The FBI is acting in bad faith. If this is found to be permitted, then search warrants are no longer necessary in many situations since the police can simply hire anyone who is not a LEO to conduct a warrantless search on their behalf.
Given that the file in question was in the deleted free space, the technician didn't just stumble into it accidentally and then report it. He went looking for it to begin with. And he was searching for such files because he was paid to do so.
Chain of custody should play a big factor here. Between the accused and the technician how many people had access to that system? Further, since the technician is paid when something is found, what is the motivation for the technician to not plant evidence? It's trivial to plant evidence on a hard-drive to the point that if done properly it's impossible for a forensics investigator to come in after the fact and determine the tampering.
This is all before even getting into the topic of potential malware infections, running as a TOR exit node, being used for torrent hosting unbeknownst to the user, etc. There was a case many years ago and I wish I could find the reference to it in which the defense called in an expert witness who convinced the judge to have his machine inspected by a forensic analyst who found it clear of pictures of kittens. The expert witness then had the judge visit an 'innocuous' looking website which didn't have pictures of kittens visible, but loaded them in hidden iFrames. The system was then inspected again by the forensics analyst who then found pictures of kittens, the point being that when your computer is connected to the Internet it really isn't your computer anymore.
Why has law enforcement suddenly become allergic to warrants? Warrants used to be a rather boring, but important, process that police had to fulfil to show that they had even a very flimsy case.
Now it seems like law enforcement and politicians who serve their whims are outright pushing to remove the warrant requirements from as much as possible. But why now? Warrants aren't new and the landscape hasn't changed that much, why are law enforcement suddenly pushing so hard on this?
Is this just a general theme on the broader problem of police oversight (or lack thereof)? This is one of the few areas of actual oversight left (judicial) so they're trying to remove that too.
That made me think.... what if instead of finding a search warrant, the FBI shows up at your door and tells your roommate "we want to search this place, here's 50 dollars".
What if the police go a step further and start offering money to criminals to allow searches. Soon, you'll see people choosing to get busted in order to get an FBI payday, while the FBI can tout their high closed case rate.
> Given that the file in question was in the deleted free space, the technician didn't just stumble into it accidentally and then report it
That's not necessarily true:
> Prosecutors said that the Geek Squad technician who searched the unallocated space was merely trying to recover all the data Rettenmaier had asked to be restored.
So in this case it sounds like the reason Best Buy had the hard drive in the first place was to recover other (possibly deleted) files on the disk. In such a scenario it seems totally plausible that they might stumble across other, more incriminating deleted files as part of the recovery process.
> If this is found to be permitted, then search warrants are no longer necessary in many situations since the police can simply hire anyone who is not a LEO to conduct a warrantless search on their behalf.
There is a distinction to be made that a warrant often authorizes behavior that would otherwise be unlawful in the first place - which this doesn't really seem to be.
> The search of Rettenmaier’s hard drive has a further wrinkle. The image was located on “unallocated space,” which is where deleted items reside on a computer until they are overwritten when the space is needed. Unallocated space is not easily accessed — it requires special forensic software.
> Prosecutors said that the Geek Squad technician who searched the unallocated space was merely trying to recover all the data Rettenmaier had asked to be restored. Riddet argued that the technician was going beyond the regular search to deleted material to find evidence the FBI might want.
It's not difficult to recreate files that have been deleted but not fully wiped from the disk. But it's also not trivial. If the Best Buy techs are finding things in those regions of the disk then that means they're explicitly looking at what's there. It's not just a matter of, "Hey the desktop wallpaper of this guy's laptop is kiddie porn, I should report this!", these guys are actively searching people's computers on behalf of the Feds.
He sent his hard drive in to recover data, it's entirely plausible that they ran a scan of unallocated space, got a bunch of files, then looked at them to check if they were corrupted (very often recovered files only have a tiny bit of the original file), and found they were corrupted in a very different way.
Not only that but there can remnants of hundreds of thousands if not millions of deleted temp, cache and other files on the typical computer, quite a few which is stuff like temporarily downloaded cache files from sections of web pages a user didn't scroll to, didn't see, and wasn't aware of.
