Your Computer - No Fourth Amendment Protection

[RicInOR]

It is a scary ruling -





Federal court: Computers connected to the internet aren't private, have no 4th Am. protection. Expect to be hacked.







So, that probably includes your phone - it is connected to the internet.








Here is the court's ruling:
18917316433 (https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2911707-18917316433.html)




The defendant is not cute & cuddly - he is a disgusting piece of bubblegum. But his rights are my rights and need to be defended. (sorry there is a word I am searching for and not finding... )

EFF weighs in:
https://www.eff.org/files/2016/06/23/matish_suppression_edva.pdf

Others:
Court Rules the FBI Does Not Need a Warrant to Hack a Computer (https://motherboard.vice.com/read/court-rules-the-fbi-does-not-need-a-warrant-to-hack-a-computer)

FBI: Exploit that revealed Tor-enabled child porn users wasn't malware (http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/06/fbi-exploit-that-revealed-tor-enabled-child-porn-users-wasnt-malware/)

http://courtswv.gov/supreme-court/calendar/2007/briefs/sept07/33295Appellee.pdf


Does this mean that if a LEO hacks your device, it could have been hacked, and therefore you don't get protection? How about if a LEO can open your safe, it could have been opened and there for you don't get protections?

Read More

 

[Andy54Hawken]

Ruling or not , it pays to be careful with what you say on a forum , text , phone etc ...
I'm not saying that the Fourth Amendment does not or need not apply.
But for me with today's world I expect everything I've ever sent via a computer could be retrieved and used one way or another.
Not one for wearing a "tin foil hat" and I do not like the idea of the abuse of any Amendment.
Just saying be careful with what you send out there...
And Yes the implications of the OP are scary.
Andy

 

[PaulB47]

Does this mean that if a LEO hacks your device, it could have been hacked, and therefore you don't get protection?

Now there's an interesting question. This kind of logic could be applied everywhere. Everybody knows guns can be stolen, so the government can take your guns when it perceives a need to do so.

It's just our trusty court system, looking out for our interests, protecting our liberties, right?

 

[techieguy]

That ironic, hack the gov's computers and see what they say! If caught they will put you in jail for a long time, how can they expect to have their privacy and we can not? Are we citizens or subjects?

 

[Mark W.]

SO Hillary's Server?

 

[RicInOR]

@Andy I agree about what you say on-line, being public.

This ruling is for your home computers.

Writing a book? Public.
Writing papers for a law suit? Public.
Writing accounts for a family member? Public.

I say public, as no warrant is necessary.



Is your phone a computer? Yes? Maybe?
Some people have gotten the Jack-boot treatment, because a cop with a licence plate reader detected their vehicle in the parking lot of a hydroponics store.
You visited that store, you must be growing weed. Flash, bang, get on the floor!.
What if you just drive by one? Or a head-shop. Or a glass shop. Or a ... the locations of everywhere, every when are in that little device on your belt or in your pocket. Can a cop pull you over and now demand to see the devices content? No warrant. Can the prosecutor use the gps time data to convict you of crimes like speeding?


I reject the argument, if you are doing nothing wrong you have nothing to fear. 3 Felonies a Day. And any prosecutor can indict a ham sandwich.

 

[Mark W.]

I think the days of messing with someone for visiting a grow shop is long past. Same with a Head shop etc. As all the transactions at those types of business has always been legal I fail to see how that would give a cop justifiable cause to search. Least in Oregon or Washington.

 

[Doc In UPlace]

It looks to me like Judge Morgan got to be playing fast and loose with the 4th amendment regarding whether someone should consider hackability to be a given that no confidentiality could therefore be expected.

I would hope that an appeal of this opinion would be overturned at Supreme court level due to the reasonable argument that if locks can be picked, then you have no expectation of being secure in your home. Ludicrous!

In the case discussed (4:16-cr-00016-HCM-RJK ) there were two warrants issued; one to support the FBI's spyware NIT to be infiltrated onto the defendant's machine after he logged into "Playpen" in order to obtain the defendant's I.P.; and then another warrant issued to seize the computer used to browse the Tor site.

In spite of itself and Judge Morgan's lunacy, FBI followed sound investigative procedure here. But that's a scary thing when FBI does the right thing then the judge starts asserting no warrant was necessary.

 

[djaziatic]

Seeing as I do E-File when submitting my Form 1's to the ATF. I already signed my computer away to the government.

 

[clearconscience]

Maybe this is just to pave the way for hillary to not get charged

 

[djaziatic]

Maybe this is just to pave the way for hillary to not get charged

Wouldn't it actually be the opposite? If the courts rule that you have no privacy on your computers then that would mean Hillary is even more liable for having private servers (as they are more prone to hacks).

 

[Member 5605]

So that means I have access to all DARPA, FBI, .Gov and .MIL computers. There is no expectation of privacy therefor I should be able to FOIA any and all data.

 

[CamoDeafie]

So that means I have access to all DARPA, FBI, .Gov and .MIL computers. There is no expectation of privacy therefor I should be able to FOIA any and all data.

Not to mention,.... if the Fed is really into "Globalism", then the Chinese, Russians, EU should be able to get any and all military data on request Turnabout is fair play, with our Intelligence apparatus trying the same thing, right?

 

[clearconscience]

Wouldn't it actually be the opposite? If the courts rule that you have no privacy on your computers then that would mean Hillary is even more liable for having private servers (as they are more prone to hacks).

Maybe or that it wouldn't matter what system she used because they can hack all of them

 

[PaulB47]

In spite of itself and Judge Morgan's lunacy, FBI followed sound investigative procedure here.

Yeah, like hosting a child porn server.

 

[Doc In UPlace]

I have no problem with it, catchin' the child abusers is a good thing.
I was referring to the warrants but whatever.

The site existed before they took it over. Maybe there are better methods, they would like to hear about 'em I'm sure: (503) 224-4181.

I'm working a detail this week in which we have a nice, juicy home all ready for the crooks to come break into. Bait is fair play in hunting weasels.

 

[Andy]

@Andy I agree about what you say on-line, being public.

This ruling is for your home computers.

Writing a book? Public.
Writing papers for a law suit? Public.
Writing accounts for a family member? Public.

I say public, as no warrant is necessary.



Is your phone a computer? Yes? Maybe?
Some people have gotten the Jack-boot treatment, because a cop with a licence plate reader detected their vehicle in the parking lot of a hydroponics store.
You visited that store, you must be growing weed. Flash, bang, get on the floor!.
What if you just drive by one? Or a head-shop. Or a glass shop. Or a ... the locations of everywhere, every when are in that little device on your belt or in your pocket. Can a cop pull you over and now demand to see the devices content? No warrant. Can the prosecutor use the gps time data to convict you of crimes like speeding?


I reject the argument, if you are doing nothing wrong you have nothing to fear. 3 Felonies a Day. And any prosecutor can indict a ham sandwich.

[This post linked to my account (@Andy), incorrectly. I believe you meant to link to @AndyinEverson.]

 

[Andy54Hawken]

Guess thats the breaks when we share the same cool first name? LOL
Andy

 

[No_Regerts]

This is crazy. So, if you buy a house in a subdivision knowing full well you're within 8 feet of your neighbors, you arent entitled to the same expectation of privacy as domeone who lives in the boonies?