Just because a home computer might be hacked does not mean that an average user doesn't expect his experience on that computer to be private. Every area of life might be breached by determined intruders and, if that were the test of having a expectation of privacy, then every area of life would flunk it. Your home, your car, your bathroom, your bedroom, you name it. In reality, of course, break-ins, hacks, and other intrusions are the exception and not the rule in the areas we commonly regard as private. If the legal test on protecting privacy were to turn on whether break-ins or hacks were a regular element of the environment (however infrequent), then the exception swallows the rule and privacy is no more. This judge's ruling essentially embraces such logic and is thus wildly out of line with existing law regarding protection against unreasonable searches and seizures.
Also bad judging in reaching the issue gratuitously: the main issue here was whether a particular warrant was misused; it was unnecessary to decide what would have happened without a warrant of any kind. Yet the judge reached to inject his obiter dictum into the analysis as a sort of by-the-by, "here is what I would rule if other issues were before me."
Why such an outcome? As the lawyers say, "hard facts make for bad law." You have a despicable perp doing vile things and the natural instinct is to want to nail him. Just as, conversely, when you have a sympathetic person who has being seriously wronged, the natural instinct is to do what you can to help him get justice. In either case, judges and juries will be more prone than otherwise to engage in results-oriented jurisprudence and will thus try to bend and shape the law to that purpose even if the law objectively says otherwise. This factor may help explain why the judge did what he did. It does not make it right.
Finally, bad judging means, in this case, bad precedent and this decision will surely have pernicious effects until the day comes when its run is ended by a higher court. For this case, that day will surely come. It is a bad decision all around.
The absurdity of this is everyone - and I mean everyone, judging by private browsing habits - has an "expectation of privacy" when it comes to their home computer. So the judgement here is absurd on its face. This isn't standing naked in front of a bay window, there's no real room for interpretation.
So when a judge says there isn't a reasonable expectation of privacy, he/she isn't even being honest with themselves, let alone the entirety of the computer-owning public. This is a bald-faced hand-out to law "enforcement" and has no bearing in reality.
Curious whether this precedent could be used to argue that Snowden acted legally. After all, leaks happen routinely, and the technical difficulty of copying documents onto a thumb drive is minimal. Clearly, then, the NSA has no reasonable expectation of privacy for any document that it keeps in electronic form.
It's also worth pointing out (because the article makes a hash of things), that the case involved two different issues: expectation of privacy in the IP address, and expectation of privacy in the contents of the computer.
The first decision is reasonable: no matter how you try to obscure things, an IP address is public information. Some third-party must have your IP address in order for you to receive packets.
The second decision is, of course, unreasonable. Saying you have no expectation of privacy in the contents of your computer because it can get hacked is like saying you have no expectation of privacy in your house because it can get broken into.
I suspect that on appeal, the former decision will stand and the latter will not.
It's like saying that if a house is connected to the road that house shouldn't expect to have privacy. Just because there's easy access to the house does not mean that the house can be accessed by anyone on the road.
This is not just bad judging this is bordering onto absurdity.
Also, didn't the Supreme Court rule that cell phones, which are connected to the internet, require a warrant, which indicates that there is a certain expectation of privacy? Of course, there's no real difference between a smart phone and a computer.
This article left out a lot of details, but to me it sounds like what happened is that the FBI infiltrated PlayPen under a warrant granting them access to do so. They then used PlayPen's tor node to trace inbound traffic across the tor network and identify the IP addresses of visitors.
I could be wrong, but if that's the case, it sounds to me like the defendant didn't have a reasonable expectation of privacy. I think of it as sending a letter with no return address. If the letter is addressed to a criminal enterprise, and there is a reasonable expectation that the sender is engaged with said criminal enterprise, to the extent that the FBI can trace that letter back to the sender seems that it would be legal, in my opinion.
However, the TL;DR of this article seems to be that nobody's computer can be expected to be private because everyone's computer can be hacked. I don't think that's what the judge intended with this decision.
Yes, the Judge could have ruled defendant's have a reasonable expectation of privacy for devices connected to the internet. And while it may even be true subjectively, I think the Judge did get it right objectively.