These technicians obviously didn't review all the unallocated space and determine what was there. It's pretty clear they had a set of patterns they were looking for representing known illegal content, and some kind of automated software that scans the unallocated space looking for that content.
> Prosecutors said that the Geek Squad technician who searched the unallocated space was merely trying to recover all the data Rettenmaier had asked to be restored
Depends on what was asked to be recovered, but I'm guessing it's just a brute-force 'undelete' type program that was run, which usually lists all scourable/recoverable nodes from the "free" space.
In this scenario, there is no difference between what was asked to be restored, and was found.. since the undelete types of programs always list all found files, and ask you to pick which to restore. So if some file-names there were suspicious, that's not different from the "I saw a CP wallpaper".
Conjecture, of course. We do not know the exact communication.
There is also the fact that a lot of junk can end up in unallocated space.
For instance images and resources cached by Firefox while in use tend to end up on the HDD. If you browse around porn sites you know sometime some of the thumbnails etc do look like CP from time to time.
Now should that cached resource from a random website be considered evidence of CP?
Or what if it's a photo of your own family and it is intimate but not in a CP kind of way. I've hard of many cases where a random family photo was reported as CP.
This still sounds like stumbling upon to me. Have you ever used that kind of recovery software? Typically it ignores filesystem indexes and searches the whole disk for content. If the customer was asking for data to be restored the tech was inherently having to search the while disk.
As far as what sort of steps would be usual for recovery, a lot of it would depend on the nature of the drive failure.
If the drive is damaged enough that directory information and the MFT are missing, there are certainly situations in which it would make sense to run TestDisk and PhotoRec, which are freely available and widely included in data recovery builds. It's been a long time since I needed to use PhotoRec (and I've learned a lot more since), but my recollection from the time is that it basically goes chugging through the disk looking for sectors that contain the beginning of a recognized file format, then starts pulling that off until it reaches an end or another file beginning operating on the hope that at least some files will have been stored contiguously on the drive. By the time you get to PhotoRec there's a good chance you've given up on just being able to get back to regular filesystem access.
As a side note for anyone contemplating drive recovery without pro tools, the ABSOLUTE FIRST thing to do is image the drive into a file (probably with ddrescue). NEVER use these tools on the original drive if there's data on there that you value, and if there's data that you REALLY value, consider sending it to a professional that's also able to do a clean-room evaluation (which usually won't be required). Some places are absurdly expensive, but a lot of recoveries will only cost a few hundred dollars.
"Yep, all your data's still in the drive. After your freezing/spinning/whacking recovery efforts, most of it's in that fine grey dust in the filter."
If the hard drive is corrupt and FAT tables/inodes are screwed up you would just try to recover as many files as you can in which case you would look at the raw data for files instead of where the files where.
This is pretty clear cut and I hope it gets decided the right way. The 4th amendment doesn't apply to private actors acting of their own accord, but does apply to private actors acting as agents of the government. The payments make this a slam dunk--the Best Buy employees were working as agents of the FBI and any searches they did require a warrant.
That's definitely one of the concerns, since the case at hand is about content discovered in unaddressed space. There's already some court precedent saying that such images can't be prosecuted for mere possession since it's unclear how they arrived there.
In the past, that's meant "malware or remote access", but it does create concern about "the person doing the search, who put the image somewhere that there would be no record of how it arrived there".
As another poster has used the CI model as a comparison, there have been cases where the CI made up accusations to get paid. Which, of course, didn't go well for the target of the inaccurate allegation.
Even without the FBI discussion this is an open question; the content in this case was recovered from an unaddressed location, and there's some court precedent saying that material located their is inherently dubious since its origins are so unclear.
'Chain of custody' only starts on seizure. There are no 'chain of custody' issues either when a drug lab is dismantled - sure, some guy in a ski mask might have broken into that garage the night before and put all that stuff there, doesn't make it a chain of custody issue. More similar to the OP, when an electrician finds a mj plantation when doing routine network maintenance (replace a meter, maybe), there is no chain of custody problem either.
Something I'm sure is missing from this discussion is that there is a specific legal duty to report anything that constitutes child pornography to the authorities.
The NCMEC is the clearinghouse for this sort of information and my former employer had regular training on what our legal responsibilities were with respect to this.
