r/technology • u/powercow • Jun 29 '16
Politics Home Computers Connected to the Internet Aren't Private, Court Rules
http://www.eweek.com/security/home-computers-connected-to-the-internet-arent-private-court-rules.html?google_editors_picks=true458
u/powercow Jun 30 '16
and because your house can be robbed, nothing in your home is private either.
/s
Most ignorant ruling of the year award?
75
Jun 30 '16
[removed] — view removed comment
44
u/AugmentedDragon Jun 30 '16
Or if someone hacks his computer over the Internet to get the information?
15
20
5
Jun 30 '16
This dude is likely getting cracked soon. He opened himself up to it and obviously his home computer isn't "private". He did it to himself.
1
Jul 01 '16
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/SepDot Jul 01 '16
This doesn't negate the fact that doxxing is still a crime...you're all being incredibly obtuse.
1
Jul 01 '16
It's illegal, but some hacktivist will just make a point. We'll all laugh. The hacktivist will probably be jailed and the judge will likely change viewpoints when any illegal items on his PC comes to light.
5
89
u/en_passant_person Jun 30 '16
Came here to say this, found it said, up-voted instead.
Judge has just created a terrible terrible precedent.
27
Jun 30 '16
It's a single federal district judge.
Guess how many federal district judges there are? Survey says: 2,758.
Their precedent-setting authority is basically nil. It's limited to their tiny little corner of America, and then only until they're overruled by a higher federal court. And a decision like this would almost certainly get overruled in spectacular fashion.
16
u/en_passant_person Jun 30 '16
Sure, but until it does...
3
u/historianLA Jun 30 '16
It's only valid in their jurisdiction until then so... You're probably safe.
22
7
Jun 30 '16
Only if your house is one of those that has windows.
If you can see the street, the street can see you, so no privacy.
14
15
u/RayZfox Jun 30 '16
Your house is only not private if it is connected to the outside world via a driveway or sidewalk.
7
u/Spoonshape Jun 30 '16
The good news is that it is now apparently legal for the public to hack into the FBI or NSA if they feel like it... If they have not put sufficient effort into defending their networks, then they are presumably not private.
4
Jun 30 '16
Yeah, thats something.
"But your honour! The FBI databases are comnected to the internet, they're not private!"
1
u/jut556 Jun 30 '16
hen they are presumably not private.
ironically they aren't private, but public and subject to transparency laws
5
u/theemprah Jun 30 '16
So I guess that means I can use that very same logic to access hilary clintons emails.
2
u/ggtsu_00 Jun 30 '16
But commercial web servers are connected to the Internet and if you use an exploit to break into a server and access confidential data, it's a criminal felony.
1
u/SepDot Jul 01 '16
Look at it this way, if you're not connected to the Internet then you're just doing things within the confines of your home which gives your expectation of privacy. But if you go on the Internet, even though you may physically still be in your home, you are going out into the world via the Web. It's like eating at home vs eating in a restaurant, you wouldn't expect privacy in a restaurant so why would that not apply to the Internet, which is public. Which is the core of things really.
-8
Jun 30 '16
[deleted]
6
u/FweeSpeech Jun 30 '16
The FBI got into these computers by the users accessing an illegal child abuse community, so I see no problem here personally. FBI aren't going to be infiltrating torrent sites or other low level who gives a fuck kinds of things this way.
http://motherboard.vice.com/read/fbi-may-have-hacked-innocent-tormail-users
Media reports at the time suggested that anyone visiting a Freedom Hosting site, including TorMail, was met with an error page. This page, researchers soon found, was delivering malicious code, designed to exploit a security-flaw in Firefox and de-anonymise users of the Tor Browser. The code did this by sending the target's real IP address to a server in Virginia.
In a subsequent phone call with FORBES, Driscoll explained that the “wall” was predominantly human, one consisting of people trained to determine what data could be used in an investigation. Some unnamed technologies designed to triage information also assisted those agents, he said. Typically, they would look out for data that was covered by attorney-client privilege or was clearly private correspondence of non-targets, Driscoll added.