A lot of people in this thread, and you to some extent, suggest that this judge's ruling is the non-digital equivalent of saying a person does not have a reasonable expectation on their home because those too can be broken into the same as an internet connected device. Even in your examples you list "your home" and "your car", but as you know, legally, a home and car don't carry the same expectation of privacy from a 4th amendment analysis. Further, just because a internet connected device and home can be broken into that does not make it a good or fair analogy. Internet connected devices can be broken into by anyone, anywhere in the world so long as they have an internet connection, that is not the case with a home. Nor can people protect their digital data with lethal force the same way one might protect their home. The threats to privacy and the privacy protections for an internet device and a physical home are simply not the same.
Perhaps a better way to distinguish a home and internet connect device is to use other precedent as an analogy. A public phone booth (reasonable expectation of privacy) vs speaking on your private cell phone in public (no reasonable expectation of privacy). Trash in your house (reasonable expectation of privacy) and when you put in on the curb for pick up (no expectation of privacy), might be good for saying non-internet connect device (privacy) and internet connected device (no privacy).
So why don't I think it bad decision?
Lets just say if the Judge did rule there is a reasonable expectation on internet connected devices, it wouldn't stop the Gov. They could always hide behind the non-Gov search/seizure argument in future cases. In other words, the Gov could always say they didn't hack a defendant's internet connected device, that a non-Gov actor searched/seized the data and anonymously provided the evidence to the Gov; therefore, the evidence is not subject to 4th amendment protections. Again not something likely to happen in any of these non-digital analogies (i.e. police are not going to claim the person who broke into your home, while breaking into your home seized evidence of your crimes and gave it to the police anonymously).
As much as we would all like to have a reasonable expectation of privacy on our internet connected devices, we don't objectively; therefore, I think the court reached the right decision. Definitely if the security of the devices improves to keep out Gov and non-Gov actors alike (objective expectations), then our reasonable expectations (subjective) and the law can change with it.
Danger of your argument is that the majority of users expect privacy and that their systems are secure.
My experience is that the average person today assumes their devices are not secure and any information they have is accessible to the government without warrants.
I'm much less skeptical than the median HN poster about government's use of new technology in its traditional roles of criminal justice and national security, but if this article is a fair summary of the case, I can't see how the ruling makes any Constitutional sense.
Because burglars regularly break into people's homes or cars doesn't make them subject to warrant-free search. If the FBI wants to run code on my CPU in my private home without my permission, they should have a warrant, just as they'd need one to manipulate other objects in my home without my consent.
I feel bad for the judge. He's bending over backward to rationalize the end justifying the means... and he's dead wrong.
His argument is essentially that if your house is connected to a road, then there is no expectation of privacy.
I expect the ruling, or at least that absurd part of it, will be overturned or superseded. But the counter argument (for future cases) would be that running through a physical firewall is not a direct connection to the internet (silly as it is to make the argument).
("No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.")
>> ...but if this article is a fair summary of the case...
Thanks for that. A good reminder that we need to think that every time we read anything like this. Just asking a simple question, "Did they get this right?" and even taking a minute to read through to the actual primary source.
"But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much
is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have
had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case it is unfit to exist.”
-- Lysander Spooner, No Treason
It is very concerning indeed, but will hopefully not be a precedent. At least if common sense and a basic level of constitutional competence prevails.
Rule 41 is a huge concern---as mentioned in the EFF posts---and risks decisions like this becoming commonplace. As the EFF mentions, it also encourages forum shopping: finding a court lax on fourth amendment issues, in this case.
As far as I remember the CCC wrote an expertise in the ruling and mentioned computerized implants. That was the point were the judges understood that there should be an expectation of privacy on home computers.
This was a federal district judge, who under the U.S. Constitution (Article III) has life tenure and can't be fired; he can be removed from office only if impeached by the House of Representatives and convicted by the Senate after a trial.
The chief judge of the district could cut this judge's case load to zero [0]. In this case, though, (A) that's very unlikely to happen, and (B) the judge would still stay on full salary.
[0] EDIT: This sort of happened, for example, to (now-former) federal district judge Sam Kent in Galveston after he was accused of "inappropriate touching" of female court employees. See http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/Criminal-cas... Kent later pled guilty to a felony charge of making false statements to investigators; he tried to retire from the bench so as to keep his pension, but that pissed off the House judiciary committee, which pushed through articles of impeachment, which caused Kent to resign. He served not quite three years in prison. See http://bigbendnow.com/2011/08/disgraced-former-judge-complet... and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_B._Kent
Judicial elections are ... tricky, but reasonably common. Without public financing for the elections and stronger campaign finance laws, it's really hard to avoid the problem of buying the courts.