I can't be certain about this case, but I'd suspect that this was somehow wrapped up in the reporting requirement and things went off the rails after that.
The initial reporting suggests that abandoning this reporting requirement is basically the problem here.
Specifically: the (good) reporting requirement holds that discovered content must be reported. The new setup effectively pays bounties for anything discovered, and there's a lot of concern that it will prompt fishing expeditions without cause. It also blurs the lines of private search since it's possible to put bounties on other content without a reporting requirement.
And, of course, the FBIs initial filings in the case appear to have systematically tried to hide that this was anything other than normal reporting.
This article isn't about searches; it's about the technicians reporting something they happen to see in the course of their business relationship with the customer. I don't see how this is any different than a CI reporting information to LEOs on crimes "in the street".
In other words, a warrant is still required before LEOs can look for information themselves to persue charges.
If the FBI were really asking Best Buy to search everything they work on for illegal/contraband items, that would be entirely different.
> This article isn't about searches; it's about the technicians reporting something they happen to see in the course of their business relationship with the customer.
If I witness a hit-and-run, will the local police department pay me for it? If I wave a traffic cop over to an illegally parked car, do I get a cut of the fine the driver pays?
In the long run there's likely not much difference. Except there are usually rules and procedures involving a CI. As long as they are following the same rules then I would imagine the practice would be allowed.
It'll just as likely kill the business model if it becomes common knowledge that they search for stuff through your hard drive you thought you deleted and possibly make it public.
After all, there are personal security problems with all this. Identity theft being a simple one, having your personal stuff made public is another.
Never mind the fact that there have been CIs that just made stuff up to get paid.
"in the street" is public. And the implication is, the technicians aren't just seeing things "in the course of business", but actively looking for them.
As a political independent, one very concerned with personal privacy, yet also with conduct in society as a whole according to rules / laws / expectations, I think here's the crux of the argument:
>The case raises issues about privacy and the government use of informants. If a customer turns over their computer for repair, do they forfeit their expectation of privacy, and their Fourth Amendment protection from unreasonable searches?
This would be a good piece for the legal eagles on here to mull over I think. In my view, a business transaction should be defined; in the way First Amendment doesn't mean diddly on Twitter, Fourth Amendment doesn't apply in a private party exchange that is open ended.
>Best Buy searching a computer is legal — the customer authorized it, and the law does not prohibit private searches. But if Best Buy serves as an arm of the government, then a warrant or specific consent is needed.
Well how about that! Pretty clear cut, except for the interjected of OOOOH BUT WHAT IF GOVERNMENT angle. If an Electrician stumbles upon a drug lab after being hired by a private party, then reports the crime and is potentially compensated, do I have a problem with that? The Electrician was functioning as an Electrician, not as a government agent. I'm actually kind of okay with private citizens having concerns about inheriting illegal activity knowledge and being, well, powerless. That leads to vigilantism maybe?
I'd like to think, hard as it might be from time to time, that the justice system will function as intended, and this is a Defense Attorney holding a deck of cards that pretty much all allude to guilt, so attacking the source is a reasonable move. Get the evidence thrown out, right? Except I don't think it's so easy in this case. Maybe when somebody starts going door-to-door offering computer repair services but really are just on the payroll by an LEO, yeah, a line has been crossed. Hm.
> The Electrician was functioning as an Electrician, not as a government agent.
I don't think your example vindicates Best Buy, but rather, simply repeats the central question of the case: was the Geek Squad employee simply functioning as a Geek Squad employee?
The prosecution has argued that an employee who happens to stumble on images of child pornography (analogous to your electrician stumbling on a drug lab) is not acting as an agent of the government. I'm inclined to agree with that judgement.
On the other hand, if the employee was conducting extra thorough searches, scrutinizing the files on any customer storage media, or otherwise performing surveillance tasks that had nothing to do with his job, then it seems apparent that the employee was acting as an agent of the law in accordance with a financial incentive from the FBI. It doesn't help, in this case, that the employee lied about having been compensated by the FBI.