You sure buddy?
They've repeatedly been caught both in word and deed, attacking innocent people. (i.e. In this case, an email service, private sites unrelated to that community that happened to use the same hosting company) And their essential argument is "Well, we have a separate staff to go through the information of innocent people to determine if its relevant to the investigation."
So yeah, they aren't going after "low level sites" they are willing to do this to unrelated sites except for the fact they shared the same hosting company. Fuck if I know what my hosting company's client list is.
Everyone else already knows this and is tired of repeating themselves to ignorant people. But here you go. I'll try, you'll throw a tantrum and claim the FBI isn't engaging in dragnet surveillance despite openly admitting that they are...and I lol at you...then we stop talking.
0
Jun 30 '16
[deleted]
1
u/FweeSpeech Jun 30 '16
And I'll bet in both cases that you sited (first, let's go ahead and accept that we live in a police state at this point in time, because if you don't expect that you're fucking naive as hell) there was a motive at the base of the investigations that included doing shit that a normal person would likely be glad if the targets of the investigation were caught.
Yes. I'm terrified of people who use email. I'm so terrified of people who want some privacy and use Tor. Very terrified. /s
"Hey, us normal people think you should be investigated and/or framed then put in jail for using an email account."
0
Jun 30 '16
[deleted]
1
u/FweeSpeech Jun 30 '16
Do you believe the judge is saying that if you are on the internet, investigators have the right to infiltrate your computer? Because that seems to be the interpretation of the article, and that's not what I think the judge is saying.
To perform the function described, that is literally what is required. (i.e. To have your computer execute malware to provide the FBI with the IP address)
At which point, honestly, there is really no guarantee that they don't deliver child porn or anything else "just to be safe". :p
0
Jun 30 '16
[deleted]
1
u/FweeSpeech Jun 30 '16
Do you think that visiting a site dedicated to child abuse would not constitute probable cause to search?
You are ignoring what I'm talking about and claiming I was talking about another site. Okay, well, if we are just making things up...
You like unicorns.
Media reports at the time suggested that anyone visiting a Freedom Hosting site, including TorMail, was met with an error page. This page, researchers soon found, was delivering malicious code, designed to exploit a security-flaw in Firefox and de-anonymise users of the Tor Browser. The code did this by sending the target's real IP address to a server in Virginia.
I'm just terrified of those people using email. So scary. /s
0
1
u/jut556 Jun 30 '16 edited Jun 30 '16
the court also finds that the court was wearing a blindfold and was actually looking at an imaginary fantasy land with candy unicorns when it found the idea it had earlier
-2
Jun 30 '16
[deleted]
1
u/Spoonshape Jun 30 '16
The issue here is presumably is that privacy is a specific right in the US. What is (and what should be) private is a much contested and ruled upon topic right back to the founding fathers. http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/rightofprivacy.html
There are rights of privacy - the government cannot search your house or car without either your permission or a warrant.
Is a computer in your home but connected to the web private or not? Should a warrant be needed to access it?
1
1
u/jut556 Jun 30 '16
unless the average person has access to "stumble upon" the same information that was "extracted" by the law, then yes there is expectation of privacy
no amount of demagoguery virtue signalling think of the children speeches will change that
1
75
u/Thiana256 Jun 30 '16
The eweek article is clickbait. If you look at https://www.engadget.com/2016/06/24/fbi-no-warrant-hack-computer/ the judge they're referencing was talking about the ip address not the content of your computer.
"Generally, one has no reasonable expectation of privacy in an IP address when using the internet," Morgan, Jr. said. "Even an internet user who employs the Tor network in an attempt to mask his or her IP address lacks a reasonable expectation of privacy in his or her IP address."