So I can take photos in public because there's no expectation of privacy. Does this mean I can hack into whatever computer I want now for the same reason? Or does a lack of privacy not necessarily mean it's legal to do such things?
These Playpen cases are all deriving their 4th Amendment bypass based on the IP Address = Phone Number analogy[0].
The judge in this case at least seems to understand where the others did not that the IP Address had to be obtained by questionable means.
But decision reads: "The Court notes, however, that perhaps malware is a better description for the program through which the provider of the pornography attempted to conceal its distribution of contraband over the Internet than for the efforts of the Government to uncover the pornography."
The conclusion is that Tor is more malware than the FBI spyware.
I am not entirely dissuaded by govt's logic re expectation of privacy. Most porn/torrent sites do attempt to install spyware/malware. Everyone knows this. Whether the govt should be doing this is another matter entirely.
I am more distressed by the fact that this judge is allowing the FBI to use this tool and not allowing defendant access to its source code in discovery. This is unacceptable.
So when the government keeps zero-days to itself with plans to exploit them, instead of helping to strengthen security as they should, after this ruling they now have an additional conflict of interest: they have an incentive to keep this line of judicial interpretation viable by keeping security weak.
What about businesses? Should they expect all their computers to be public and if so, doesn't that have serious ramifications for data protection and the prosecution of hackers?
I was thinking the same thing. Also, using this ruling to target business documents would likely be the fastest way to get it overturned. Even if they somehow rule that businesses are different than homes, most executives take all their documents home regularly.
Based on this ruling, why wouldn't the suspect's defense now be "well, my computer must have been hacked, it wasn't me downloading the questionable content. See, look, even the courts have ruled that my computer, for all intents and purposes, is publicly available for all kinds of hackers to utilize for nefarious purposes."
From the judge's ruling:
"Just as Justice Breyer wrote in concurrence that a police officer who peers through broken blinds does not violate anyone's Fourth Amendment rights, jd. at 103 (Breyer, J., concurring), FBI agents who exploit a vulnerability in an online network do not violate the Fourth Amendment. Just as the area into which the officer in Carter peered - an apartment - usually is afforded Fourth Amendment protection, a computer afforded Fourth Amendment protection in other circumstances is not protected from Government actors who take advantage of an easily broken system to peer into a user's computer"
The keywords are "exploit a vulnerability". In that sense, I'm inclined to agree with the judge.
Put another way, are broken blinds all that different from an unsecured (though attempting to be secured) network?
The counter might be: using an exploit of any kind is akin to first breaking the blinds yourself.
>A judge in Virginia rules that people should have no expectation of privacy on their home PCs because no connected computer "is immune from invasion."
Brilliant. Finally we can do away with all the stupid laws we have. Private residences are also not immune from invasion. In fact, even a 9-year old child could easily throw a rock through a window, reach in and unlock it, open it up and do whatever they please. The fridge is not locked with a secure method so they can have whatever they want from there--there's no reasonable expecation of it being immune from invasion and theft, so why should it be illegal? This judge is a genius. In fact, this judge is showing us how important it is to do away with silly laws. No one is immune to being punched, kicked, stabbed or shot, and in fact it is quite easy for someone to do that as a matter of fact, if they certainly decide to do so, so we can finally do away with all those ridiculous laws pertaining to assault, rape and murder as well. Another great day for us. We're making progress in America!
In other news, hacking in East Virginia is now legal.
While the judge's statement and ruling seem to defy both logic and precedent, this didn't start here, and it doesn't stop here. The government and FBI in particular have long been trying to approach and establish the notion that it's okay for the "good guys" to hack, and not okay for the "bad guys" to hack. This ruling doesn't establish that, but will people in favor of this ruling draw the logical conclusion and say what used to be criminal hacking is no longer a crime, that an online bank has no expectation of privacy and it's being hacked and the money stolen is inevitabile? Would this same judge throw out a case of criminal hacking? I doubt it.
Things like this seem to pop up every other week now. It feels like companies and governments alike keep trying to fuck up the Internet, or even the very idea of personal computing. Does any other industry face such ridiculousness on a constant basis?
This ruling makes no sense. My mind makes the invalid phone number noise, "do-do-dooooooo", when I read it.
When I read about decisions like this, I often wonder if judges are purposefully making these nonsensical rulings so that the higher courts are forced to take the cases and make valid decisions. Though, I'm still undecided as to why this might be; perhaps the judge isn't up to the task of making a complicated ruling, some personal bias that favors one side of the law, or wishing to look good in front of the Feds in hopes that he or she can move up in the court system.