Ultimately, this particular case will come down to the details of how and why the employee stumbled across these images. As a general principle, however, it seems wrong to me that any computer in for miscellaneous repairs (touchpad/screen replacement, battery refurbish, etc) should be subject to a search for illegal data pursuant to an FBI incentives program.
So, would anyone care to comment on the analogous, "offline" scenario here for a better baseline? Consider the two scenarios. Do either (both?) have legal or moral standing?
1. I bring a suit to the dry cleaners. I leave a firearm in the pocket. The feds visit me to inquire about the firearm.
2. I bring a suit to the dry cleaners. I leave pictures of child porn in the pocket. The feds visit me about said porn.
the nuance is how big or small the "pocket" is. If your dry cleaner opens up your suit examining every nook and cranny, even areas between the fabric which you have no access to, then collects the dust particles and scans them in a chromatography machine and calls the cops when they find one particle of cocaine, they knew without a doubt came from your suit, and forward the chromatograph results to the FBI who prosecutes you for drug possession. Thats a closer offline scenario to whats going on here.
Forgive the petty distraction, but did anyone notice the outdated dress code in the picture at the top of the story? They've got people doing manual labor in a repair shop far from customers, and making them wear white shirts and ties.
They try to compensate for the inappropriate dress code by wearing loose and short-sleeved clothing (they probably have to do something to hold their ties too), but that only makes it look more awkward.
Is this common in computer repair? Is it common in the eastern US?
I had hoped we had moved past that era. Or perhaps I've become too prima donna since I've become a developer. But the oppressive dress code hurts my soul as much as the FBI using geeks to search for child porn.
It may have to do with the "geek squad" name and image. Historically, a short sleeve dress shirt, necktie, and polyester pants, were considered to be the uniform of an engineer or service tech. There was no corresponding stereotype for women, but I remember during my summer internship in a computer facility 30+ years ago, that pretty much everybody held to a similar aesthetic.
So the Best Buy employees were in possession of child abuse material and even used it to make profit? Sounds like they should be charged for abusing children. Merely viewing it or possessing it harms children, so no excuses. Even the FBI shouldn't be allowed to posses it.
No offence but if the Washington Post wants to convince people that computer technicians should not be able to report to the FBI whatever they find in their costumer's computers, they should use examples other than a doctor having child porn in his drive.
Did you miss the part where the FBI is paying this technician to specifically look for any potentially questionable material?
No-one is arguing that reporting something that you stumble upon while doing your job is wrong. This isn't what happened here. This tech was paid to go out of his way to search the computer for the potential of incriminating data.
Aka, this is a search without a warrant.
Also, of course the media is going to use and abuse "think of the children". This is how politicians convince the public to accept more surveillance and give up their freedoms.
>“There was no evidence of how the contraband got onto Dr. Rettenmaier’s hard drive,” Riddet wrote, “and it could have gotten there before he possessed the computer or against his will.”
Ha ha ha, no mention of his cell phone which contained ~800 images of (fully and partially) nude girls. [1]
Another article I saw on this was claiming it wasn't child pornography because it wasn't depicting a sexual act. While that is true on a technicality, you still have multiple devices with pictures of underage girls. The image found on his computer was of a prepubescent girl, which a choker on, on all fours. [2]
I am in computer security. If you allow someone else to access your computer (or your traffic, see: ISP) and they find something, and report it, I don't see how that constitutes an illegal search. I had some friends on FB freaking out about this case and the fourth amendment, I am totally fine with it. Good on the Best Buy tech and good on the FBI. This guy had pictures of under age girls on his devices and works in a position of power (gyno doctor). I'm glad this has come to light and I hope he goes to prison.
Is there any actual evidence of those phone pictures, besides "sources reported"?
Also, he had photos in his unallocated space. Which could happen to you, if someone sent you an email or link, you opened it, and immediately deleted them. Sure, you might be aware enough not do this. Should we jail someone because they aren't?
It's easy to forget the legal protections when it's someone we have prejudged. Hopefully they will still be around when they come for you.
[+] [-] droithomme|9 years ago|reply
Given that the file in question was in the deleted free space, the technician didn't just stumble into it accidentally and then report it. He went looking for it to begin with. And he was searching for such files because he was paid to do so.
