fucking grief. Passive voice, "there are concerns". If there's a backdoor in systemd, that would be massively huge news. I get that you don't like it, and I agree that it is spooky that it is getting pushed into pretty much every place, but that doesn't justify a massive claim like this at all.
Rhel 7 uses systemd. Industry and military use the living shit out of Rhel 7. If systemd had a backdoor, tons of industry and government computers would be compromisable instantly. Keep in mind, this is for a theoretical backdoor, somehow hidden in plain site, and used on serious and sensitive machines all throughout US infrastructure.
That seems unlikely, right?
You can be sure that when they invent the scanner that can read your memories/thoughts, it will be legal to use.
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
You seem to have missed a couple of sections in the opinion.
A key sentence is on page 3:
"Furthermore, the Court FINDS suppression unwarranted because the Government did not need a warrant in this case. Thus, any potential defects in the issuance of the warrant or in the warrant itself could not result in constitutional violations".
There's the court's ruling that the government does "not need a warrant" to hack your computer.
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.
On the other hand, the court ALSO pointed out that the hack did not occur until the defendant tried to download child porn. They didn't hack the machine as soon as it connected to the front page of the CP site; rather it was a trojan in the child porn download. The court says that when you download child porn from foreign countries, you should expect that you might get malware and your information might be exposed.
No, because TLAs believe only the good guys (TM) can leverage backdoors.
Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once
The court argues that since "computer hacking is more prevalent than it was even nine years ago" the defendant has no expectation of privacy to the contents of his own machine.
This is like arguing the content of a person's wallet is not private because of the existence of pick-pockets.
This is insanity.
--
BMO
Microsoft has no obligation to follow the Fourth Amendment, which protects individuals against intrusion by the state. An exception arises if Microsoft is acting as an agent for the state. Some other laws may occasionally protect your privacy against companies; the Fourth Amendment does not.
I don't think you understand how the third party doctrine works. Basically if you've shared information with a third party, you've shared it with the world as far as the law is concerned. Like in this case, your ISP knows your IP so you have no expectation of privacy so if the cops post some exploit code to reveal it to them that's all right. So if you've given Microsoft access to all your data, you've given the law warrantless access to all your data. Microsoft doesn't have to participate in it.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
No.
Large chunks of new code typically have lots of interactions that most people don't suspect. Some easter-eggs have remained hidden for over a decade. There's nothing unlikely about something unexpected hiding in systemd. What would be surprising was if there weren't. Now assuming that it was put there intentionally is a bit of a stretch, but not a huge stretch, because that, also, has happened before.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Sounds like dicta. Not as big a deal as it could be then, since dicta are not binding.
From the link I gave: "[dicta] therefore are individual views of the author of the opinion and not binding in subsequent cases as legal precedent."
"The court finds that Defendant possessed no reasonable expectation of privacy in his computer's IP address, so the Government's acquisition of the IP address did not represent a prohibited Forth Amendment search."
"The court cautioned, however, that its decision was limited to the fact that the researchers 'obtained the defendant's IP address while he was using the Tor network and [the researchers were] operating nodes on that network, and not by any access to his computer.'"
The defendant was claiming the warrant was invalid, which it was deemed not to be, but finding the IP address of the person's computer was not something that required a warrant.
Case...dismissed?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... is used by the courts already.
The warrant to use the nit was issued under probable cause. The ruling makes sense.
The nit warrant permitted use only in the case of a visitor to a page with illicit material. There is no way it was a random act of searching the computer. The user could hit that page only because they intended to and knew what he would find.
Just because they are allowed to search it, doesn't necessarily mean they have the capability.
Until the next Snowden reveals that in fact they have the capability and likely have for some time.
So according to you then the police would need a warrant if the person is running Linux, BSD, Mac, etc?
You don't have nothing to hide? Really?
I do. Mostly because I don't know what becomes illegal tomorrow. You like guns? Did you notice what comes around every time someone shoots someone, like, say, the bit in Orlando? Again, regulation was on the table. Do you have guns that could be outlawed? Or do you speak out for having such guns? As soon as something like this becomes law, you'll be in the focus. Whether you have those guns or not, you're one who wants them and that makes you suspect.