The part of the ruling this article is discussing isn't binding precedent, and doesn't affect the case. Even if it were overturned the court would still have found for the government.
If this holds, it would be an excellent defense for any hacker that infiltrates any connected system in the US.
So... hack the government freely now? "You were the idiots that connected the system to the web... you should have no expectation of privacy."
Put a more insane way: "Your doors were unlocked therefore invading your home was not a crime."
This will have to be struck down to preserve our democracy I would think. Insanity.
Total aside: DoJ is really dropping the ball and will have to decide whether they want to prosecute hackers or enable their own hacking. Can't really support both.
[+] [-] grellas|9 years ago|reply
Just because a home computer might be hacked does not mean that an average user doesn't expect his experience on that computer to be private. Every area of life might be breached by determined intruders and, if that were the test of having a expectation of privacy, then every area of life would flunk it. Your home, your car, your bathroom, your bedroom, you name it. In reality, of course, break-ins, hacks, and other intrusions are the exception and not the rule in the areas we commonly regard as private. If the legal test on protecting privacy were to turn on whether break-ins or hacks were a regular element of the environment (however infrequent), then the exception swallows the rule and privacy is no more. This judge's ruling essentially embraces such logic and is thus wildly out of line with existing law regarding protection against unreasonable searches and seizures.
Also bad judging in reaching the issue gratuitously: the main issue here was whether a particular warrant was misused; it was unnecessary to decide what would have happened without a warrant of any kind. Yet the judge reached to inject his obiter dictum into the analysis as a sort of by-the-by, "here is what I would rule if other issues were before me."
Why such an outcome? As the lawyers say, "hard facts make for bad law." You have a despicable perp doing vile things and the natural instinct is to want to nail him. Just as, conversely, when you have a sympathetic person who has being seriously wronged, the natural instinct is to do what you can to help him get justice. In either case, judges and juries will be more prone than otherwise to engage in results-oriented jurisprudence and will thus try to bend and shape the law to that purpose even if the law objectively says otherwise. This factor may help explain why the judge did what he did. It does not make it right.
Finally, bad judging means, in this case, bad precedent and this decision will surely have pernicious effects until the day comes when its run is ended by a higher court. For this case, that day will surely come. It is a bad decision all around.
[+] [-] themartorana|9 years ago|reply
So when a judge says there isn't a reasonable expectation of privacy, he/she isn't even being honest with themselves, let alone the entirety of the computer-owning public. This is a bald-faced hand-out to law "enforcement" and has no bearing in reality.
[+] [-] nostrademons|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rayiner|9 years ago|reply
The opinion is here: https://www.eff.org/files/2016/06/23/matish_suppression_edva.... The discussion of the IP address issue starts at 43, and the discussion of the privacy issue starts at 47.
The first decision is reasonable: no matter how you try to obscure things, an IP address is public information. Some third-party must have your IP address in order for you to receive packets.
The second decision is, of course, unreasonable. Saying you have no expectation of privacy in the contents of your computer because it can get hacked is like saying you have no expectation of privacy in your house because it can get broken into.
I suspect that on appeal, the former decision will stand and the latter will not.
[+] [-] thevardanian|9 years ago|reply
This is not just bad judging this is bordering onto absurdity.
[+] [-] GunboatDiplomat|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] adambom|9 years ago|reply
I could be wrong, but if that's the case, it sounds to me like the defendant didn't have a reasonable expectation of privacy. I think of it as sending a letter with no return address. If the letter is addressed to a criminal enterprise, and there is a reasonable expectation that the sender is engaged with said criminal enterprise, to the extent that the FBI can trace that letter back to the sender seems that it would be legal, in my opinion.
However, the TL;DR of this article seems to be that nobody's computer can be expected to be private because everyone's computer can be hacked. I don't think that's what the judge intended with this decision.
[+] [-] unknown|9 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] will_brown|9 years ago|reply
I am not so sure.
Yes, the Judge could have ruled defendant's have a reasonable expectation of privacy for devices connected to the internet. And while it may even be true subjectively, I think the Judge did get it right objectively.