[+] [-] patcheudor|9 years ago|reply
This is all before even getting into the topic of potential malware infections, running as a TOR exit node, being used for torrent hosting unbeknownst to the user, etc. There was a case many years ago and I wish I could find the reference to it in which the defense called in an expert witness who convinced the judge to have his machine inspected by a forensic analyst who found it clear of pictures of kittens. The expert witness then had the judge visit an 'innocuous' looking website which didn't have pictures of kittens visible, but loaded them in hidden iFrames. The system was then inspected again by the forensics analyst who then found pictures of kittens, the point being that when your computer is connected to the Internet it really isn't your computer anymore.
[+] [-] Someone1234|9 years ago|reply
Now it seems like law enforcement and politicians who serve their whims are outright pushing to remove the warrant requirements from as much as possible. But why now? Warrants aren't new and the landscape hasn't changed that much, why are law enforcement suddenly pushing so hard on this?
Is this just a general theme on the broader problem of police oversight (or lack thereof)? This is one of the few areas of actual oversight left (judicial) so they're trying to remove that too.
[+] [-] true_religion|9 years ago|reply
What if the police go a step further and start offering money to criminals to allow searches. Soon, you'll see people choosing to get busted in order to get an FBI payday, while the FBI can tout their high closed case rate.
[+] [-] Ajedi32|9 years ago|reply
That's not necessarily true:
> Prosecutors said that the Geek Squad technician who searched the unallocated space was merely trying to recover all the data Rettenmaier had asked to be restored.
So in this case it sounds like the reason Best Buy had the hard drive in the first place was to recover other (possibly deleted) files on the disk. In such a scenario it seems totally plausible that they might stumble across other, more incriminating deleted files as part of the recovery process.
[+] [-] JoeAltmaier|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dllthomas|9 years ago|reply
There is a distinction to be made that a warrant often authorizes behavior that would otherwise be unlawful in the first place - which this doesn't really seem to be.
That's not to say that I think this is okay.
[+] [-] zodiac|9 years ago|reply
It's clearly illegal for private individual A to search the computer of private individual B without B's consent though
[+] [-] koolba|9 years ago|reply
> The search of Rettenmaier’s hard drive has a further wrinkle. The image was located on “unallocated space,” which is where deleted items reside on a computer until they are overwritten when the space is needed. Unallocated space is not easily accessed — it requires special forensic software.
> Prosecutors said that the Geek Squad technician who searched the unallocated space was merely trying to recover all the data Rettenmaier had asked to be restored. Riddet argued that the technician was going beyond the regular search to deleted material to find evidence the FBI might want.
It's not difficult to recreate files that have been deleted but not fully wiped from the disk. But it's also not trivial. If the Best Buy techs are finding things in those regions of the disk then that means they're explicitly looking at what's there. It's not just a matter of, "Hey the desktop wallpaper of this guy's laptop is kiddie porn, I should report this!", these guys are actively searching people's computers on behalf of the Feds.
[+] [-] ikeboy|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] droithomme|9 years ago|reply
These technicians obviously didn't review all the unallocated space and determine what was there. It's pretty clear they had a set of patterns they were looking for representing known illegal content, and some kind of automated software that scans the unallocated space looking for that content.
[+] [-] anilgulecha|9 years ago|reply
Depends on what was asked to be recovered, but I'm guessing it's just a brute-force 'undelete' type program that was run, which usually lists all scourable/recoverable nodes from the "free" space.
In this scenario, there is no difference between what was asked to be restored, and was found.. since the undelete types of programs always list all found files, and ask you to pick which to restore. So if some file-names there were suspicious, that's not different from the "I saw a CP wallpaper".
Conjecture, of course. We do not know the exact communication.
[+] [-] Fuxy|9 years ago|reply
For instance images and resources cached by Firefox while in use tend to end up on the HDD. If you browse around porn sites you know sometime some of the thumbnails etc do look like CP from time to time.
Now should that cached resource from a random website be considered evidence of CP?
Or what if it's a photo of your own family and it is intimate but not in a CP kind of way. I've hard of many cases where a random family photo was reported as CP.