How about speaking your mind, hmm? Maybe you have noticed a certain, let's say, rise in political correctness, and that being enshrined in law that you have to be politically correct? Look up "hate speech" if you don't. So far it's just that you can't call a black man nigger and you shouldn't call a Mexican Spic, but are you sure it stays there? What if it becomes illegal, an actual crime, to call a homosexual fag, and you did just do that in public? And hurt the feelings of someone who could then sue you for more than your house and your car is worth. Still got nothing to hide?
Need I go on?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
For those who think this cannot happen, consider the people in the UK who have been jailed over "offensive" tweets.
And for those who think this cannot happen in the USA, I encourage you to read up on Woodrow Wilson.
Love sees no species.
I wouldn't be so quick to assign sociopolitical labels to which group favors eroding privacy rights. There are plenty of so-called conservatives (judges, legislators, etc.) who would happily erode 4th amendment and other rights. I am reminded of Ronald Reagan arguing in favor of the admissibility of illegally-obtained evidence, and more recently of provisions in the PATRIOT Act that are objectionable to civil libertarians like ACLU members.
It's worth noting that civil liberty groups like the ACLU are largely socially progressive. And they are generally the ones who say, "Get a goddamned warrant." They're also the ones who hold that the same rules are supposed to apply to everyone, regardless of socioeconomic status.
I wouldn't be so quick to assign sociopolitical labels to which group favors eroding privacy rights. There are plenty of so-called conservatives (judges, legislators, etc.) who would happily erode 4th amendment and other rights. I am reminded of Ronald Reagan arguing in favor of the admissibility of illegally-obtained evidence, and more recently of provisions in the PATRIOT Act that are objectionable to civil libertarians like ACLU members.
It's worth noting that civil liberty groups like the ACLU are largely socially progressive. And they are generally the ones who say, "Get a goddamned warrant." They're also the ones who hold that the same rules are supposed to apply to everyone, regardless of socioeconomic status.
Agreed, of course.. naturally, you are correct .. but I have observed a flip flop in how people generally assign tendancies. 30 years ago it was always without a doubt the democrats that were credited with favoring privacy rights, and conservatives who were accused of wanton violation of same. It was just an inaccurate generaliszation then as now, but when did things change?
Sounds like dicta. Not as big a deal as it could be then, since dicta are not binding.
And yet a big enough deal. Because this case did involve a series of properly executed warrants and involves an unsympathetic defendant, it will stand on appeal. That means that dicta is going to show up in LexisNexis searches of successful cases and some prosecutor somewhere is going to attempt to cite it in a different case that does not involve the correct set of warrants, in hopes that another judge won't inquire too closely, or notice exactly how unconstitutional the theory is, and lets it fly. Wash, rinse, and repeat a few times and lo and behold, a binding precedent appears.
This particular case is a campfire in the middle of a drought-stricken forest. If we are very fortunate, it stays contained in its little ring of stones. The unconstitutional sparks that fly off it get stamped out by another more vigilant judge and it becomes an academic curiosity. If we are unfortunate, some authoritarian asshole lets the sparks fly, and now we have a brush fire. There's some chance of putting it out, but now it requires a whole different level of effort, and some serious luck by well prepared firefighters. If they are insufficiently lucky or insufficiently prepared, we've got a forest fire on our hands.
This case isn't a big deal. Yet.
If you must assign labels, you have them backwards.
"If this case make it to the current SCOTUS, it will probably end up a 4-4 split, with the progressive side saying, "If you want the data, get a god damned warrant," and the conservative side saying, "Give us all your data, you have nothing to hide, right?"
Progressive = Liberal = Bernie Sanders (but !Hillary--she's a vote for status quo, unfortunately)
Conservative = Scared/Reactionary = Nixon, Reagan/Bush x2/yes, even Bill Clinton and Obama --I'm not bashing the Democratic party's political agenda, but they party has done the exact opposite thing they're supposed to be doing, which is address the multiple reasons income inequality has eroded the strength and size of the middle class.
No sig for you! Come back one year!