A lot of people in this thread, and you to some extent, suggest that this judge's ruling is the non-digital equivalent of saying a person does not have a reasonable expectation on their home because those too can be broken into the same as an internet connected device. Even in your examples you list "your home" and "your car", but as you know, legally, a home and car don't carry the same expectation of privacy from a 4th amendment analysis. Further, just because a internet connected device and home can be broken into that does not make it a good or fair analogy. Internet connected devices can be broken into by anyone, anywhere in the world so long as they have an internet connection, that is not the case with a home. Nor can people protect their digital data with lethal force the same way one might protect their home. The threats to privacy and the privacy protections for an internet device and a physical home are simply not the same.
Perhaps a better way to distinguish a home and internet connect device is to use other precedent as an analogy. A public phone booth (reasonable expectation of privacy) vs speaking on your private cell phone in public (no reasonable expectation of privacy). Trash in your house (reasonable expectation of privacy) and when you put in on the curb for pick up (no expectation of privacy), might be good for saying non-internet connect device (privacy) and internet connected device (no privacy).
So why don't I think it bad decision?
Lets just say if the Judge did rule there is a reasonable expectation on internet connected devices, it wouldn't stop the Gov. They could always hide behind the non-Gov search/seizure argument in future cases. In other words, the Gov could always say they didn't hack a defendant's internet connected device, that a non-Gov actor searched/seized the data and anonymously provided the evidence to the Gov; therefore, the evidence is not subject to 4th amendment protections. Again not something likely to happen in any of these non-digital analogies (i.e. police are not going to claim the person who broke into your home, while breaking into your home seized evidence of your crimes and gave it to the police anonymously).
As much as we would all like to have a reasonable expectation of privacy on our internet connected devices, we don't objectively; therefore, I think the court reached the right decision. Definitely if the security of the devices improves to keep out Gov and non-Gov actors alike (objective expectations), then our reasonable expectations (subjective) and the law can change with it.
[+] [-] mizchief2|9 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] graycat|9 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] nxzero|9 years ago|reply
My experience is that the average person today assumes their devices are not secure and any information they have is accessible to the government without warrants.
[+] [-] twoodfin|9 years ago|reply
Because burglars regularly break into people's homes or cars doesn't make them subject to warrant-free search. If the FBI wants to run code on my CPU in my private home without my permission, they should have a warrant, just as they'd need one to manipulate other objects in my home without my consent.
[+] [-] dantillberg|9 years ago|reply
"In today's digital world, it appears to be a virtual certainty that computers accessing the Internet can—and eventually will—be hacked."
To apply to houses:
"In today's mechanized world, it appears to be a virtual certainty that houses connected to the earth can—and eventually will—be broken into."
Thus, warrants need not apply for search and seizure in houses. QED.
[+] [-] slowmovintarget|9 years ago|reply
His argument is essentially that if your house is connected to a road, then there is no expectation of privacy.
I expect the ruling, or at least that absurd part of it, will be overturned or superseded. But the counter argument (for future cases) would be that running through a physical firewall is not a direct connection to the internet (silly as it is to make the argument).
[+] [-] deadtofu|9 years ago|reply
("No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.")
[+] [-] blakesterz|9 years ago|reply
Thanks for that. A good reminder that we need to think that every time we read anything like this. Just asking a simple question, "Did they get this right?" and even taking a minute to read through to the actual primary source.
[+] [-] rmc|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|9 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] clarkmoody|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|9 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] mikegerwitz|9 years ago|reply
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/06/making-sense-troubling...
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/06/federal-court-fourth-a...
It is very concerning indeed, but will hopefully not be a precedent. At least if common sense and a basic level of constitutional competence prevails.
Rule 41 is a huge concern---as mentioned in the EFF posts---and risks decisions like this becoming commonplace. As the EFF mentions, it also encourages forum shopping: finding a court lax on fourth amendment issues, in this case.
[+] [-] cleeus|9 years ago|reply
rough translation: "The right to confidentiality and integrity on IT systems"
google translate link: https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=de&sl=de&tl=en&u=h...
As far as I remember the CCC wrote an expertise in the ruling and mentioned computerized implants. That was the point were the judges understood that there should be an expectation of privacy on home computers.
[+] [-] hap1o|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] talmand|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|9 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] unknown|9 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] ep103|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Practicality|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] fredgrott|9 years ago|reply
Obviously, this will be struck down..
But it does raise the question what do we do when a judge refuses to understand basic law concepts? Can we than fire the judge?
