June 28, 2017, 03:42:20 AM
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

You Did *NOT* Just Win a Nigerian Lottery...

Author Topic: Federal Court Decides no “reasonable expectation of privacy” for Home PCs  (Read 727 times)

Offline Gingerbread Man

  • *High Tech Low-life*
  • Administrator
  • Elite
  • *****
  • Posts: 928
  • Internets: +93/-0
From: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/06/federal-court-fourth-amendment-does-not-protect-your-home-computer

In a dangerously flawed decision unsealed [June 23rd], a federal district court in Virginia ruled that a criminal defendant has no “reasonable expectation of privacy” in his personal computer, located inside his home. According to the court, the federal government does not need a warrant to hack into an individual's computer.

...

Courts overseeing these cases have struggled to apply traditional rules of criminal procedure and constitutional law to the technology at issue. Recognizing this, we've been participating as amicus to educate judges on the significant legal issues these cases present. In fact, EFF filed an amicus brief in this very case, arguing that the FBI’s investigation ran afoul of the Fourth Amendment. The brief, unfortunately, did not have the intended effect.

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...


Read more at: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/06/federal-court-fourth-amendment-does-not-protect-your-home-computer

Offline ch3rn0byl

  • Top Hat Member
  • Experienced
  • ********
  • Posts: 186
  • Internets: +1337/-0
  • Grumpy Old Man with Mounds of Salt
This is...interesting...
The quieter you become, the more you are unlikely to sound stupid.

Offline 3rd3y3

  • Top Hat Member
  • Enthusiast
  • ********
  • Posts: 60
  • Internets: +5/-0
this is crazy but expected
wh1te tux with the hat to match.....

Offline GalaxyNinja

  • Global Moderator
  • Elite
  • *****
  • Posts: 1713
  • Internets: +95/-0
  • My password is **********
Well, according to this, you would have to first be accused of a crime before the searching of the home computer. The keywords are "Criminal Defendant". When applying the Amendments to those waiting sentence (or even those in jail), in the past 30-40 years or so, the powers that be seem to have a hard time deciding what fits and when it fits.
Not that I am condoning this in any way, shape or form.
It has potential to be abused as a lot of our *ahem* laws for the good of the people.  ;)

Offline ch3rn0byl

  • Top Hat Member
  • Experienced
  • ********
  • Posts: 186
  • Internets: +1337/-0
  • Grumpy Old Man with Mounds of Salt
Well, according to this, you would have to first be accused of a crime before the searching of the home computer. The keywords are "Criminal Defendant". When applying the Amendments to those waiting sentence (or even those in jail), in the past 30-40 years or so, the powers that be seem to have a hard time deciding what fits and when it fits.
Not that I am condoning this in any way, shape or form.
It has potential to be abused as a lot of our *ahem* laws for the good of the people.  ;)
So then, Galaxy, can I get a hold of the information on your computer...and spoof everything to make it look like you did it? D:
The quieter you become, the more you are unlikely to sound stupid.

Offline Gingerbread Man

  • *High Tech Low-life*
  • Administrator
  • Elite
  • *****
  • Posts: 928
  • Internets: +93/-0
There is no need for one to be a 'criminal'...

From EFF.org:

The proposal would grant a judge the ability to issue a warrant to remotely access, search, seize, or copy data when “the district where the media or information is located has been concealed through technological means” or when the media are on protected computers that have been “damaged without authorization and are located in five or more districts.” It would grant this authority to any judge in any district where activities related to the crime may have occurred.

To understand all the implications of this rule change, let’s break this into two segments.

The first part of this change would grant authority to practically any judge to issue a search warrant to remotely access, seize, or copy data relevant to a crime when a computer was using privacy-protective tools to safeguard one's location. Many different commonly used tools might fall into this category. For example, people who use Tor, folks running a Tor node, or people using a VPN would certainly be implicated. It might also extend to people who deny access to location data for smartphone apps because they don’t feel like sharing their location with ad networks. It could even include individuals who change the country setting in an online service, like folks who change the country settings of their Twitter profile in order to read uncensored Tweets.


...

The second part of the proposal is just as concerning. It would grant authorization to a judge to issue a search warrant for hacking, seizing, or otherwise infiltrating computers that may be part of a botnet. This means victims of malware could find themselves doubly infiltrated: their computers infected with malware and used to contribute to a botnet, and then government agents given free rein to remotely access their computers as part of the investigation

It is my understanding that one does NOT need to be part of an investigation encompassing probable cause to suspect a particular individual in order for this rule change to apply...

Offline c0ldg0ld

  • Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum
  • Global Moderator
  • Elite
  • *****
  • Posts: 526
  • Internets: +34/-0
    • Public Key
Hmmm, anyone have any doubts that the ability to make this easier for them is build right into windows 10?
rm -rf /bin/laden

Time is an illusion. Lunchtime doubly so.


Public Key