[+] [-] paco3346|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] fencepost|9 years ago|reply
If the drive is damaged enough that directory information and the MFT are missing, there are certainly situations in which it would make sense to run TestDisk and PhotoRec, which are freely available and widely included in data recovery builds. It's been a long time since I needed to use PhotoRec (and I've learned a lot more since), but my recollection from the time is that it basically goes chugging through the disk looking for sectors that contain the beginning of a recognized file format, then starts pulling that off until it reaches an end or another file beginning operating on the hope that at least some files will have been stored contiguously on the drive. By the time you get to PhotoRec there's a good chance you've given up on just being able to get back to regular filesystem access.
As a side note for anyone contemplating drive recovery without pro tools, the ABSOLUTE FIRST thing to do is image the drive into a file (probably with ddrescue). NEVER use these tools on the original drive if there's data on there that you value, and if there's data that you REALLY value, consider sending it to a professional that's also able to do a clean-room evaluation (which usually won't be required). Some places are absurdly expensive, but a lot of recoveries will only cost a few hundred dollars.
"Yep, all your data's still in the drive. After your freezing/spinning/whacking recovery efforts, most of it's in that fine grey dust in the filter."
[+] [-] finid|9 years ago|reply
Seems so, and $500 is a good incentive for a Geek Squad worker.
[+] [-] unknown|9 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] samfisher83|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rayiner|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] reverend_gonzo|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] minikites|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Bartweiss|9 years ago|reply
In the past, that's meant "malware or remote access", but it does create concern about "the person doing the search, who put the image somewhere that there would be no record of how it arrived there".
[+] [-] talmand|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] xntrk|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Bartweiss|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] roel_v|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] wyldfire|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Nrsolis|9 years ago|reply
The NCMEC is the clearinghouse for this sort of information and my former employer had regular training on what our legal responsibilities were with respect to this.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2258A
I can't be certain about this case, but I'd suspect that this was somehow wrapped up in the reporting requirement and things went off the rails after that.
[+] [-] Bartweiss|9 years ago|reply
Specifically: the (good) reporting requirement holds that discovered content must be reported. The new setup effectively pays bounties for anything discovered, and there's a lot of concern that it will prompt fishing expeditions without cause. It also blurs the lines of private search since it's possible to put bounties on other content without a reporting requirement.
And, of course, the FBIs initial filings in the case appear to have systematically tried to hide that this was anything other than normal reporting.
[+] [-] DanBC|9 years ago|reply
It doesn't make it okay for the FBI to make payments for these reports, thus incentivising techs to go trawling for it.
[+] [-] mikecb|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] edwhitesell|9 years ago|reply
In other words, a warrant is still required before LEOs can look for information themselves to persue charges.
If the FBI were really asking Best Buy to search everything they work on for illegal/contraband items, that would be entirely different.
[+] [-] pavel_lishin|9 years ago|reply
If I witness a hit-and-run, will the local police department pay me for it? If I wave a traffic cop over to an illegally parked car, do I get a cut of the fine the driver pays?
[+] [-] talmand|9 years ago|reply
It'll just as likely kill the business model if it becomes common knowledge that they search for stuff through your hard drive you thought you deleted and possibly make it public.
After all, there are personal security problems with all this. Identity theft being a simple one, having your personal stuff made public is another.
Never mind the fact that there have been CIs that just made stuff up to get paid.
[+] [-] Chris2048|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dhimes|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] 6stringmerc|9 years ago|reply
>The case raises issues about privacy and the government use of informants. If a customer turns over their computer for repair, do they forfeit their expectation of privacy, and their Fourth Amendment protection from unreasonable searches?
This would be a good piece for the legal eagles on here to mull over I think. In my view, a business transaction should be defined; in the way First Amendment doesn't mean diddly on Twitter, Fourth Amendment doesn't apply in a private party exchange that is open ended.
>Best Buy searching a computer is legal — the customer authorized it, and the law does not prohibit private searches. But if Best Buy serves as an arm of the government, then a warrant or specific consent is needed.
Well how about that! Pretty clear cut, except for the interjected of OOOOH BUT WHAT IF GOVERNMENT angle. If an Electrician stumbles upon a drug lab after being hired by a private party, then reports the crime and is potentially compensated, do I have a problem with that? The Electrician was functioning as an Electrician, not as a government agent. I'm actually kind of okay with private citizens having concerns about inheriting illegal activity knowledge and being, well, powerless. That leads to vigilantism maybe?