[+] [-] dctoedt|9 years ago|reply
This was a federal district judge, who under the U.S. Constitution (Article III) has life tenure and can't be fired; he can be removed from office only if impeached by the House of Representatives and convicted by the Senate after a trial.
The chief judge of the district could cut this judge's case load to zero [0]. In this case, though, (A) that's very unlikely to happen, and (B) the judge would still stay on full salary.
[0] EDIT: This sort of happened, for example, to (now-former) federal district judge Sam Kent in Galveston after he was accused of "inappropriate touching" of female court employees. See http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/Criminal-cas... Kent later pled guilty to a felony charge of making false statements to investigators; he tried to retire from the bench so as to keep his pension, but that pissed off the House judiciary committee, which pushed through articles of impeachment, which caused Kent to resign. He served not quite three years in prison. See http://bigbendnow.com/2011/08/disgraced-former-judge-complet... and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_B._Kent
[+] [-] dangerlibrary|9 years ago|reply
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retention_election#U.S._states...
[+] [-] 0xfeba|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mpnordland|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] awqrre|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] shawn-butler|9 years ago|reply
The judge in this case at least seems to understand where the others did not that the IP Address had to be obtained by questionable means.
But decision reads: "The Court notes, however, that perhaps malware is a better description for the program through which the provider of the pornography attempted to conceal its distribution of contraband over the Internet than for the efforts of the Government to uncover the pornography."
The conclusion is that Tor is more malware than the FBI spyware.
I am not entirely dissuaded by govt's logic re expectation of privacy. Most porn/torrent sites do attempt to install spyware/malware. Everyone knows this. Whether the govt should be doing this is another matter entirely.
I am more distressed by the fact that this judge is allowing the FBI to use this tool and not allowing defendant access to its source code in discovery. This is unacceptable.
[0]: [pdf] http://www.steptoe.com/assets/attachments/4903.pdf
[+] [-] natch|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] caruana|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Practicality|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] throwawaylalala|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] blantonl|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] noobiemcfoob|9 years ago|reply
The keywords are "exploit a vulnerability". In that sense, I'm inclined to agree with the judge.
Put another way, are broken blinds all that different from an unsecured (though attempting to be secured) network?
The counter might be: using an exploit of any kind is akin to first breaking the blinds yourself.
[+] [-] willvarfar|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] wallace_f|9 years ago|reply
Brilliant. Finally we can do away with all the stupid laws we have. Private residences are also not immune from invasion. In fact, even a 9-year old child could easily throw a rock through a window, reach in and unlock it, open it up and do whatever they please. The fridge is not locked with a secure method so they can have whatever they want from there--there's no reasonable expecation of it being immune from invasion and theft, so why should it be illegal? This judge is a genius. In fact, this judge is showing us how important it is to do away with silly laws. No one is immune to being punched, kicked, stabbed or shot, and in fact it is quite easy for someone to do that as a matter of fact, if they certainly decide to do so, so we can finally do away with all those ridiculous laws pertaining to assault, rape and murder as well. Another great day for us. We're making progress in America!
[+] [-] ominous|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dahart|9 years ago|reply
While the judge's statement and ruling seem to defy both logic and precedent, this didn't start here, and it doesn't stop here. The government and FBI in particular have long been trying to approach and establish the notion that it's okay for the "good guys" to hack, and not okay for the "bad guys" to hack. This ruling doesn't establish that, but will people in favor of this ruling draw the logical conclusion and say what used to be criminal hacking is no longer a crime, that an online bank has no expectation of privacy and it's being hacked and the money stolen is inevitabile? Would this same judge throw out a case of criminal hacking? I doubt it.
[+] [-] TeMPOraL|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] snake_plissken|9 years ago|reply
When I read about decisions like this, I often wonder if judges are purposefully making these nonsensical rulings so that the higher courts are forced to take the cases and make valid decisions. Though, I'm still undecided as to why this might be; perhaps the judge isn't up to the task of making a complicated ruling, some personal bias that favors one side of the law, or wishing to look good in front of the Feds in hopes that he or she can move up in the court system.
[+] [-] ikeboy|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sailfast|9 years ago|reply
So... hack the government freely now? "You were the idiots that connected the system to the web... you should have no expectation of privacy."
Put a more insane way: "Your doors were unlocked therefore invading your home was not a crime."
This will have to be struck down to preserve our democracy I would think. Insanity.
Total aside: DoJ is really dropping the ball and will have to decide whether they want to prosecute hackers or enable their own hacking. Can't really support both.