SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The Justice Department is set to argue Wednesday before a federal appeals court that it may prosecute people for crimes based on evidence obtained from their computers—evidence that was outside the scope of an original probable-cause search warrant.
That's a big deal in today's digital age. Society has evolved to the point that many people keep all of their papers and effects co-mingled on their computer hard drives.
The highly nuanced legal dispute initially seems innocent enough. It concerns an accountant's tax evasion conviction and two-year prison sentence in 2012 that was based on a court-authorized search and imaging of his computer files. Stavros Ganias' files were copied as part of an Army overbilling investigation into one of his clients. Holding on to the imaged files for nearly three years, Connecticut authorities discovered fresh evidence unrelated to the initial search of the files and got new search warrants to investigate more of the accountant's mirrored files that were already in the government's possession. All the while, Ganias had subsequently deleted those files from his hard drives after the government had imaged them, according to court records.
The case asks how long the government can retain somebody's computer files—files that are unrelated to a court warrant. The accountant's lawyers said that once the government got what it needed regarding the accountant's client, the remainder of Ganias' files should have been purged. Federal prosecutors disagreed and said they retained the imaged files for numerous reasons, including for authentication purposes and to allow "the government to comply with its discovery obligations imposed by the Constitution."
What if it were a 3-D capture of all things in view while executing a search warrant — like a "cop-cam" on steroids?
(Score: 3, Interesting) by ikanreed on Wednesday September 30 2015, @05:02PM
It wasn't though.
If you go back to the 1776 Virginia Declaration of Rights, you can see the exact behaviors they were most concerned with
Now, that's not to say I don't support your reading of the 4th amendment. But I do restate my case that it wasn't the original intention of the 4th amendment, which was to stop random investigations that acted as kinda de facto bills of attainder, where you could hassle and search people without concern for why you're doing it.
In particular, my recollection of the summary history I've read is that they were annoyed at the Crown for searching every boat that came into the country. What's ironic about that is that we do that now under port authorities all the time and no one cares.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 30 2015, @05:46PM
What's ironic about that is that we do that now under port authorities all the time and no one cares.
Some people do care.
(Score: 2) by ikanreed on Wednesday September 30 2015, @05:49PM
Yeah, I knew that when I said it I was making a technical error.
Not enough people, particularly people in a position to effect change, care enough for that to ever get changed.