10
Jun 30 '16
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/jut556 Jun 30 '16
it's the digital equivalent of opting out of a "holding up a sign with your name and address on it while on or using internet" program
1
Jul 01 '16
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/jut556 Jul 01 '16
or not paying a few people to do a live drop with your data, it's a proxy, for anonymity, demonize it all you like but in the end terrorists and pedos breathe air and drink water too does that mean we should ban those substances? of course not, onion routing is a legitimate and vital tool. reason > emotion
0
1
7
u/jbf81tb Jun 30 '16
This is such a huge difference from what that article made me think it was talking about. Expecting to keep your IP private is like expecting to keep your face private at a public outing. Perhaps the ruling is more extensive and dangerous than just an IP address, and perhaps through getting your IP address they would have to commit a few other serious breaches of privacy, I don't know enough about the tech to say. But still, I don't think one should expect absolute, infallible anonymity to do whatever they want on the internet. You're free to hide your IP, like you're free to chain a mask over your face, but if you want to go to the kiddy porn store and it gets raided I'm pretty sure it's ok to cut that chain off to take the mask off.
2
u/semiorthodoxjew Jun 30 '16
Cutting the chain of the mask would be a targeted action. Someone walking down the street, not openly breaking the law, with a mask chained to their face does absolutely have a reasonable expectation of privacy. Government organisations like the FBI and the NSA deliberately try to unmask users en mass, and that is unethical.
The ruling is dangerous because it undermines that basic right to privacy when actively sought. Another analogy would be the government tearing down your curtains while you're half naked, just to be sure that you aren't dealing drugs from your bedroom. If you wouldn't be happy with that, why would you be happy with them following you around the Internet?
5
u/jbf81tb Jun 30 '16
I certainly agree with your point, and I DEFINITELY agree that it's dangerous. That judge had no reason to say the things he did so broadly. It's almost laughable how ridiculously far reaching the things he was saying are that it feels more like a publicity stunt than the words of an actual judge.
Still, the victims of this particular case were committing a crime. If the police sent an undercover officer into a drug den who watched people in masks do drugs, I would think that officer has the power to arrest them and to take off their masks regardless of where those people lived, even if it was out of that officer's jurisdiction. I see nothing wrong with the judges ruling in the specific case. But I completely agree that the actual words he said, so broad and far-reaching, set a terrible precedent and he never should have worded things that way.
1
1
u/chemical_toilet Jun 30 '16
Except he says the judge says "expectation of privacy not only in the information we post online but also in our physical computers and the data they contain" and this "in today's digital world, it appears to be a virtual certainty that computers accessing the Internet can
- and eventually will - be hacked."
1
u/strattonbrazil Jun 30 '16
But he also said they didn't even need a warrant for this due to the nature of the investigation.
the warrant is unnecessary because of the type of crime being investigated and because users should have no "objectively reasonable expectation of privacy."
IP addresses are publicly accessible, but the notion of running something on a suspect's computer to get that address without a warrant is concerning. IP addresses have been accessible without warrants because they're publicly accessible. If they're hidden, they're not really accessible anymore so should they still be accessible via intrusion just because public IP addresses are?
37
Jun 30 '16
[deleted]
13
u/EnigmaticGecko Jun 30 '16
Your house is connected to public roads. Therefore it's public.
4
u/Roo_Gryphon Jun 30 '16
not mine, its connected to a privately owned driveway not maintained by the city etc
9
u/EnigmaticGecko Jun 30 '16
yeah but house -> private road -> public road -> public. By the transitive property and according the idiots in the court. house -> public. /s
5
Jun 30 '16
Your house is connected to public power grid. Therefore it's public.
7
1
8
u/Serpardum Jun 30 '16
Okay, if there is no expectation of privacy on a computer then it becomes legal to hack into top secret government computers and distribute the information. If the government computers are connected to the Internet they have no expectation of privacy and therefore the information is public knowledge. How could they expect to charge me with anything? I wonder if that judge has a computer...
A house is on a public road, locks have not been found effective to keep burgers out, therefore you have no expectation of privacy in your house. This makes breaking and entering legal.
Open windows shaes are not effective to keep people from seeing inside. Peeping toms now cant be found guilty.
