SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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.
(Score: 1) by fubari on Saturday July 02 2016, @06:46PM
This seems fundamentally wrong.
Apparently I shouldn't expect my phone calls to be private because... phone company had to know.
Nor expect text, email, etc. because... service provider had to know.
Nor expect my credit card use to be private because.... credit card company had to know.
Nor should my internet-using computer be expected to be private because... hackers (or law enforcement) might break in?
This last one doesn't have 3 parties, just one: me, and another party (hackers) removing my expectation of privacy.
We're going to have to change some laws in the US because the courts aren't doing it right.
So, a serious question here: why does attorney/client privilege still exist?
If mean if you tell anybody else something, or somebody could find out something, how can you have a "reasonable" expectation privacy?