I'd like to think, hard as it might be from time to time, that the justice system will function as intended, and this is a Defense Attorney holding a deck of cards that pretty much all allude to guilt, so attacking the source is a reasonable move. Get the evidence thrown out, right? Except I don't think it's so easy in this case. Maybe when somebody starts going door-to-door offering computer repair services but really are just on the payroll by an LEO, yeah, a line has been crossed. Hm.
[+] [-] rpedroso|9 years ago|reply
I don't think your example vindicates Best Buy, but rather, simply repeats the central question of the case: was the Geek Squad employee simply functioning as a Geek Squad employee?
The prosecution has argued that an employee who happens to stumble on images of child pornography (analogous to your electrician stumbling on a drug lab) is not acting as an agent of the government. I'm inclined to agree with that judgement.
On the other hand, if the employee was conducting extra thorough searches, scrutinizing the files on any customer storage media, or otherwise performing surveillance tasks that had nothing to do with his job, then it seems apparent that the employee was acting as an agent of the law in accordance with a financial incentive from the FBI. It doesn't help, in this case, that the employee lied about having been compensated by the FBI.
Ultimately, this particular case will come down to the details of how and why the employee stumbled across these images. As a general principle, however, it seems wrong to me that any computer in for miscellaneous repairs (touchpad/screen replacement, battery refurbish, etc) should be subject to a search for illegal data pursuant to an FBI incentives program.
[+] [-] liquidise|9 years ago|reply
1. I bring a suit to the dry cleaners. I leave a firearm in the pocket. The feds visit me to inquire about the firearm.
2. I bring a suit to the dry cleaners. I leave pictures of child porn in the pocket. The feds visit me about said porn.
[+] [-] digler999|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nraynaud|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|9 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] thedevil|9 years ago|reply
They try to compensate for the inappropriate dress code by wearing loose and short-sleeved clothing (they probably have to do something to hold their ties too), but that only makes it look more awkward.
Is this common in computer repair? Is it common in the eastern US?
I had hoped we had moved past that era. Or perhaps I've become too prima donna since I've become a developer. But the oppressive dress code hurts my soul as much as the FBI using geeks to search for child porn.
[+] [-] analog31|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Lawtonfogle|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] akjainaj|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jameskilton|9 years ago|reply
No-one is arguing that reporting something that you stumble upon while doing your job is wrong. This isn't what happened here. This tech was paid to go out of his way to search the computer for the potential of incriminating data.
Aka, this is a search without a warrant.
Also, of course the media is going to use and abuse "think of the children". This is how politicians convince the public to accept more surveillance and give up their freedoms.
[+] [-] konceptz|9 years ago|reply
Perhaps you have more issue with the overly general title?
[+] [-] TACIXAT|9 years ago|reply
Ha ha ha, no mention of his cell phone which contained ~800 images of (fully and partially) nude girls. [1]
Another article I saw on this was claiming it wasn't child pornography because it wasn't depicting a sexual act. While that is true on a technicality, you still have multiple devices with pictures of underage girls. The image found on his computer was of a prepubescent girl, which a choker on, on all fours. [2]
I am in computer security. If you allow someone else to access your computer (or your traffic, see: ISP) and they find something, and report it, I don't see how that constitutes an illegal search. I had some friends on FB freaking out about this case and the fourth amendment, I am totally fine with it. Good on the Best Buy tech and good on the FBI. This guy had pictures of under age girls on his devices and works in a position of power (gyno doctor). I'm glad this has come to light and I hope he goes to prison.
1. http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/fbis-use-best-buy-geek-squad-inform...
2. http://www.ocweekly.com/news/best-buy-geek-squad-informant-u...
[+] [-] icebraining|9 years ago|reply
Also, he had photos in his unallocated space. Which could happen to you, if someone sent you an email or link, you opened it, and immediately deleted them. Sure, you might be aware enough not do this. Should we jail someone because they aren't?
It's easy to forget the legal protections when it's someone we have prejudged. Hopefully they will still be around when they come for you.