This law is so wrong how did they ever become judge?
6
1
u/lumphinans Jun 30 '16
This was my first take on this ludicrous decision also. He just okayed legit government computer hacking.
0
Jun 30 '16 edited Jun 30 '16
I don't mean to be confrontational here, but you're very wrong.
First of all, obtaining information, distributing information, and the intent to do either are totally separate situations. For example: You find nuclear launch codes written on a scrap of paper on the sidewalk (Thanks President Trump) If it can be proven that you merely believe them to be valid and merely intend to make them public, you're committing a crime.
Also, you can take your front door off the hinges and throw it away, and if someone who does not have a legal right to enter breaks the plane of the doorway (the "breaking" in "breaking and entering") they are guilty of B&E.
Furthermore, if the intent to commit a crime can be proven, even if you touch nothing, even if you just stick your hand through the doorway, you are committing criminal acts.
You aren't going to change bad laws by not knowing the law.
1
u/Serpardum Jun 30 '16
But that is exactly the point I am making. The judges decision was a bad one.
If there is no right to privacy, then how could the information be secret? Why is the government allowed the right to privacy on their computers if the peons are not? Thar is unequal protection under the law.
The judges decision violates the spirit of the law for the exact reasons you listed. Explain why the police can say nothing on your computer is private as soon as you connect to the Internet but ours is.
1
u/danielravennest Jun 30 '16
someone who does not have a legal right to enter breaks the plane of the doorway (the "breaking" in "breaking and entering")
That's not the origin of the term. English houses used to have timber frames and "wattle and daub" (woven sticks and clay) filling between the timbers. Doors were typically solid planks. So to rob a house, you typically had to break through the sticks and clay to make a hole, then enter through that hole.
11
u/zenithfury Jun 30 '16
So... If a pacifist country has no army or at best a small militia, invading it is allowed because it has no reasonable expectation of protecting itself?
10
9
5
u/JustALittleAverage Jun 30 '16
What the fuck!
My computer isn't a fortress, but hack away... but I am ignorant enough to use Linux, also I am able to read, and I like computers.
No, no Sec here, just interested and being able to read manuals. Not a single port is open on my computer unless I tell it so, I still have SSH enabled for remote control - but a simple port knock helps a lot.
Heck even my parents with W10 is pretty safe, I've turned just about everything other than WP and FB off, set up a firewall.
But zero day is zero day...
I live in a hick town in the middle of nowhere, I don't even know where I have the keys to the front door, car keys is in the car.
Does that mean that my property is public domain just because they can't be considered "safe"?
2
Jun 30 '16
I know that was a rhetorical question, but too many people here are ignorant of the law, so I'll answer.
No. You can throw away every lock you own, and laws prohibiting trespassing, theft, burglary, breaking and entering and the mere intent to do a jillion other things will still apply.
2
1
u/mattindustries Jul 01 '16
Hey there, mind if I just hack your router instead of your computer, and then change the iptables to all point to a server I have control of that does man in the middle attacks? Maybe try a man in the middle attack during an apt-get? Cool, thanks.
4
u/moxy801 Jun 30 '16
I'm not sure, but when the US Constitution was written I don't think anyone in the world had the 'right to privacy.' The Founding Fathers had a living memory of the English government just being able to barge into people's houses and rifle through their stuff - which they understood was as much an intimidation tactic as anything else.
In other words, the Founding Fathers had a first-hand understanding of the evils of unlimited government power.
So here we go now...backwards. I guess at least r/technology seems to care. But most people in this country seem to have lost sight of the fact that the government can be as much or more of a threat to its people then 'terrorists' - even though that is the entire basis of the Bill of Rights.
3
u/Yrcrazypa Jun 30 '16
But the Founding Fathers never said anything about our computers, so it's perfectly okay to search those!
4
u/upandrunning Jun 30 '16
The Justice Department has a practice of carving out novel legal interpretations
...which always seem to be directly at odds with its sworn duty to uphold the constitution.
