Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

Home Computers Connected to the Internet Aren't Private, Court Rules

posted by martyb on Saturday July 02 2016, @06:37AM   Printer-friendly
from the open-season dept.

slash2phar writes:

A federal judge for the Eastern District of Virginia has ruled that the user of any computer that connects to the Internet should not have an expectation of privacy because computer security is ineffectual at stopping hackers.

"Hacking is much more prevalent now than it was even nine years ago, and the rise of computer hacking via the Internet has changed the public's reasonable expectations of privacy," the judge wrote. "Now, it seems unreasonable to think that a computer connected to the Web is immune from invasion. Indeed, the opposite holds true: In today's digital world, it appears to be a virtual certainty that computers accessing the Internet can—and eventually will—be hacked."

The judge argued that the FBI did not even need the original warrant to use the NIT [Network Investigative technique/Toolkit] against visitors to PlayPen, a hidden service on the Tor network that acted as a hub for child exploitation.

http://www.eweek.com/security/home-computers-connected-to-the-internet-arent-private-court-rules.html

Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Home Computers Connected to the Internet Aren't Private, Court Rules | Log In/Create an Account | Top | 63 comments | Search Discussion
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

  • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 02 2016, @07:54AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 02 2016, @07:54AM (#368813)

    And if you are too ignorant history, your bill of rights wouldn't have helped anyway.

    Most of this legal reasoning follows from the destruction of evidence arguments that went with the war on drugs. Your right to privacy was kicked-in, literally, once the judiciary decided preserving evidence was more important than you being secure in your effects.

    This is that same sensibility applied to the digital domain, with cops being able to kick-in your fire wall in order to gain evidence.

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   +1  
       Insightful=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Total Score:   1  

  • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday July 02 2016, @10:34AM

    by The Mighty Buzzard (18) <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Saturday July 02 2016, @10:34AM (#368848) Homepage Journal

    Being able to try...

    --
    My rights don't end where your fear begins.

  • (Score: 4, Interesting) by butthurt on Saturday July 02 2016, @06:16PM

    by butthurt (6141) on Saturday July 02 2016, @06:16PM (#368934) Journal

    A lawyer for EPIC has made the argument (although AFAIK it wasn't presented in this particular case) that government-placed malware could violate the Third Amendment:

    Three types of cyberoperations implicate Third Amendment interests: malware designed to disrupt industrial control systems, cyberespionage tools, and active defense (or “hack-back”) systems. All of these may affect innocent civilian systems, and the Third Amendment prohibits military intrusion into civilian spaces absent consent or legal authorization by Congress.

    --https://web.archive.org/web/20131209153222/https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2257078 [archive.org]

    an article about it:
    https://web.archive.org/web/20130520032527/http://fiercegovernmentit.com/story/third-amendment-constrains-military-cyber-operation-argues-epic-lawyer/2013-05-05 [archive.org]