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.
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.
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!)
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.
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.
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
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."
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.