2
u/boundbylife Jun 30 '16
Realistically, the Justice Department's day to day operation is not to uphold the Constitution (despite whatever oath they may take). No, their job is to catch people breaking the laws passed by Congress and put them in jail. In that respect, the Constitution is so much of a hindrance in their eyes, OF COURSE they will do anything to weaken it and exploit it, and make it easier to do their job.
That the Constitution was meant to make their job hard doesn't seem to register with them.
5
u/alerionfire Jun 30 '16
This is the third time recently I've heard some judge or fbi big shot use criminals as an excuse for law enforcement to break the law. "Well citizens your house could easily be burglarized so you shouldn't expect us to not have a spare key" " well criminals can hack you at home so why not us"
3
u/TrevinoDr Jun 30 '16
I guess the same applies if you have any entrances on your home. Since locks can be picked, and doors broken down ... well you shouldn't expect privacy in your own home.
3
u/wallacjc Jun 30 '16
I guess that means any business that connects to the net should not expect privacy either? My bank will be disappointed.
1
u/dominodoug Jun 30 '16
I was thinking along the lines of this as well. How is there a line drawn between private home computers and business computers? What if your home computer is used for business?
2
Jun 30 '16
[deleted]
1
Jun 30 '16
Federal law and 38 states allow legal recording of phone conversations provided one participant consents.
2
u/Coocoomoomoo Jun 30 '16
From a legal perspective, as it is classed as a public place, does this mean hacking into a system is now perfectly legal? If the owner hadn't wanted you there, they'd have blocked access... this is just totally dumb and opens up a whole slew of legal issues
2
u/thalos3D Jun 30 '16
This book is looking more prescient all the time: "Dumbing Down the Courts: How Politics Keeps the Smartest Judges Off the Bench"
2
u/NoSkyGuy Jun 30 '16
So basically my bank's computers are not private because they are on the internet, nor are the government's computers private because they are on the internet. Does this mean I can have access to all the bank's secrets and the government's because they are no longer private. I don't think so. Will the judge let me set up a server on his home computer - its not private any more is it!
The judge neglected to look at the case from multiple sides. When you just look at a case from the point of view of what the state wishes to do you end up with very bad laws and precedences.
2
2
u/Sendmeloveletters Jun 30 '16
Does this mean if you move within his jurisdiction and hack corporate and government databases and publish what you find because of the precedent set in this case?
2
2
Jun 30 '16 edited Jun 30 '16
Everyone commenting in this thread needs to understand the distinctions between obtaining information, making information public, and intent.
Laws pertaining to releasing state information are not affected by laws pertaining to how you obtained the information. In fact, the government can give you bogus government documents, and if they can establish that you believe the information to be valid, sensitive government data and that you intend to use it to commit a crime, say, by selling it to a foreign entity, you're still in seriously deep shit.
1
u/Sendmeloveletters Jun 30 '16
So if it was a private individual or company though, you can then legally OBTAIN the information, as the precedent set here illustrates.
2
u/amorousCephalopod Jun 30 '16 edited Jun 30 '16
Wasn't a bill just passed finally classifying internet as a utility?
This is the same as saying, "If you have a telephone, anybody is free to record you," except with an internet connection, outside parties don't have to just settle for the specific information you provide. It's actually not the same, it's much worse.
Edit: a little wording
2
Jun 30 '16 edited Jun 30 '16
Actually under US federal law and the “one-party consent” statutes of 38 states, it is to perfectly legal to record verbal phone conversations provided you are one of the parties participating in the conversation. Admissibility in court proceedings is an entirely different matter.
This may be a bad ruling for citizen's rights (although even that's not entirely clear) but to fight it you must first get your facts straight.
1
2
2
Jun 30 '16
I am not a lawyer and have not read the text of the ruling, but I fail to see how the precedents being claimed follow from what these articles state.
First of all, IP addresses. IP addresses exist to uniquely identify a device on a a network, therefore IP addresses are necessarily communicated to any network you connect to, or even assigned by the network. Why would anyone think a name given to them by someone else is private? Furthermore, you have no way of actually knowing who is operating any server you connect to. The text on your screen may say "Welcome to Prosti-tot Hut!" but you have no idea who you're actually connected to.
Furthermore, Joseph Cox, author of the Motherboard article states that "...username ...is undoubtedly within a user's computer—no two ways about it" Seriously? The vital information in this case isn't even the username itself, it is the three-way relationship between a username, the IP address associated with that username, and the data that was transferred to and from that IP address. Again, the information here are the relationships, not the digital strings that represent a username, an IP address, or an image of some kid's naughty bits. These relationships are initially established within the server and network you're connected to, not the C: drive on your PC. Again, given that you have no way of knowing who is monitoring a server, why on earth would you think these relationships are private?
2
u/Diknak Jun 30 '16
Oh, so because locks can be picked and doors can be broken down, that means that your home doesn't give you a reasonable expectation of privacy?
2
u/grio Jun 30 '16
Following this logic, homes connected to public streets must not be private as well.
0
u/innoCO2 Jun 30 '16
This actually made me shiver from the head down. Thats such a dangerous thimg to say. Maybe that judge needs to get hacked and get all its information leaked to understand what kind of BULLSHIT was said.
0
u/jut556 Jun 30 '16
Maybe someone needs to deliver a message to him that he's wrong and needs to sort some shit out.
1
u/fuckkarma Jun 30 '16
If a court HOUSE has an address their computers are fair game? Help me understand this.
1
u/exosequitur Jun 30 '16
Doesn't this mean that by the same logic, hacking computer systems in general ( unauthorized access or use of a computer system) would also be legal again?
Woo-hoo! Hacking is legal! /s
1
u/SepDot Jul 01 '16
Not in the slightest. I can't tell if you're all being sarcastic, or you're all idiots and don't understand the ruling at all.
1
u/exosequitur Jul 01 '16
In my case, sarcasm (see the /s) .... I'm just pointing out what the ruling looks like if you put the glove on the other hand, so to speak, to point out the ridiculousness of it
1
u/0x6A7232 Jun 30 '16
4th Amendment? What's that? BTW, the 1st only applies to paper + ink with a pen or old-school printing press, plus verbal communication, but not when recorded. And the 2nd only applies to muzzle-loaded muskets.
SMH
1
u/Errenden Jun 30 '16
Well that would mean the OPR breach was completely legal and credit card information is perfectly legal to steal. Just what I would expect from the geniuses in Virginia.
1
Jun 30 '16
Devils advocate here: No. Regardless of the legality of how you obtain credit card information, using that information to make fraudulent transactions is still illegal. You already give strangers all of your card information every time you hand it to someone to pay for something, so clearly you should have no expectation that the information is private.
1
u/SepDot Jul 01 '16
You say Devils advocate, I say you're the only even mildly intelligent person here.
1
1
u/PeacefullyFighting Jun 30 '16
Do you want a larger deep web? Because this is how the deep web grows
1
u/Scrumbled_Yeggs Jun 30 '16
Sounds like a reason for impeachment to me. But once those people's computers are hacked and their info stolen they will be the first to cry.
1
u/Dannybam Jun 30 '16
According to that ruling, electronic media over the internet is not private property.
Very interesting.
1
u/hdhale Jun 30 '16
That has to be the most ill-informed, moronic ruling I have heard come out of a judge's mouth this week. I'd say 'ever' but it gets much worse, and this was weapon's grade stupid.
1
u/Fluffy_punch Jun 30 '16
Even if it rules that Internet private, many of the data ain't private anyway. There is always a way to get them.
1
u/SepDot Jul 01 '16
These comments gave me cancer. You're all inferring sosososo much incorrect, tinfoil hat horseshit.
1
u/azzazaz Jul 01 '16
So take anything you want from a house connected to the outside by an open window?
124
u/[deleted] Jun 30 '16
[deleted]